GENIUS FORUMS

If humans are going to eat & survive in a sustainable and balanced way, then they are going to have to kill. This 'non-violence' ideology is just an emotional stimulant used to intoxicate the minds of those longing for the mere sensation of divinity.

You guys are aware that the New Age movement of the past few decades in America, which has Buddhist roots (as well as a disturbing love for crystals and space aliens), is not a good model for drawing general conclusions about "buddhism."

I put it in quotes because it is not just one thing. It is misunderstood and expressed in many ridiculous ways by bark-eating New Agers here in the States. Buddhism was certainly never intended to be a religion. And don't forget, most of the asian martial arts have a buddhist philosophical foundation of emotional control and separation that is in fact the only way to be an effective warrior. Over time, understanding and planning destroys passion.

Buddhist thought is a life strategy, as was Sun Tsu's Art of War a war strategy. Through the understanding of obstacles, goals can be accomplished through fluidity of movement. Tactics change based on field conditions. It is no different than what is found in the mind, from time to time or from person to person.

The problem with the New Agers is that, in dropping a couple thousand dollars to attend a 5 day meditation retreat outside of San Fransisco, the cross-legged sitters are focusing on tactics rather than strategy. They join with other like minded vegetarians to identify and differentiate themselves from all the other heathens in the city, just like any other religion and group of churchgoers.

IMO, a good buddhist would eat all of their healthy, happy livers if he felt even the slightest tinge of hunger. Buddhism itself is certainly not about non-violence. Whatever works actually.

Tharan wrote:

You guys are aware that the New Age movement of the past few decades in America, which has Buddhist roots (as well as a disturbing love for crystals and space aliens), is not a good model for drawing general conclusions about "buddhism."

I put it in quotes because it is not just one thing. It is misunderstood and expressed in many ridiculous ways by bark-eating New Agers here in the States. It was certainly never intended to be a religion. And don't forget, most of the asian martial arts have a buddhist philosophical foundation of emotional control and separation that is in fact the only way to be an effective warrior. Over time, understanding and planning destroys passion.

Buddhist thought is a strategy, as was Sun Tsu's Art of War. Through the understanding of obstacles, goals can be accomplished through fluidity of movement. Tactics change based on field conditions. It is no different than what is found in the mind, from time to time or from person to person.

The problem with the New Agers is that, in dropping a couple thousand dollars to attend a 5 day meditation retreat outside of San Fransisco, they are focusing on tactics rather than strategy. They join with other like minded vegetarians to identify and differentiate themselves from all the other heathens in the city, just like any other religion.

IMO, a good buddhist would eat all of their healthy, happy livers if he felt even the slightest tinge of hunger. Buddhism itself is certainly not about non-violence. Whatever works actually.

I respect those words of yours, Tharan, and I know where your coming from.

However, I am not so much attacking the new agers as I am attacking Dali-lama, and much of the Shambala stuff.

But maybe you consider those people new agers.

Anyhow,

Despite my criticisms, I am by no means very conservative about the way economy and culture is set up in general, and I think a good ideal (in regards to food production) is a mostly vegetarian diet, one should maximize perenials: berries, nut and tree crops, farm natrual 'masanobu fukuoka/permaculture style', with meat coming from sources that are closest at hand. (that means not spending $XXXXXX, on a deep sea fishing rig to catch x amout of tuna thousands of miles from shore) Shrimp, muscles, clams, local fish, dear, rabits, bird-game are all close at hand.

Where I live, Many of the streams that had lots of trout in them have been suffocated/clogged by loggers who leave trees stretched accross the rivers, killing off entire populations of local fish.

High maintenence human beings are those who require sensation that is not 'naturally aloted' in order to keep them from having a breakdown.

It is the demands of these humans that make life a stupid, meaningless struggle.

To my eyes, Tibetan Buddhism IS a religion and has many parallels with Catholicism. DalaiLama/Pope, constant rituals and prostrations, dreams of reward in some afterdeath setting, idol worship, etc.

Truth is always a personal experience. Whenever you find groups of people banding together to validate what they believe to be true, then the understanding of their truth never evolves past the belief stage (this can even be found in academic settings). There are very few Absolute Truths in the first place, and the need to get your buddy to agree with you about it speaks to nothing but your own insecurity.

With groups, there are always forms of behavioral and thought controls imposed from the outside inward. Christianity is a mode of behavior and outward expression as much as it is personal journey. And the personal journey of Chritianity shares many Buddhist components, as it rightly would. But these outward impositions are exactly opposite what a "spiritual" experience is, if it is honest and true. The concern for the personal behaviors of others is misplaced energy.

Tharan wrote:

Truth is always a personal experience. Whenever you find groups of people banding together to validate what they believe to be true, then the understanding of their truth never evolves past the belief stage (this can even be found in academic settings).

What is happening in the mind of the person having the “personal experience” that isn’t happening in the ‘belief stage’?

With groups, there are always forms of behavioral and thought controls imposed from the outside inward.

Yes, all people belong to a number of “groups”: family, cultural, economic, religious, male or female, human race, etc.

But these outward impositions are exactly opposite what a "spiritual" experience is, if it is honest and true.

Knowing that “these outward impositions” are many, how exactly does the individual extract themselves from them to have this “honest and true” spiritual experience?

The concern for the personal behaviors of others is misplaced energy.

How so?

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

The concern for the personal behaviors of others is misplaced energy.

How so?

Why did you single that part out?

I thought Tharan was referring specifically to Christian evangelist type of behaviour. That certainly seems misplaced, misguided etc, to me.

But I am interested to see what Tharan replies.

Prince wrote:

Tharan: The concern for the personal behaviors of others is misplaced energy.

Sue: How so?

Why did you single that part out?

I’m not sure what Tharan meant. I thought it may be a consequence of the "spiritual" experience she wrote of.

I thought Tharan was referring specifically to Christian evangelist type of behaviour. That certainly seems misplaced, misguided etc, to me.

Yes, you could be correct. I agree that Christian evangelist types are misguided – but because their numbers are on the rise, I think their behaviour is something to be very concerned about.

-
Sue

Sue wrote,

What is happening in the mind of the person having the “personal experience” that isn’t happening in the ‘belief stage’?

The "personal experience" is one that exposes the individual directly to the mortal component of existence. It is not padded or diluted by the safety of numbers nor the ability to lose yourself in the crowd. An individual who understands the parameters of their life has no need for crowds or self supporting belief systems. Because life and death are one, the personal experience is one that renders the benefits of the crowd a mere secondary and temporal comfort, and only to the extent that one can still get lost in the delusion.

Yes, all people belong to a number of “groups”: family, cultural, economic, religious, male or female, human race, etc.

In saying "all" I would disagree. These distinctions are personal inventions, regardless of whether or not you have social agreement.

I’m not sure what Tharan meant. I thought it may be a consequence of the "spiritual" experience she wrote of.

I'm a "he."

What would be the motivation of an individual, who understands the delusions of a disciple, to concern themselves with outcomes? One may speak with words and one may display Right Behavior, but it says nothing about how that discple may interpret what they experience.

And if the disciple's outcome were less than desirous or more than desirous, what exactly has the bodhisattva lost or gained? Concern for nothing seems nonsensical.

Tharan wrote:

Sue: What is happening in the mind of the person having the “personal experience” that isn’t happening in the ‘belief stage’?

The "personal experience" is one that exposes the individual directly to the mortal component of existence.

What do you mean by “mortal component of existence”? Is it your idea of enlightenment?

It is not padded or diluted by the safety of numbers nor the ability to lose yourself in the crowd. An individual who understands the parameters of their life has no need for crowds or self supporting belief systems. Because life and death are one, the personal experience is one that renders the benefits of the crowd a mere secondary and temporal comfort, and only to the extent that one can still get lost in the delusion.

What is the “parameters” of one’s life? What do you mean by “life and death are one*”? What consequence does this * have on one’s own existence?

Sue: Yes, all people belong to a number of “groups”: family, cultural, economic, religious, male or female, human race, etc.

In saying "all" I would disagree. These distinctions are personal inventions, regardless of whether or not you have social agreement.

What does “personal inventions” mean?

Sue: I’m not sure what Tharan meant. I thought it may be a consequence of the "spiritual" experience she wrote of.

I'm a "he."

Sorry about that - I wasn’t aware of it.

What would be the motivation of an individual, who understands the delusions of a disciple, to concern themselves with outcomes? One may speak with words and one may display Right Behavior, but it says nothing about how that discple may interpret what they experience.

And if the disciple's outcome were less than desirous or more than desirous, what exactly has the bodhisattva lost or gained? Concern for nothing seems nonsensical.

Passing over the part about “disciples” for a moment, I think you might be saying that we can’t know for sure what effect (“outcomes”) our thoughts and actions will have. We know that the wisest words and actions by people such as Jesus, Buddha and Kierkegaard have been used by the insane to create even more insanity: for example, Christianity, Buddhism and Academic Philosophy. But sometimes the effect is the opposite – The Thinking Man’s Minefield is just one example.

You mentioned about a relationship between an “individual” and “disciples”. This relationship would be a clear “outcome” of the insanity of both parties. It would show that the “individual” was a fraud and that the “disciple” was weak and petty minded.

-
Sue

Sue, are you leading me down the Socratic hallway?

What do you mean by “mortal component of existence”? Is it your idea of enlightenment?

"mortal component of existence" = the understanding and acceptance of personal mortality.

"enlightenment" = the absence of delusions.

What is the “parameters” of one’s life?

Begins with birth, ends with death.

What do you mean by “life and death are one*”?

They are not separated.

What consequence does this * have on one’s own existence?

The difference is functioning from a platform of truth versus delusion.

What does “personal inventions” mean?

Delusions we create for ourselves.

I think you might be saying that we can’t know for sure what effect (“outcomes”) our thoughts and actions will have.

No, I am describing the delusion of caring about outcomes.

Tharan wrote:

Sue, are you leading me down the Socratic hallway?

Well, like Socrates – I like to dig until I hit bedrock. Join me if you will.

For example:

Sue: What do you mean by “life and death are one*”?

They are not separated.

Here you’ve got no separation between life and death. (Which, you still haven’t explained what you mean by “no separation”?)

But then you write:

Sue: What is the “parameters” of one’s life?

Begins with birth, ends with death.

Which seems to imply that these two things are “separated”?

Added to this, you say:

The "personal experience" is one that exposes the individual directly to the mortal component of existence.

Sue: What do you mean by “mortal component of existence”?

"mortal component of existence" = the understanding and acceptance of personal mortality.

Which again seems to imply “separation”?

So now going back to your original paragraph which features these concepts:

The "personal experience" is one that exposes the individual directly to the mortal component of existence. It is not padded or diluted by the safety of numbers nor the ability to lose yourself in the crowd. An individual who understands the parameters of their life has no need for crowds or self supporting belief systems. Because life and death are one, the personal experience is one that renders the benefits of the crowd a mere secondary and temporal comfort, and only to the extent that one can still get lost in the delusion.

So basically you are saying that a person who knows that they are mortal accepts this fact - and doesn’t ask other people to make him feel better about it. But half way through you describe life and death as one seamless entity, but still maintain a stoic pose – not allowing others to “comfort” you, except when you are delusional.

From this, you can see the quandary I find myself in, for I’m not able to ascertain whether you consider life and death to exist inherently – or not. And what is the significance of bringing other people into the picture?

I’m also unsure of what you mean when you say:

The difference is functioning from a platform of truth versus delusion.

What “platform of truth” do you operate from? Can you also give me a few examples of what you consider to be a “delusion”?

Also:

Sue: What does “personal inventions” mean?

Delusions we create for ourselves.

How do we “create” delusions “for ourselves”?

Sue: I think you might be saying that we can’t know for sure what effect (“outcomes”) our thoughts and actions will have.

No, I am describing the delusion of caring about outcomes.

Wouldn’t knowing that we had no control over what effect our thoughts and actions have create in us a sense of ease?

Where does the “delusion of caring” come from?

-
Sue

The topic of this thread was "What is the Purpose of Life?"

I'd like to look at that for exactly what it says - not what is the purpose of your life, or the life of an individual, or human life - but why life overall?

Is it a cosmic game because the Totality would be bored without some kind of construct? Did the Totality need a construct or desire it? Is it an educational device? Is life purposeless?

Looking at life in that comprehensive of an overview, I can not see a rational answer. Rationality seems to be a subset of life, therefore it can not explain something that is bigger than itself. When we apply logic, our lot in life reflects that well; but I can not see outside the paradigm of life/death to definativly outline why life "is." If someone else can see a logic to the whole of life - please do share.

Life and death are not separated. They are two parts of a whole.

From this, you can see the quandary I find myself in, for I’m not able to ascertain whether you consider life and death to exist inherently – or not. And what is the significance of bringing other people into the picture?

Inherently? As in, exists soley as a result of itself? I never said that.

The significance of me speaking about others is because this thread is based partially on the idea of communal sharing of "spiritual" moments.

What “platform of truth” do you operate from? Can you also give me a few examples of what you consider to be a “delusion”?

I suppose I could. Socratic argumentation might be one. Certainly when it only tries to corner without offering an alternative path.

How do we “create” delusions “for ourselves”?

One part love, one part spiders, one part ribbon from a pretty girl's hair, stir briskly, and Voila!

Wouldn’t knowing that we had no control over what effect our thoughts and actions have create in us a sense of ease?

Are you speaking for yourself?

Where does the “delusion of caring” come from?

I think Mother Theresa started it all.

Tharan wrote:

Sue: What “platform of truth” do you operate from? Can you also give me a few examples of what you consider to be a “delusion”?

I suppose I could. Socratic argumentation might be one. Certainly when it only tries to corner without offering an alternative path.

I questioned your ideas in an effort to discover what point you are endeavoring to make. I simply did not know what you were driving at, but obviously I am keen to know. And until your ideas are made clear, it is impossible to discuss anything. Of course, there is nothing stopping you from asking me questions about anything I’ve brought up.

-
Sue

I agree. There is nothing stopping me.

Where does the “delusion of caring” come from?

I think Mother Theresa started it all.

I really did not know that, Tharan, thanks! :D :D :D

I agree. There is nothing stopping me.

Are you sure? How about not questioning nonetheless? :D

Elizabeth,

The topic of this thread was "What is the Purpose of Life?"

I'd like to look at that for exactly what it says - not what is the purpose of your life, or the life of an individual, or human life - but why life overall?

That would require one to expand the meaning of life itself.

According to the above context, what do you see as ‘life’ or “living”?

In my opinion, if the meaning of life is expanded to motion, flux, change, then in this light, the sole purpose of life is nothing more than perpetual self-propagation, simply to exist and be, and at no point was it not, nor will it ever not be. In effect, there is no was or will be for life, for life and existence is such contexts would mean the same.

On the other hand, if one perceives life against what one perceives as non-life, then whatever one can logically deduce as the purpose of any particular ‘life’, would be the purpose. There is no third external party to confirm it either way, we will have to settle that among ourselves.

For example, among other trivial things, one of the purpose of my life is to provide my share of fertilizer. Agree? Disagree?