GENIUS FORUMS

Cory Duchesne wrote:

You say giving all things equal significance, not valuing yourself above a slug, or whatever, is rational. I say it's buddhist zealotry.

It is political Buddhism. It is entirely delusional.

I said the way a human functions is different from a slug. A human should not try to be like a slug obviously. A human has no choice to function the way he functions, and likewise a slug has no choice to function the way he does. Both are interconnected and part of the same whole and to aggrandize a particular part of the whole makes no sense.

Hmm, yet a human can prentend to be a slug in his own mind. Can a slug pretend to be same?

I killed slugs last summer. Snipped them with scissors. It's not that I seen them as less significant. The fact of the matter was that I was dedicated to growing my own food and I seen that the slugs were eating my food.

Violence is a part of life. Buddhism preaches against violence. But then again, Dali Lama eats meat.

It was Hitler who was a vegetarian.

Buddhism is built on a lie.

The Hitler reference is old and lacking in emotional impact.

Buddhism is built on a lie for the poeple who build it on a lie. In this way, it shares its religious tendencies with other organized delusions. For the people who do not understand the diversity of existence and experience, a structure is necesary. It will not go away soon.

Again, it is a form of political Buddhism. Any form of understanding needs to be strong enough not to feel the desire to assert itself locally. Locality is irrelevant to a "buddhist" who understands.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Buddhism is built on a lie.

Could you elaborate, please?

kowtaaia wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: Buddhism is built on a lie.

Could you elaborate, please?

buddhism = nihilism. Buddhism makes people pliable and unconscious, susceptible to control and manipulation by tyrants.

millipodium wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: Buddhism is built on a lie.

Could you elaborate, please?

buddhism = nihilism. Buddhism makes people pliable and unconscious, susceptible to control and manipulation by tyrants.

Aside from the fact that Buddhism is not nihilism, let's wait for a response from the person that the question was for. Perhaps he knows what he's talking about; perhaps not. You certainly do not know what you are talking about.

kowtaaia wrote:

millipodium wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: Buddhism is built on a lie.

Could you elaborate, please?

buddhism = nihilism. Buddhism makes people pliable and unconscious, susceptible to control and manipulation by tyrants.

Aside from the fact that Buddhism is not nihilism, let's wait for a response from the person that the question was for. Perhaps he knows what he's talking about; perhaps not. You certainly do not know what you are talking about.

Of course it's nihilism. Life is considered a state of suffering, something to flee from, something to be released from. It's fundamentally anti-life, and anti existence.

millipodium wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:

millipodium wrote:

kowtaaia wrote: Could you elaborate, please?

buddhism = nihilism. Buddhism makes people pliable and unconscious, susceptible to control and manipulation by tyrants.

Aside from the fact that Buddhism is not nihilism, let's wait for a response from the person that the question was for. Perhaps he knows what he's talking about; perhaps not. You certainly do not know what you are talking about.

Of course it's nihilism. Life is considered a state of suffering, something to flee from, something to be released from. It's fundamentally anti-life, and anti existence.

Obviously, that's your (with regard to Buddhism) ignorant, uneducated, misinformed, superficial grasp of the reality. Put your money where your mouth is and back up everything you said with scriptural citation that points to what you have (erroneously) concluded.

kowtaaia wrote:

millipodium wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:

millipodium wrote: buddhism = nihilism. Buddhism makes people pliable and unconscious, susceptible to control and manipulation by tyrants.

Aside from the fact that Buddhism is not nihilism, let's wait for a response from the person that the question was for. Perhaps he knows what he's talking about; perhaps not. You certainly do not know what you are talking about.

Of course it's nihilism. Life is considered a state of suffering, something to flee from, something to be released from. It's fundamentally anti-life, and anti existence.

Obviously, that's your (with regard to Buddhism) ignorant, uneducated, misinformed, superficial grasp of the reality. Put your money where your mouth is and back up everything you said with scriptural citation that points to what you have (erroneously) concluded.

WHy don't you tell me which statement is false? Don't buddhists view life as suffering, and isn't the greatest hope to be released from the cycle of rebirth? Where am I wrong? You must tell me where I'm wrong. We don't go do busywork here on command. You cannot win arguments here using these bullshit tactics. You will learn, my child.

kow wrote:

Obviously, that's your (with regard to Buddhism) ignorant, uneducated, misinformed, superficial grasp of the reality.

For someone who came in complaining about how we were treating each other, you do not spare the unnecessary inflamatory adjectives.

mil wrote to kow:

You will learn, my child.

Egads mil, now you've done it. Kow is mil's kid? Okay, have it your way.

milli,

What part of the following, do you not understand?



Put your money where your mouth is and back up everything you said with scriptural citation that points to what you have (erroneously) concluded.

It's a very queer time to go dumb. You have concluded something. Back it up with citation that points to your conclusion. We're speaking the same language, right?

kowtaaia wrote:milli,

What part of the following, do you not understand?



Put your money where your mouth is and back up everything you said with scriptural citation that points to what you have (erroneously) concluded.

It's a very queer time to go dumb. You have concluded something. Back it up with citation that points to your conclusion. We're speaking the same language, right?

You must believe something is wrong in what I have said. Where do you believe I have misstated the teachings of buddhism? Are we speaking the same language? I'm not going to do busy work to bolster my position until you mount some significant challenge to my statements. I will not do your homework for you. Grow up. Learn you lessons.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:kow wrote:

For someone who came in complaining about how we were treating each other, you do not spare the unnecessary inflamatory adjectives.

Repeating your false and defensive comment, doesn't instill it with accuracy.

millipodium,

Two points: The question wasn't for you in the first place.
Secondly, it's painfully obviously that you're too fucking lazy to back up what you say and prefer to play stupid. You do it well.

kowtaaia wrote:millipodium,

Two points: The question wasn't for you in the first place.
Secondly, it's painfully obviously that you're too fucking lazy to back up what you say and prefer to play stupid. You do it well.

I have no need to back up the most basic bedrock teachings of buddhism. Are you sure you know anything about buddhism? If so, tell me where I have misrepresented. If not, go do research, then get back to us.

You know what a conclusion is, yes? You've concluded something about Buddhism. Back it up with citation that points to what you've concluded. Only Hindus and Eternalists call Buddhism 'nihilism'.

kowtaaia wrote:You know what a conclusion is, yes? You've concluded something about Buddhism. Back it up with citation that points to what you've concluded.

No. I'm not doing a bibliography, ok teacher. Tell where I have misrepresented buddhism. Tell me what you disagree with. Pick a sentence you believe to be false, just to start you off, quote it, and then tell me why it's wrong. Can you do that? Or just generally explain to us your understanding of why what I have posted is inaccurate. Do you understand what a discussion is? A discussion is not "you issuing homework assignments". be a real person and make your case instead of using these cheap cowardly tactics. Please?

O. K., so you don't know what a conclusion is, either. Let's wait for the other chap to respond.

kowtaaia wrote:O. K., so you don't know what a conclusion is, either. Let's wait for the other chap to respond.

I'm waiting for some criticism of my conclusions. You have offered nothing specific. I don't post supporting material until I am challenged. All you have done is name call.

It's apparent that English isn't your first language. Forget about it. You're too lightweight.

kowtaaia wrote:It's apparent that English isn't your first language. Forget about it. You're too lightweight.

Ok, my summary stands unsuccesfully refuted. That's because buddhism is nihilistic and anti-life.

Well, things are becoming clear. The lastest is that you don't even have a grasp of the fundamentals of debate.

kowtaaia wrote:Well, things are becoming clear. The lastest is that you don't even have a grasp of the fundamentals of debate.

Yes. Things are clear. You have no ability to make your point, and instead try to mire others down in busywork. Tell me what I'm wrong about. Can you? do you have the ability?

Tharan,

Cory: I said the way a human functions is different from a slug. A human should not try to be like a slug obviously. A human has no choice to function the way he functions, and likewise a slug has no choice to function the way he does. Both are interconnected and part of the same whole and to aggrandize a particular part of the whole makes no sense.


Tharan: Hmm, yet a human can pretend to be a slug in his own mind. Can a slug pretend to be same?

Are you trying to get all Chang Tzu on me here? Am I a slug dreaming that I’m a human?

It’s highly unlikely that slugs, butterfly’s and the like are capable of introspection, imagination, and dreaming, Overall, I really find such speculative subject matter un-interesting.

Cory: I killed slugs last summer. Snipped them with scissors. It's not that I seen them as less significant. The fact of the matter was that I was dedicated to growing my own food and I seen that the slugs were eating my food.

Violence is a part of life. Buddhism preaches against violence. But then again, Dali Lama eats meat.

It was Hitler who was a vegetarian.

Buddhism is built on a lie.


Tharan: The Hitler reference is old and lacking in emotional impact.

‘Going for the big emotional impact’ isn’t really something I value.

It was meant as an ironic observation. You know, on the left we have one of the most violent dictators in human history who was a vegetarian and on the other hand we have one of the biggest pacifist figures in history eating meat (therefore depending on violence for his well being)

Definitely a bit of irony there.

Tharan: Buddhism is built on a lie for the people who build it on a lie. In this way, it shares its religious tendencies with other organized delusions. For the people who do not understand the diversity of existence and experience, a structure is necesary. It will not go away soon.

Again, it is a form of political Buddhism. Any form of understanding needs to be strong enough not to feel the desire to assert itself locally. Locality is irrelevant to a "buddhist" who understands.

I agree with Buddha's words. that is all.

Why do we have to get all 'ism' & 'ist'?

Cory: Buddhism is built on a lie.

Kowtaaia: Could you elaborate, please?

Buddha spoke truth. If Buddha's antecendents were rational they would not have created the ideology of buddhism and instead they would have simply spoke and written truth themselves. Instead they took Buddha's metaphor's too literally and proceeded to feminize the teachings to the point where they became so pacifist & superstitious that Buddhism became an institue for hypocrisy and flakiness.

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.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Cory: Buddhism is built on a lie.

Kowtaaia: Could you elaborate, please?

Buddha spoke truth. If Buddha's antecendents were rational they would not have created the ideology of buddhism and instead they would have simply spoke and written truth themselves. Instead they took Buddha's metaphor's too literally and proceeded to feminize the teachings to the point where they became so pacifist & superstitious that Buddhism became an institue for hypocrisy and flakiness.

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.

Thank you. Your response has brought clarity. :) There's an old joke: Question:Why is there Buddhism?
Answer:Because nobody actually listened to the Buddha.

It pertains, of course, to turning the Buddhas pointing into an ideology.

As Viereck said with regard to "ism" "Formalism, by being an 'ism,' kills form by hugging it to death."

Cory wrote,

It’s highly unlikely that slugs, butterfly’s and the like are capable of introspection, imagination, and dreaming, Overall, I really find such speculative subject matter un-interesting.

It might be uninteresting to you, but it goes straight to the matter of moralizing about what "should" be. Humans do have limited choices. And slugs also make decisions, which on some levels could be considered choices. It is all semantics. Imagination leads to a greater number of choices and subjective complexities.

BTW, I am impressed by your seeing that semi-reference to Chang Tzu. Most people come here and spout their silliness without ever reading anything first. But if anything, I probably lean more zen than Taoist, if it ever was to need a label.

I agree with Buddha's words. that is all.

Why do we have to get all 'ism' & 'ist'?

I completely agree with that.