A race horse

[iceaura]

Uh for a race horse, that is reality.

Hence the metaphor, and the insight therein.

For the horse that thinks he is a race horse but doesn't want to run, well, he's in the wrong place and should just quit the race and figure out wtf he thinks he is doing on the tracks to begin with.

Can you think of other possibilities, for improved horse understanding of reality?

The proposition "all horses are blinkered and jockeyed race horses, who live to race in counterclockwise circles on tracks like this" does invite a variety of doubts, one would hope.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hence the metaphor, and the insight therein.

Yeah, insight gained by imposing our worldview on horses/

Can you think of other possibilities, for improved horse understanding of reality?

Not really. Is there any reason I should?

The proposition "all horses are blinkered and jockeyed race horses, who live to race in counterclockwise circles on tracks like this" does invite a variety of doubts, one would hope.

Did I miss a few pages? The proposition was apparently of the Buddhist monks view of what other religions appear like to him, explained by the metaphor of what Michael deduced were blinders and concluded were race horses.

Meanwhile, anyone else curious about why he specified German for the beer?

 

[iceaura]

Not really. Is there any reason I should?

yep.

 

[S.A.M.]

Do explain. Thats not sufficient incentive for me to think about it.

 

[iceaura]

Do explain. Thats not sufficient incentive for me to think about it.

Race horse metaphor is proving remarkably applicable. I'm kind of impressed by the old guy - I wouldn't have thought of it.

Anyway, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What makes Buddha more real to you?

He was an ordinary human being. He was born, lived on earth, breathed air, ate food, farted, and died without performing any miracles. And he is still dead. All it takes to believe that is contemporary reports. I'm not saying that those reports are reliable enough for the probability of his existence to be as high as my next-door neighbor or even Cyrus the Great. But it is reasonable to say that he probably was real.

There is nothing real about the god of Abraham. We know nothing of his origin, his place of residence, his family, friends, associates, his source of nutrition, his education. Furthermore, he is an extraordinary phenomenon, subject to the Rule of Laplace. We are told that he has lived for millions, billions or googolplexes of years, without any insight into how such an extraordinary metabolism could operate. We are told that he lives outside the natural universe, without any explanation of how that is possible. We are told that the laws of nature do not apply to him, that he can perform feats that violate them whenever he wants, again with no explanation. He is even able to transcend the bedrock of the universe: conservation of matter and energy.

To believe Buddha was real is merely to accept the authority of some documents that were created by members of an ancient civilization--ordinary evidence--about some extremely prosaic and ordinary events.

To believe the god of Abraham is real is to accept the authority of the oral traditions of a pre-civilized people--evidence that only barely qualifies as ordinary--about some extremely unusual and extraordinary events. It is a textbook example of violating the Rule of Laplace.

All our assertions of rationality ultimately boil down to which assumptions we hold true.

Indeed. Assumptions based on reason support the hypothesis that the person who holds them is rational. Assumptions based on superstition, which contradict the laws of nature, support the hypothesis that the person who holds them is irrational.

 

[S.A.M.]

He was an ordinary human being. He was born, lived on earth, breathed air, ate food, farted, and died without performing any miracles. And he is still dead. All it takes to believe that is contemporary reports. I'm not saying that those reports are reliable enough for the probability of his existence to be as high as my next-door neighbor or even Cyrus the Great. But it is reasonable to say that he probably was real.

There is nothing real about the god of Abraham. We know nothing of his origin, his place of residence, his family, friends, associates, his source of nutrition, his education. Furthermore, he is an extraordinary phenomenon, subject to the Rule of Laplace. We are told that he has lived for millions, billions or googolplexes of years, without any insight into how such an extraordinary metabolism could operate. We are told that he lives outside the natural universe, without any explanation of how that is possible. We are told that the laws of nature do not apply to him, that he can perform feats that violate them whenever he wants, again with no explanation. He is even able to transcend the bedrock of the universe: conservation of matter and energy.

To believe Buddha was real is merely to accept the authority of some documents that were created by members of an ancient civilization--ordinary evidence--about some extremely prosaic and ordinary events.

To believe the god of Abraham is real is to accept the authority of the oral traditions of a pre-civilized people--evidence that only barely qualifies as ordinary--about some extremely unusual and extraordinary events. It is a textbook example of violating the Rule of Laplace.Indeed. Assumptions based on reason support the hypothesis that the person who holds them is rational. Assumptions based on superstition, which contradict the laws of nature, support the hypothesis that the person who holds them is irrational.

You just reiterated your assumptions as justifications for your beliefs.

In my view, Buddha was a guy who couldn't face reality or suffering, he dumped his wife and kid, abdicated his responsibilities as a king and wandered around for forty years after which he told everyone that the basis of suffering was attachment. His idea of enlightenment was detachment from worldly pleasures.

Buddhism seems to me a denial of the human experience.

The god of Abraham or the world or whatever, seems to me the rational basis for a universe based on causality and consequence. In this paradigm called Islam, we make choices and our choices have consequences. Whether good or bad, there is a notion of accountability, of being responsible for what you say or do. You have inalienable rights and notions of liberty, justice and mercy.

Islam then seems to me a rational approach to a wealth of human experience.

You take your pick, I'll take mine

 

[Gustav]

The god of Abraham or the world or whatever, seems to me the rational basis for a universe based on causality and consequence.

/snigger

deluded much, sam dear?

 

[S.A.M.]

/snigger

deluded much, sam dear?

Yeah, its 'cause I believe in consequences

edit: sorry that was flippant and unfair to you.

As a person with a mind that is geared towards analysis, process is what makes sense to me. I do not comprehend a world sans process, one that has no meaningful reason for what happens in it. When something happens I believe one can examine it and locate a reason why it happened. I believe one can use this knoweldge to predict when it will happen again and to devise ways and means to change the process so it happens differently or not at all. This is how I reason and experience makes this the sensible and rational choice of analysis for me. To conclude that this entire process is meaningless makes no sense of my construct and to believe it all ends nowhere defies logical reasoning as I see it. The only logical way it makes sense to me is if it is meaningful. Between this choice and the choice that if I detach myself from this I'll suffer less well doh, there is only one possibility.

 

[Gustav]

well, i was not being particularly polite so........
besides, trading barbs can be fun.

At this point, it is worth looking at how the word "detachment" has been used in the Western tradition. In colloquial usage, to say that a person is detached can be derogatory, implying that the person is not willing to become involved with others or that he or she is neither approachable nor sympathetic. This current usage must be born in mind. Three strands of meaning, however, emerge from most dictionary definitions. Primarily, detachment refers to the action and process of separating. Flowing from this has come the military usage to describe the dispatch of a body of troops. More relevant to this study, however, is the third body of meanings connected with detachment as an attitude of mind. "Aloofness" and "indifference to worldly concerns" are phrases used to describe this attitude. Although these might appear to conform to the above-mentioned contemporary connotations, we find linked with this (in Webster's Dictionary, for example) "freedom from bias and prejudice." Thus, in both the Western tradition and the Eastern, "detachment" is linked with clarity of perception, nonpartiality, and fair judgment. (link)​

lets hook that up to a tradition in islam that unfortunately seems to have been marginalized and relegated into obscurity...

What is the world? It is heedlessness of God;
Not clothes, nor silver coin, nor children, nor women.
If you have worldly possessions in the name of God,
Then the Messenger said: How fine is the property a righteous man has!
The water in a ship causes it to sink,
While the water under it causes it to float.​

The terms zuhd and zāhid (“ascetic”) were not used by pre-Islamic Arabs or by early Muslims to describe the elaborate and systematic ascetic doctrines that became characteristic of later periods, from the 8th century on. Among the earliest zāhids was al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 728), whose sayings remained for a long time the chief guide of the ascetics. But it was not until after his death that zuhd became a significant and forceful movement in the religious and political life of the Muslim community. Many scholars have referred to Ibrāhīm ibn Adham and to his student and disciple Shaqīq al-Balkhī (d. 810) as the real founders of zuhd, as it became known in later periods. Ibn Adham stressed poverty and self-denial; indeed, he abandoned the wealth of his father and became a poor wanderer.

Because of the close ties among these pietists, the zāhids are often regarded as being identical with the early Sufis, whose name, “wool-wearers,” points to the ascetic practice of wearing hair shirts. Later Sufis, however, dismiss the zāhids as men who worship God not out of love but for fear of hell or expectation of paradise. (link)(link)​

as for for your infantile theories of causality and the universe...

​

 

[S.A.M.]

1. What western tradition? I am talking of dukka. The idea that life is unsatisfactory and one needs to transcend it to find relevance. I disagree. Thats a diminished view of the human experience.

Even though I speekee de Angrezi, I am not a westerner. Dukka, sukkha, atman do not have to be translated and explained to me.

2. Yeah I know of the dervishes and sufis. They define God as love rather than truth. Yay!!!:bugeye:

3 Sliding doors. The universe is a construct of the mind because the mind is a product of the universe. Interesting, but not part of my process. There are too many assumptions there.

 

[Gustav]

1. What western tradition? I am talking of dukka. The idea that life is unsatisfactory and one needs to transcend it to find relevance. I disagree. Thats a diminished view of the human experience.

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:1 Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. (link)​

so ah...... minimize stress by making the right choices? how so very controversial. how goddamn profound!

Lay disciples (upasaka and upasika) are householders and other laypersons who take refuge in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and his community) and practice the Five Precepts. In southeast Asian communities, lay disciples also give alms to monks on their daily rounds and observe weekly uposatha days. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower heavens is likely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. This level of attainment is viewed as a proper aim for laity (link)​

Even though I speekee de Angrezi, I am not a westerner. Dukka, sukkha, atman do not have to be translated and explained to me.

where you are from is not my concern. what you bring to the table is. besides, ignorance is hardly determined by geography.

2. Yeah I know of the dervishes and sufis. They define God as love rather than truth. Yay!!!:bugeye:

yeah, both definitions are the product of delusions as is the concept they seek to define

3 Sliding doors. The universe is a construct of the mind because the mind is a product of the universe. Interesting, but not part of my process. There are too many assumptions there.

sure
you are welcome to wallow safely in your shallow mechanistic world.

 

[S.A.M.]

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:1 Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. (link)​

so ah...... minimize stress by making the right choices? how so very controversial. how goddamn profound!

How goddamn escapist!:bugeye:

Lay disciples (upasaka and upasika) are householders and other laypersons who take refuge in the Triple Gem (the Buddha, his teaching and his community) and practice the Five Precepts. In southeast Asian communities, lay disciples also give alms to monks on their daily rounds and observe weekly uposatha days. In Buddhist thought, the cultivation of dana and ethical conduct will themselves refine consciousness to such a level that rebirth in one of the lower heavens is likely, even if there is no further Buddhist practice. This level of attainment is viewed as a proper aim for laity (link)​

Thats been how the monks establsih their feudal systems. In Tibet, it led to landed slavery with 90% of the people living hand to mouth under the exotic silk clad "monks" and their administration.

where you are from is not my concern. what you bring to the table is. besides, ignorance is hardly determined by geography.

What I bring to you ma cherie is the reality of the system. Regardless of what Buddha says, no one really wants to give up the stresses of life, they just pass them on to the underdog in exchange for "alms"

Buddism in Real Time looks remarkably like the society that Islam guides you for.

yeah, both definitions are the product of delusions as is the concept they seek to define

sure
you are welcome to wallow safely in your shallow mechanistic world.

Ta, much obliged. Feel free to wander in your quantum one.

 

[Gustav]

How goddamn escapist!:bugeye:

how so?

Thats been how the monks establsih their feudal systems. In Tibet, it led to landed slavery with 90% of the people living hand to mouth under the exotic silk clad "monks" and their administration.

yes, no doubt that was what the buddha intended all along. feudalism came to tibet with the advent of buddhism

What I bring to you ma cherie is the reality of the system. Regardless of what Buddha says, no one really wants to give up the stresses of life, they just pass them on to the underdog in exchange for "alms"

i hardly think compromising on one's adopted principles is a condition peculiar to those that profess a buddhist faith

Buddism in Real Time looks remarkably like the society that Islam guides you for.

i agree. two ethical systems propounded by a single species would tend towards similarity rather than divergence

 

[S.A.M.]

how so?

One of the major reasons why I like Islam is that it normalises reality. Death happens, birth happens. We don't do graves [well except where we make Taj Mahals] because its all natural. Sickness, unhappiness, deformity are all normal. There is no idealised beauty or apex of humanity, we're all normal folks doing what comes to us naturally. When we hurt one another, we have the right to be offended, feel guilty, be resentful, say mean things to one another. But then we get over it. Caput, finis, move on. THIS is life. You make life easier for others; you enjoy yourself. Stress is life. When you're no longer attached, you're pointless. The most important lesson?

You will get through this

Let Go of Your Worries Let go of your worries and be completely clear-hearted, like the face of a mirror that contains no images. If you want a clear mirror, behold yourself and see the shameless truth, which the mirror reflects. If metal can be polished to a mirror-like finish, what polishing might the mirror of the heart require? Between the mirror and the heart is this single difference: the heart conceals secrets, while the mirror does not.
- Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi
[The Divani Shamsi Tabriz, XIII]

i hardly think compromising on one's adopted principles is a condition peculiar to those that profess a buddhist faith

What compromise? What did they do wrong?

 

[Gustav]

i like it.
seems really modern and "right everything"
can you cite the koran with regards to "normalizing reality?"

 

[Gustav]

What compromise? What did they do wrong?

wtf? cant you follow your own goddamn train of thought? despite the goddamn buddha's injunctions, the tards do something else? have their goddamn principles not been goddamn compromised? wtf!

 

[Gustav]

i shall report your goddamn ass to the ayatollah for quoting the heretic, rumi

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah there is no evil in doing wrong things, only human errors. Everything can be pardoned, even murder, if you wish it.

There are many short verses on patience, endurance, intentions, understanding through knowledge, forgiveness.

But I'm too lazy to search for them all. Here are two:

The usual run of proselytising:

And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings if you are patient (2:155)

Endure, vie with each other in endurance, and continue your relation with God (3:199)

 

[Gustav]

cool scam