^ Particularly pedantic.... Pathetic...
edit : What the .... Does anyone has a pointer that points to previous page, last post?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"I am surprised that no one commented, replied or disputed my post of 15 Jul 7:13AM."
Perhaps the general consensus is that its not worth to reply, contrary to what you wanna believe. Or you need more patience.
"Indeed, you are still putting words in my mouth. Where in my post did I say religions are wrong? Is 'unfortunate' the same as 'wrong'? Is 'suffers the same fate as other religions' the same as 'wrong'. Tell me which dictionary are you using or is the 'implication' something you conjured?"
Ad hominem spotted again... The way you are denying (which by itself is not inherently wrong) shows that you are contradicting yourself... See, you also said: "However, it is in danger of becoming a religion too." If its not wrong, whats is the danger of becoming a religion?
Learn this word: Imply. Marvel at its simplicity, where no self respecting dictionary would get it wrong... How did you learn your English? Oh wait, you didn't. Better yet, get a better updated dictionary. Learn from your mistakes.
"Who are the people who have provided definition of religion? There is one and I thanked him/her. Please name the others."
You named him/her... Yet can you accept that as standard? I believe not...
"hahaha, I have the same feeling about you but you have expressed it for me, thank you."
I see you used laughter to cover your embarrassment. Oh, please stop being a hypocrite by saying thanks when you don't mean it. It makes your standing here worse. I reiterate again, my compliment to Aik TC is honest and sincere. I guess you are just... envious.
You know, it'd be easier if you just back up your claim that Buddhism started as a philosophy, and how it became a religion. It'd be good to start to define philosophy and religion in your views so that you won't feel so... insecure when I direct questions at you.
"Don't you think it would be more believable than virgin brith if there were eleven people witness jesus descended from heaven? I know the answer I'm going to get is god is beyond human's comprehension. I did ask this question before and that was the answer I got."
Sorry for the late response Dawn1st, I missed your post somehow... My opinion? All three anecotes are not exactly believable as they are both "information" passed down many hands... Saying god is beyond human comprehension is as good as saying " I don't know, I'll use the alpha omega god as an excuse to fill the gaps and avoid answer such arkward questions." XD
If no one has commented or replied or disputed, then I take it that the general consensus is "no comment". That is nothing to say or dispute.
There are many definitions of religion. An acceptable one is one that is commonly used and understood by most ordinary people including a not smart guy like me. However, I have given the label 'smart' so I must thank the person for the compliment.
I laugh as I would laugh at any joke (not embarrassment) and I am no hypocrite when I said I felt the same way about you as in the way you described about me. And I honestly thank you for writing the piece which I would not do.
Whatever implications you arrived at come from your delusional mind. You are good at putting words in my mouth.
Please read my post of 13 Jul 9:57PM on what I said: “Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion”.
I have nothing to do with Dawn1st or virgin mary - I take it that you are muddled up!
Originally posted by I No Stupid:How are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Noble Truths arrived at by experience??
You would do better and more credible if you can just give direct answer instead of going round the bodhi tree.
Since you assert that Buddhism is not a philosophy, do you say it is a religion?
Now, you say Buddhism is neither philosophy nor religion. You are pretty muddle up! I can tell you that medicine is neither philosophy nor religion. So, is Buddhism medicine?
You would do better and more credible if you can just give direct answer instead of going round the bodhi tree.
Insight meditation.
So, is Buddhism medicine?
Precisely. Buddhism is medicine of the mind, Buddhism is medicine of suffering.
Buddha: "I teach only two things: suffering and the end of suffering."
The Buddha further states that if there were no suffering, there would not have been a point for Buddhas to teach. (In the same way that if there were no diseases, no doctors would be needed)
"There are many definitions of religion. An acceptable one is one that is commonly used and understood by most ordinary people including a not smart guy like me. "
An acceptable one... which is?
"However, I have given the label 'smart' so I must thank the person for the compliment."
"If no one has commented or replied or disputed, then I take it that the general consensus is "no comment". That is nothing to say or dispute."
"Please read my post of 13 Jul 9:57PM on what I said: “Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion”."
Which is saying Buddhism "did not come about by some practice or experience" . Others had pointed out the err... I don't see you addressing their arguments with propriety.
"I have nothing to do with Dawn1st or virgin mary - I take it that you are muddled up!"
What I'm gonna say will make you feel like an idiot... I quoted Dawn1st's post above my reply means I'm addressing to him/her, not anyone else. Do you know having delusions that thingss are ALWAYS about you is one of the signs of becoming senile? I can recommend some good phychiatrists if you let me.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"There are many definitions of religion. An acceptable one is one that is commonly used and understood by most ordinary people including a not smart guy like me. "
An acceptable one... which is?
"However, I have given the label 'smart' so I must thank the person for the compliment."
"If no one has commented or replied or disputed, then I take it that the general consensus is "no comment". That is nothing to say or dispute."
Ah... believing what you want to believe..."Whatever implications you arrived at come from your delusional mind. You are good at putting words in my mouth."Or you don't know how to express yourself clearly... Punctuations for ^that matter... XD
"Please read my post of 13 Jul 9:57PM on what I said: “Buddhism began as a philosophy and became a religion”."
Which is saying Buddhism "did not come about by some practice or experience" . Others had pointed out the err... I don't see you addressing their arguments with propriety.
"I have nothing to do with Dawn1st or virgin mary - I take it that you are muddled up!"
What I'm gonna say will make you feel like an idiot... I quoted Dawn1st's post above my reply means I'm addressing to him/her, not anyone else. Do you know having delusions that thingss are ALWAYS about you is one of the signs of becoming senile? I can recommend some good phychiatrists if you let me.
It is idotic to reply to two different postings using one post! Hahaha, a self-proclaimed doctor of nonsense purporting to diagnose senililty? Even trying to be a pyschologist! Perhaps, you are an embarassment here?
Go to my posts of Jul 13 9:57PM and 15 Jul 7:13AM and tell me if you are not senile yourself? Read carefully word for word since your English is so 'powderful' and tell me which part you don't understand.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You would do better and more credible if you can just give direct answer instead of going round the bodhi tree.
Insight meditation.
So, is Buddhism medicine?
Precisely. Buddhism is medicine of the mind, Buddhism is medicine of suffering.
Buddha: "I teach only two things: suffering and the end of suffering."
The Buddha further states that if there were no suffering, there would not have been a point for Buddhas to teach. (In the same way that if there were no diseases, no doctors would be needed)
The only medicine for the mind I came across is for people with mental illness. While meditation is helpful, I am told by doctors and psychartists and even Buddhist monks that those with mental illness should not meditate.
I do not see Buddhism as medicine for the mind unless one consider the mind to be ill or sick! Is this your position? Our minds have ideas, some of them are what Buddhism called defilements.
The crux of Buddhism is cessation of suffering. Therefore, Buddha's life was dedicated to teach the 'only two things'. What do many Buddhist sects teach today?
Originally posted by I No Stupid:The only medicine for the mind I came across is for people with mental illness. While meditation is helpful, I am told by doctors and psychartists and even Buddhist monks that those with mental illness should not meditate.
I do not see Buddhism as medicine for the mind unless one consider the mind to be ill or sick! Is this your position? Our minds have ideas, some of them are what Buddhism called defilements.
The crux of Buddhism is cessation of suffering. Therefore, Buddha's life was dedicated to teach the 'only two things'. What do many Buddhist sects teach today?
Everyone is mentally ill. Why?
We conceive that there is a self, where there isn't. This delusion is the source of all suffering and afflictions.
That is why we need to be treated of this mental illness, this deep-seated delusion and hallucination, that is causing suffering.
Buddhist sects nowadays teach about the cessation of suffering as well.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddhist sects nowadays teach about the cessation of suffering as well.
I am aware of the core doctrine accepted and taught by different sects. I just asked for clarification and to know the position. Thank you.
Do you agree or not, that the path to cessation of suffering is not an easy one? Hence, different sects arise because of different approaches (besides other doctrinal differences) to 'facilitate' the path?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Everyone is mentally ill. Why?
We conceive that there is a self, where there isn't. This delusion is the source of all suffering and afflictions.
That is why we need to be treated of this mental illness, this deep-seated delusion and hallucination, that is causing suffering.
I take it that your position is that everyone is mentally ill and their basic ailment is delusion of the mind. Could I assume by logical extension that the 2nd NT would be mental illness?
"It is idotic to reply to two different postings using one post!"
You did the same, didn't you? One post to 2 different users? That's pure hypocrisy. Btw, its spelled idiotic. Godamnit, idiots can spell right but cannot spell themselves right.
Isn't it easier to admit that you missed the quoted and shoot off your typing without much thoughts? Ah... ego got in the way...
" Hahaha, a self-proclaimed doctor of nonsense purporting to diagnose senililty? Even trying to be a pyschologist! Perhaps, you are an embarassment here?"
When did I claim to be a doctor? Or try to be a pyschologist (psychologist)? I call strawman. I see you don't react well to correction. I'll just poke you where it hurts.
"Go to my posts of Jul 13 9:57PM and 15 Jul 7:13AM and tell me if you are not senile yourself? Read carefully word for word since your English is so 'powderful' and tell me which part you don't understand."
Your england is too powderful for me to understand thus I ask, again, again, and again. Its natural for kouhai to seek clarification from senpai when kouhai has doubts on the text, especially when the senpai is the one who wrote it. However senpai just repeatedly as kouhai to go back read the text... and stop asking questions.
Fortunately, there are other senpais here. ::: bows :::
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"It is idotic to reply to two different postings using one post!"
You did the same, didn't you? One post to 2 different users? That's pure hypocrisy. Btw, its spelled idiotic. Godamnit, idiots can spell right but cannot spell themselves right.
Isn't it easier to admit that you missed the quoted and shoot off your typing without much thoughts? Ah... ego got in the way...
" Hahaha, a self-proclaimed doctor of nonsense purporting to diagnose senililty? Even trying to be a pyschologist! Perhaps, you are an embarassment here?"
When did I claim to be a doctor? Or try to be a pyschologist (psychologist)? I call strawman. I see you don't react well to correction. I'll just poke you where it hurts.
"Go to my posts of Jul 13 9:57PM and 15 Jul 7:13AM and tell me if you are not senile yourself? Read carefully word for word since your English is so 'powderful' and tell me which part you don't understand."
Your england is too powderful for me to understand thus I ask, again, again, and again. Its natural for kouhai to seek clarification from senpai when kouhai has doubts on the text, especially when the senpai is the one who wrote it. However senpai just repeatedly as kouhai to go back read the text... and stop asking questions.
Fortunately, there are other senpais here. ::: bows :::
You are a pathetic pedantric, and unable to understand anything. Clever idiot who is good in keyboarding or use spell-check. In which post did I reply to two users? You still have not told me which part of the two posts you have difficulty understanding. Don't spout whimsical wisdom. I am not impressed neither does your poke hurts me. I am playing yoiur game - a pot calling the kettle black. Go on boil more water. And ....do check my spelling with your powderful enlgish. If not, you can diagnose my ailment, don't doctors do?
A field guide to bullshit by Alison George
How do people defend their beliefs in bizarre conspiracy theories or the power of crystals? Philosopher Stephen Law has tips for spotting their strategies.
You describe your new book, Believing Bullshit, as a guide to avoid getting sucked into "intellectual black holes". What are they?
Intellectual black holes are belief systems that draw people in and hold them captive so they become willing slaves of claptrap. Belief in homeopathy, psychic powers, alien abductions - these are examples of intellectual black holes. As you approach them, you need to be on your guard because if you get sucked in, it can be extremely difficult to think your way clear again.
But isn't one person's claptrap another's truth?
There's a belief system about water to which we all sign up: it freezes at 0 °C and boils at 100 °C. We are powerfully wedded to this but that doesn't make it an intellectual black hole. That's because these beliefs are genuinely reasonable. Beliefs at the core of intellectual black holes, however, aren't reasonable. They merely appear so to those trapped inside.
You identify some strategies people use to defend black hole beliefs. Tell me about one of them - "playing the mystery card"?
This involves appealing to mystery to get out of intellectual hot water when someone is, say, propounding paranormal beliefs. They might say something like: "Ah, but this is beyond the ability of science and reason to decide. You, Mr Clever Dick Scientist, are guilty of scientism, of assuming science can answer every question." This is often followed by that quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". When you hear that, alarm bells should go off.
But even scientists admit that they can't explain everything. There probably are questions that science cannot answer. But what some people do to protect their beliefs is to draw a veil across reality and say, "you scientists can go up to the veil and apply your empirical methods this far, but no further". Behind the veil they will put angels, aliens, psychic powers, God, ghosts and so on. Then they insist that there are special people who can see - if only dimly - through this veil. But the fact is that many of the claims made about things behind this veil have empirically observable consequences and that makes them scientifically testable.
How can science test these mysteries?
Psychologist Christopher French at Goldsmiths, University of London, ran an experiment into the effects of crystals to explore claims that holding "real" crystals from a New Age shop while meditating has a powerful effect on the psyche, more so than just holding "fake" ones. But French found no difference in participants using real and fake crystals. This was good evidence that the effect people report is down to the power of suggestion, not the crystals.
Of course, this study provoked comments such as: "Not being able to prove the existence of something does not disprove its existence. Much is yet to be discovered." This is just a smokescreen. But because the mantra "it's-beyond-the-ability-of-science-to-establish..." gets repeated so often, it is effective at lulling people back to sleep - even if they have been stung into entertaining a doubt for a moment or two.
Do you think mystery has a place in science?
Some things may be beyond our understanding, and sometimes it's reasonable to appeal to mystery. If you have excellent evidence that water boils at 100 °C, but on one occasion it appeared it didn't, it's reasonable to attribute that to some mysterious, unknown factor. It's also reasonable, when we have a theory that works but we don't know how it works, to say that this is currently a mystery. But the more we rely on mystery to get us out of intellectual trouble, or the more we use it as a carpet under which to sweep inconvenient facts, the more vulnerable we are to deceit, by others and by ourselves.
In your book you also talk about the "going nuclear" tactic. What is this?
When someone is cornered in an argument, they may decide to get sceptical about reason. They might say: "Ah, but reason is just another faith position." I call this "going nuclear" because it lays waste to every position. It brings every belief - that milk can make you fly or that George Bush was Elvis Presley in disguise - down to the same level so they all appear equally "reasonable" or "unreasonable". Of course, you can be sure that the moment this person has left the room, they will continue to use reason to support their case if they can, and will even trust their life to reason: trusting that the brakes on their car will work or that a particular drug is going to cure them.
Isn't there a grain of truth in this approach?
There is a classic philosophical puzzle about how to justify reason: to do so, it seems you have to use reason. So the justification is circular - a bit like trusting a second-hand car salesman because he says he's trustworthy. But the person who "goes nuclear" isn't genuinely sceptical about reason. They are just raising a philosophical problem as a smokescreen, to give them time to leave with their head held high, saying: "So my belief is as reasonable as yours." That's intellectually dishonest.
You say we should also be aware of the "but it fits" strategy. Why?
Any theory, no matter how ludicrous, can be squared with the evidence, given enough ingenuity. Every last anomaly can be explained away. There is a popular myth about science that if you can make your theory consistent with the evidence, then that shows it is confirmed by that evidence - as confirmed as any other theory. Lots of dodgy belief systems exploit this myth. Young Earth creationism - the view that the whole universe is less than 10,000 years old - is a good example. Given enough shoehorning and reinterpretation, you can make whatever turns up "fit" what the Bible says.
What about when people claim that they "just know" something is right?
Suppose I look out the window and say: "Hey, there's Ted." You say: "It can't be Ted because he's on holiday." I reply: "Look, I just know it's Ted." Here it might be reasonable for you to take my word for it.
But "I just know" also gets used when I present someone with good evidence that there are, say, no auras, angels or flying saucers, and they respond: "Look, I just know there are." In such cases, claiming to "just know" is usually very unreasonable indeed.
What else should we watch out for?
You should be suspicious when people pile up anecdotes in favour of their pet theory, or when they practise the art of pseudo-profundity - uttering seemingly profound statements which are in fact trite or nonsensical. They often mix in references to scientific theory to sound authoritative.
Why does it matter if we believe absurd things?
It can cause no great harm. But the dangers are obvious when people join extreme cults or use alternative medicines to treat serious diseases. I am particularly concerned by psychological manipulation. For charlatans, the difficulty with using reason to persuade is that it's a double-edged sword: your opponent may show you are the one who is mistaken. That's a risk many so-called "educators" aren't prepared to take. If you try using reason to persuade adults the Earth's core is made of cheese, you will struggle. But take a group of kids, apply isolation, control, repetition, emotional manipulation - the tools of brainwashing - and there's a good chance many will eventually accept what you say.
Profile
Stephen Law is senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, and editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal, Think. His latest book is Believing Bullshit: How not to get sucked into an intellectual black hole.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:You are a pathetic pedantric, and unable to understand anything. Clever idiot who is good in keyboarding or use spell-check. In which post did I reply to two users? You still have not told me which part of the two posts you have difficulty understanding. Don't spout whimsical wisdom. I am not impressed neither does your poke hurts me. I am playing yoiur game - a pot calling the kettle black. Go on boil more water. And ....do check my spelling with your powderful enlgish. If not, you can diagnose my ailment, don't doctors do?
I see... You are just a parrot who can't hold its own arguments. Nice playing with you.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:I see... You are just a parrot who can't hold its own arguments. Nice playing with you.
Not a parrot - rather I am your alter-ego! Are you still game?
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Not a parrot - rather I am your alter-ego! Are you still game?
Stop humiliating yourself. You don't know what alter ego is... It better to be thought of as an idiot by keeping your mouth shut, than to open your mouth and confirm it.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:I take it that your position is that everyone is mentally ill and their basic ailment is delusion of the mind. Could I assume by logical extension that the 2nd NT would be mental illness?
yes, a type of illness (suffering, craving and delusion) that is so pervasive that people have grown to accept it as "normal" or "incurable" until the buddha came with the solution
Originally posted by I No Stupid:I am aware of the core doctrine accepted and taught by different sects. I just asked for clarification and to know the position. Thank you.
Do you agree or not, that the path to cessation of suffering is not an easy one? Hence, different sects arise because of different approaches (besides other doctrinal differences) to 'facilitate' the path?
yes, even though those approaches have scriptural basis, they are different focuses to facilitate people of differing inclinations and capacities
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Stop humiliating yourself. You don't know what alter ego is... It better to be thought of as an idiot by keeping your mouth shut, than to open your mouth and confirm it.
hahaha, how can I stop when I have to match your ego? As your alter-ego my thoughts are like yours. In my mind you are an idiot whether you open your mouth or not to confirm it!
Originally posted by I No Stupid:hahaha, how can I stop when I have to match your ego? As your alter-ego my thoughts are like yours. In my mind you are an idiot whether you open your mouth or not to confirm it!
You have your logic and reasoning in the wrong direction. You assume to be my alter-ego, equable as assuming you are the gap between my teeth. Parotting again? How original. My point still stand. You are evading questions.
can see who had practice the true essence of buddhismå¦ä½› and who only study knowledge based Buddhismä½›å¦.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:You have your logic and reasoning in the wrong direction. You assume to be my alter-ego, equable as assuming you are the gap between my teeth. Parotting again? How original. My point still stand. You are evading questions.
One parrot will see the other as parotting. If I had assumed the wrong direction, then I am not your alter ego .... I am your ego! Hmm .... you have just opened your mouth to show the gap between your teeth. You are lucky, if I open my mouth, you will be between my jaws.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:One parrot will see the other as parotting. If I had assumed the wrong direction, then I am not your alter ego .... I am your ego! Hmm .... you have just opened your mouth to show the gap between your teeth. You are lucky, if I open my mouth, you will be between my jaws.
There's so many wrongs in that^ sentence... Two wrongs don't make a right... Too many wrongs don't require any response.
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:Who say that Buddhism begins as a philosophy ? Who is the mad fellow. A caucasian who can’t read the sutra in Mandarin?
If ignorant people bother to read the Canon of Sutra, Buddhism is definitely not just a philosophy.
Even the youtube animated sutra stories can enlighten you on that.
Sutra of Casket Dharani Power
Maitreya Buddha Sutra
Haven't you read my posts carefully? So, you are a Mandarin duck that stucks the head in the water just like an ostrich stucks its head in the Mandarin sands? I see you are a bigoted racist.
//Buddhism is definitely not just a philosophy.// You have just conceded that Buddhism is more than a philosophy. So, if Buddhism is more than just a philosophy, it must begin as a philosophy!!!
What is Canon of Sutra?