Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning does this sound familiar?

Prom NPR nov 6.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120162816

ZWERDLING: Earlier today, I spoke to a psychiatrist who worked very closely
with Hasan and knows him very well. And he said, you know, from the
beginning -and Hasan was there for four years - the medical staff was very
worried about this guy. He said the first thing is he's cold, unfriendly. At
least that's who he came off. He did not do a good job as a psychiatrist in
training, was repeatedly warned, you better shape up, or, you know, you're
going to be in trouble. Did badly in his classes, seemed disinterested. But
second of all - and this is, perhaps, you know, more relevant. The
psychiatrist says that he was very proud and upfront about being Muslim. And
psychiatrist hastened to say, and nobody minded that. But he seemed almost
belligerent about being Muslim, and he gave a lecture one day that really
freaked a lot of doctors out.

They have grand rounds, right? They, you know, dozens of medical staff come
into an auditorium, and somebody stands at the podium at the front and gives
a lecture about some academic issue, you know, what drugs to prescribe for
what condition. But instead of that, he - Hasan apparently gave a long
lecture on the Koran and talked about how if you don't believe, you are
condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You're set on fire. Burning oil is
burned down your throat.

And I said to the psychiatrist, but this could be a very interesting
informational session, right? Where he's educating everybody about the
Koran. He said but what disturbed everybody was that Hasan seemed to believe
these things. And actually, a Muslim in the audience, a psychiatrist, raised
his hand and said, excuse me. But I'm a Muslim and I do not believe these
things in the Koran, and then I don't believe what you say the Koran says.
And then Hasan didn't say, well, I'm just giving you one point of view. He
basically just stared the guy down.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

LOL
The hypocracy, budhist attacking muslim for his faith.

Oh please!
>
> While we're at it, I have read in various online bios that
> you, Dante, are a Buddhist. Perhaps you'd care for an open
> debate over any number of mystical beliefs related to that
> religion?
>
> >
> > yes everyone should ignore it just like they did at ft hood
>

I was planning to keep out of this and let you be ignored by all but since
Carl replied I will too as I have itched to say something about your ft hood
remark.

What happened at ft hood was not due to him beeing a muslim.
It was more due to him beeing bullied by people like you dante.

The shooting can better be compared against high school shootings like
columbine.
Wether he was bullied because of his religion or because he didn't fit in or
had pubes or whatever isn't that relevant.
He was bullied, grew hatred.
He was very disturbed to start shooting everybody no matter the reasons,
just like high school teens have been to do school shootings.
But I'll add that it can be argued that partially responsible in a way are
also the people that bullied him. They are part of the cause that led in the
end to the shooting effect.

You dante, seem to me to be just like those soldiers that bullied the ft
hood shooter, just like the high school teens that bullied another teen who
turned shooter.
You are way more part of the problem that Oz is simply because he is a
muslim.
There are 1.7 billion muslims in the world, allmost all of them peace
loving.
Besides as I explained this isn't even a muslim related incident in the main
causes.
There aren't that many people who turn psychotic and start shooting when
bullied, so far 1 muslim inside america and several american teens who were
not muslims.
Part of the problem is also the people with bad character who bully other
people, more of these around than the psychotic people luckily, you seem to
me to be such a bully. When the bullies and the easily turning psychotic
people meet there's potential for trouble.
Luckily in this case I don't think Oz is one of those rare people who turn
psychotic and starts shooting people when bullied by someone like you :)

So dante, if you must get angry about this shooting at ft hood, at you feel
like you must vent this anger to someone you know.. then i think you'd best
look in the mirror as it's people like you who are part of the
problem/cause.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

firstly, there is nothing wrong with debating various beliefs: only people
who are very insecure take it personally. If one cannot tolerate having
one's beliefs questioned, by another or even more importantly by one's self,
then there is probably some other psycho-pathology lurking beneath the
surface.

Marcel, you keep claiming that "of course" Oz doesn't wish all non-believers
to go to hell, but I'm afraid he would disagree with you, and the evidence
for this is somewhere in the morass of the Tuning and Metatuning list
archives from several years ago, if you have way too much free time you can
go looking for it. Normally, that is neither here nor there, as each of us
are free to believe whatever we want. Unfortunately, as recent events have
shown, things are not always that simple.

On Nov. 3, in the original "Debate Challenge" thread, I wrote:

"How should one act towards those who you
know wish you harm (if only in the afterlife, but I maintain that
beliefs like that cannot but bleed over into everyday life and have
violent consequences)? Do you just discuss abstract things like tuning
theory in the hope that you can distract them from ever becoming
politicized?"

On Nov 5, an army shrink went on a rampage at Fort Hood, as I'm sure you
know. In the first post in this thread, I copypasted a story about how the
shooter lectured a whole room full of doctors:

"They have grand rounds, right? They, you know, dozens of medical staff come
into an auditorium, and somebody stands at the podium at the front and gives
a lecture about some academic issue, you know, what drugs to prescribe for
what condition. But instead of that, he - Hasan apparently gave a long
lecture on the Koran and talked about how if you don't believe, you are
condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You're set on fire. Burning oil is
burned down your throat."

The point I was trying to make was that beliefs like those shared by Oz and
Major Hasan, while pathetic and silly, sometimes are symptoms of a mindset
that can go beyond merely professing silly beliefs to acting violently on
them. Why is it so hard for people to see the connections between
hate-beliefs and hate-actions? History, ancient and modern, is replete with
examples. Maybe people who hold hate-beliefs need to be called on them,
instead of just letting it go in the name of "tolerance". And, as I
mentioned over at MMM, it matters not a whit to me that he is a Muslim,
since fundy Christians hold the same boneheaded belief. Not all Muslims
believe in hell for non-believers, not all Christians believe in hell for
non-believers, so its not about Islam or Christianity, its about
hate-beliefs held by particular individuals, and the potential for such
beliefs to become destructive.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
> Ah I feel sorry allready for having replied.
> I don't hate dante, not even aaron, i got annoyed.
> Offcourse I don't agree with your attacks towards Oz.
> Also becuase you must know yourself that Oz doesn't "wish all non muslims
> to
> go to hell" as you claim.
> Yeah it's somewhere in the koran, just like it is somewhere in the bible,
> just like there's a lot of nonsense in most/all of the sutras.
> But to say that this is character defining and these "holy books"
> transcrive
> the deepest wishes of all those who follow this religion issimply wrong.
>
> But what I really wanted to say :)
> Why not all stop this nonsense of arguing all the time.
> There's all this arguing on the microtonal lists these days.
> Tuning list, MMM list, this list.
> And what is it about? People with short tempers (like I have been guilty of
> in the past aswell).
> We're all in this for a love for music.
> Hope we can have more of a sense of friendlyness to all on these lists.
> There aren't that many of us around in the world with thesame interests :)
>
> Marcel
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗leonardo caldas <leoalves2002rj@...>

So, hi to all of you...

I wanted only to make a statement:

I'm a brazilian composer, 'i'm not atheist, i'm more what would be called A AGNOSTHIC... because, i don't NECESSARILY believein a higher power, or a supernatural one (i mean, i might believe in something that is apart from what i believe as 'real'), but, most of all, i don't WANT to believe... more acurately, i dont mind if i do or not. That's all. But, even so, i might say to you people that being like this, i don't have any animosity with NO ONE i've met in my entire 31 year lifetime. I rather stay that way. I suggest also ppl to consider that to....
Is not a matter like: 'we shouldn't debate religion/beliefs', i do so, but, it seems that people are not prepared to discuss that matters anyway....

cheers,

Leo Alves Vieira
www.myspace.com/leoalvesvieira

--- Em ter, 10/11/09, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> escreveu:

De: Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>
Assunto: Re: [metatuning] Re: does this sound familiar?
Para: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Data: Terça-feira, 10 de Novembro de 2009, 22:50

On Nov. 3, in the original "Debate Challenge" thread, I wrote:

On Nov 5, an army shrink went on a rampage at Fort Hood, as I'm sure you
know. In the first post in this thread, I copypasted a story about how the
shooter lectured a whole room full of doctors:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Meta Tuning meta-info:

To unsubscribe, send an email to:
metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/

To post to the list, send to
metatuning@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

____________________________________________________________________________________
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
>
> On Nov. 3, in the original "Debate Challenge" thread, I wrote:
>
> "How should one act towards those who you
> know wish you harm (if only in the afterlife, but I maintain that
> beliefs like that cannot but bleed over into everyday life and have
> violent consequences)? Do you just discuss abstract things like
> tuning theory in the hope that you can distract them from ever
> becoming politicized?"
>

Well, it is a matter of how close a relationship is. These things present a serious problem if the person in question is a person I am married to or that is a close friend. But somebody I discuss tunings with, or even somebody I meet at work... I mean, everybody has probably a dark spot somewhere that, if I knew, would make me shrink back. But as long as he does not act acordingly, keeps his stuff to himself and does not try to talk other into it - then , I would say, it does not matter to me. And, to come back to the subject, Dr.Oz basically keeps all these rules by now. (This time, it was you, Dante, who started the topic...)

>
> The point I was trying to make was that beliefs like those shared
> by Oz and Major Hasan, while pathetic and silly, sometimes are
> symptoms of a mindset that can go beyond merely professing silly
> beliefs to acting violently on them. Why is it so hard for people
> to see the connections between hate-beliefs and hate-actions?
> History, ancient and modern, is replete with examples. Maybe people
> who hold hate-beliefs need to be called on them, instead of just
> letting it go in the name of "tolerance". And, as I mentioned over
> at MMM, it matters not a whit to me that he is a Muslim, since
> fundy Christians hold the same boneheaded belief. Not all Muslims
> believe in hell for non-believers, not all Christians believe in
> hell for non-believers, so its not about Islam or Christianity, its
> about hate-beliefs held by particular individuals, and the
> potential for such beliefs to become destructive.
>

I think the distinction between "hate-beliefs" and "non-hate-beliefs" is hard if not impossible to make. I have the impression any strong belief, even the most pacifist one, has the danger of mutating into a hate-belief. I would not say it is a question of "hate-beliefs" against "non-hate-beliefs" but rather of "belief" against "common sense" - danger arises every time a belief becomes so strong it starts compromising common sense. I just can hope that in the long term, common sense will win.
--
Hans Straub

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> We could start here
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29
>
> or maybe with the practice of prostrating oneself before
> statues of a particular dead person.
>

Problem: I do not really know much about buddhism, nor about islam, and I think I am not alltogether wrong if I state the same holds for most of us here. Hence any disccussion would essentially be - no insult intended - a discussion among ignorants. I think that is a characteristic of many of the heated and ugly discussions of this kind, including the past ones on the tuning lists. I wonder whether that is even one of the reasons they got so heated and ugly.

And, Marcel, I have to state you already gave tow other examples of this here, claiming to know what Dr. Oz believs, calining to know why the guy at FT Hood acted the way he did - I think I can say with quite high certainty nobody here really knows about THAT.

"Knowing that we do on know" would be, I think, a prerequisite or at least a good start for non-destructive discussions, about religion as well as about tuning.
--
Hans Straub

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@...> wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > We could start here
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29
> > or maybe with the practice of prostrating oneself before
> > statues of a particular dead person.
>
> Problem: I do not really know much about buddhism, nor about
> islam, and I think I am not alltogether wrong if I state the
> same holds for most of us here. Hence any disccussion would
> essentially be - no insult intended - a discussion among
> ignorants. I think that is a characteristic of many of the
> heated and ugly discussions of this kind, including the past
> ones on the tuning lists. I wonder whether that is even one
> of the reasons they got so heated and ugly.

I've practiced zazen at a Buddhist temple a few times, and once
accidentally stayed over into some sort of ceremony, which was
pretty far out. There was clearly an effort to appeal to a
broader public with the zazen, and conceal or underplay all the
weird shit that happens beyond that. I also worked in an office
with an ethnic Buddhist for a year.

Other than that, you're right, I'm ignorant of it. If you've
followed the thread, Dante challenged Ozan about mystical
features of his faith, and has subsequently agreed to entertain
a similar challenge about his faith (apparently Buddhism).
So I'm relying on him to fill in the details.

I know even less about Islam.

I was raised very closely in the Lutheran church, went to a
Mennonite elementary school, and have studied protestant
theology extensively. I've also participated in some obscure
protestant communities, the Moravians and the Schwenkfelders.

Attended a Quaker meeting once in Kentucky. Briefly dated
a Quaker girl in Pennsylvania.

I've been to temple and private jewish ceremonies several
times (shabbat, passover, weddings)

There you have it.

-Carl

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

Hi Carl-

Ok, but what is it you want to debate about these topics exactly? My debate
topic for Ozzy was about the moral and logical defensibility of the notion
that non-believers will burn in hell. I would say "no" and he would argue
"yes".

you just posted this:

>If you've followed the thread, Dante challenged Ozan about mystical
>features of his faith, and has subsequently agreed to entertain
>a similar challenge about his faith (apparently Buddhism).

Im not really sure if i would call wanting non-believers to go to hell
"mystical", but whatever. I believe I called it a "medieval superstition",
which it is, but my main point is that it is what I would call a "hate
belief", that is, wishing another ill instead of wishing them well. Buddhism
has plenty of "medieval superstitions" including both topics you mentioned,
but Buddhism would never say that non-Buddhists will go to some kind of
hell, only Muslims and Christians believe that. As to calling Buddhism "my
faith", although I have studied Buddhism on and off for over 30 years and
find much of interest in its various traditions, it is not really about
"faith", although many people who profess Buddhism take it that way. Popular
religion the world over is largely the same: you pray to some deity so that
your crops will be bountiful you will be healthy you children will be
successful etc. Christians pray to Mary and Buddhist pray to Tara or
Guanyin, etc. But all religions also have a way of viewing life and a set of
priorities, opinions about what is "the good", etc. These can be discussed
and contrasted. For example, Christians make a belief and acceptance of
Jesus as the prerequisite for being "saved" from our inherently "sinful"
nature. In Buddhism, the problem is the fact of suffering, where it comes
from, and what we can do to lessen it as much as possible, both for
ourselves and others.

anyway, gotta go do some stuff, we can continue this later...

Dante

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> We could start here
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29
>
> or maybe with the practice of prostrating oneself before
> statues of a particular dead person.
>
>
> -Carl
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com <metatuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Dante
> Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
> >
> > sure, id be happy to - you name the topic.
> >
> > On Nov 10, 2009, at 4:28 PM, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh please!
> > >
> > > While we're at it, I have read in various online bios that
> > > you, Dante, are a Buddhist. Perhaps you'd care for an open
> > > debate over any number of mystical beliefs related to that
> > > religion?
> > >
> > > -Carl
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

I dont think there is any substantial difference between "believing" and
"wishing" in this particular case. If we agree (as I hope we can since I
assume everyone here has more than one brain cell) that the following is
complete bullshit:

"anyone who at the moment of death is not a Muslim will go to hell"

then, this belief is completely arbitrary. As such, a person must have a
reason to believe it, that is, something about this belief must be
attractive or desirable to him or her. Such a person would also want their
beliefs to turn out to be true (I doubt anyone wants to be proven wrong in
their beliefs), therefore, they desire it to be true. QED.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:09 AM, hstraub64 <straub@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com <metatuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Dante
> Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
> >
> > Im not really sure if i would call wanting non-believers to go to
> > hell "mystical", but whatever. I believe I called it a "medieval
> > superstition", which it is, but my main point is that it is what I
> > would call a "hate belief", that is, wishing another ill instead of
> > wishing them well.
>
> Hmm. There is a difference between BELIEVING the others will go to hell and
> actually WISHING so. As for christians, I would say they are, in any case,
> not supposed to wish so - they are even supposed to love their enemies.
> Reality is often quite different, though... And OTOH, this command to love
> the enemy sometimes results in such unsupportable hypocritical attitudes
> that you may really ask yourself if a sincere, open "wishing ill" would not
> be preferable...
>
> But to speak of the concrete case: is that a case of "believing" or really
> a case of "wishing"? Should I study the archives of metatuning for this?
> --
> Hans Straub
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
>
> I dont think there is any substantial difference between
> "believing" and "wishing" in this particular case. If we agree (as
> I hope we can since I assume everyone here has more than one brain
> cell) that the following is complete bullshit:
>
> "anyone who at the moment of death is not a Muslim will go to hell"
>
> then, this belief is completely arbitrary. As such, a person must
> have a reason to believe it, that is, something about this belief
> must be attractive or desirable to him or her. Such a person would
> also want their beliefs to turn out to be true (I doubt anyone wants
> to be proven wrong in their beliefs), therefore, they desire it to be
> true. QED.
>

Well, in theory there is definitely a difference, at least, as I said, for christians - the question is addressed at more than one place in the bible. But in reality, it might indeed not matter substantially...

> Buddhism has plenty of "medieval superstitions" including both
> topics you mentioned, but Buddhism would never say that
> non-Buddhists will go to some kind of hell, only Muslims and
> Christians believe that.

Lately, something came to ma mind about this one. I have to repeat in advance that I am not really qualified - but AFAIK, buddhists believe that a "bad guy" (or whatever word would be appropriate) will be reborn as insect, or as cripple. This, to me, sounds a little similar to what you wrote above...

I remember some news in the U.K - there was a slightly prominent man who called himself a buddhist, and he publicly stated things like: people with a dssabling are so because of something they did in their previous life - and this thought, when followed further, can lead into a disquieting direction, something like "if you are disabled, it's your own fault". That's why that news stirred up quite some noise. Well, the probability is quite high the man in question did not really know well - but I have to say things like this make me cautious. In the western world, people tend to idealize buddhism - maybe too much, IMHO.

I would like to know your opinion about this.
--
Hans Straub

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

Ozan might wish the world wasn't set up in quite that way, while still
believing that it is. As for what about the belief that is
"attractive" to him, I think it's pretty obvious that it's the fact
that it is a facet of Islam in general. As for what about Islam in
general is attractive to him, I would then expect that it would have
to do with how he was raised and so on. Or, perhaps there is something
about the system of Islam that is actually successful in raising the
level of consciousness in its adherents, and whatever it is has been
successful enough for Ozan that he has accepted the whole system in
the aggregate.

The question is, why are you riding his nuts about it?

-Mike

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
> I dont think there is any substantial difference between "believing" and
> "wishing" in this particular case. If we agree (as I hope we can since I
> assume everyone here has more than one brain cell) that the following is
> complete bullshit:
>
> "anyone who at the moment of death is not a Muslim will go to hell"
>
> then, this belief is completely arbitrary. As such, a person must have a
> reason to believe it, that is, something about this belief must be
> attractive or desirable to him or her. Such a person would also want their
> beliefs to turn out to be true (I doubt anyone wants to be proven wrong in
> their beliefs), therefore, they desire it to be true. QED.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:09 AM, hstraub64 <straub@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com <metatuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Dante
>> Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Im not really sure if i would call wanting non-believers to go to
>> > hell "mystical", but whatever. I believe I called it a "medieval
>> > superstition", which it is, but my main point is that it is what I
>> > would call a "hate belief", that is, wishing another ill instead of
>> > wishing them well.
>>
>> Hmm. There is a difference between BELIEVING the others will go to hell and
>> actually WISHING so. As for christians, I would say they are, in any case,
>> not supposed to wish so - they are even supposed to love their enemies.
>> Reality is often quite different, though... And OTOH, this command to love
>> the enemy sometimes results in such unsupportable hypocritical attitudes
>> that you may really ask yourself if a sincere, open "wishing ill" would not
>> be preferable...
>>
>> But to speak of the concrete case: is that a case of "believing" or really
>> a case of "wishing"? Should I study the archives of metatuning for this?
>> --
>> Hans Straub
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗ambassadorbob <owlsgrease@...>

The point is valid, up to a point. Even so: Coercion is Coercion. Whatever "morality", "law" (civil? criminal? scientific? cosmic? spiritual?), "religion", or "State" (ie police and military) you believe in and/or inhabit, there is probably a better than 50% chance you were coerced there, in one way or another. Whether this cercion is viewed as conservative or progressive in nature, or if it is viewed as unavoidable or somehow necessary, is irrelevant. The problem is still one of domination, however it manifests. A cop is a cop, whether his/her 'armaments' include a holy book, or not.

So, who's to say that Oz's state would be any less or more vicious than the one that our little cracker asses are luxuriating in? (smile?) Faith is a curse, or a blessing, depending on what you use it for, I reckon. Our last president may have cursed us forever with his "faith". I don't see how the new cat in The White House can even use that word without shuddering in horror. ;-}

I was raised RC (Roman Catholic), and as I recall, EVERYONE was a sinner, and EVERYONE was going to hell if they *&^%$# up, be they Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, etc. So, I don't take that sort of old-fashioned creed-bashing as "hate-speech", even though it is. But it's really so personal that I think it's a low-risk for violent expression. Kind of like living in the 'burbs, or some "old-school" neighborhood, where it's like they just don't know any better than to keep parroting their parents' bigotry and savagery. But they're basically (???) just nice, simple people, aren't they? And it really doesn't get far beyond their little town limits, does it? False flag ops not included, of course... ;-} Again, I think the level of coercion is definitive: The violence of the response to a challenge of authority is determined by the level of violence originally employed to maintain the "security" of that authority. Voila, Amerikkka...

Love,

Pete

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Ozan might wish the world wasn't set up in quite that way, while still
> believing that it is. As for what about the belief that is
> "attractive" to him, I think it's pretty obvious that it's the fact
> that it is a facet of Islam in general. As for what about Islam in
> general is attractive to him, I would then expect that it would have
> to do with how he was raised and so on. Or, perhaps there is something
> about the system of Islam that is actually successful in raising the
> level of consciousness in its adherents, and whatever it is has been
> successful enough for Ozan that he has accepted the whole system in
> the aggregate.
>
> The question is, why are you riding his nuts about it?
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
> > I dont think there is any substantial difference between "believing" and
> > "wishing" in this particular case. If we agree (as I hope we can since I
> > assume everyone here has more than one brain cell) that the following is
> > complete bullshit:
> >
> > "anyone who at the moment of death is not a Muslim will go to hell"
> >
> > then, this belief is completely arbitrary. As such, a person must have a
> > reason to believe it, that is, something about this belief must be
> > attractive or desirable to him or her. Such a person would also want their
> > beliefs to turn out to be true (I doubt anyone wants to be proven wrong in
> > their beliefs), therefore, they desire it to be true. QED.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:09 AM, hstraub64 <straub@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com <metatuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Dante
> >> Rosati <danterosati@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Im not really sure if i would call wanting non-believers to go to
> >> > hell "mystical", but whatever. I believe I called it a "medieval
> >> > superstition", which it is, but my main point is that it is what I
> >> > would call a "hate belief", that is, wishing another ill instead of
> >> > wishing them well.
> >>
> >> Hmm. There is a difference between BELIEVING the others will go to hell and
> >> actually WISHING so. As for christians, I would say they are, in any case,
> >> not supposed to wish so - they are even supposed to love their enemies.
> >> Reality is often quite different, though... And OTOH, this command to love
> >> the enemy sometimes results in such unsupportable hypocritical attitudes
> >> that you may really ask yourself if a sincere, open "wishing ill" would not
> >> be preferable...
> >>
> >> But to speak of the concrete case: is that a case of "believing" or really
> >> a case of "wishing"? Should I study the archives of metatuning for this?
> >> --
> >> Hans Straub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

the theory of karma & rebirth is basically the theory of causality. Now,
there is a simplistic, literal, and dare we say "fundamentalist" version of
karma that indeed would say that if, for example, one is born with a
handicap, it is due to actions in a past life. The old saying goes, "if you
want to know what kind of actions you performed in your past life, look at
your present circumstances. If you want to know what your future life will
be like, look at your present actions." This is a very neat concept, but the
actual theory is not so simplistic.

The Buddhist theory of causality is called "dependent arising". On this
theory, all that exists is one interconnected mass of dependent arisings,
none of which are self contained or independent (this is the meaning of
"emptiness": things are empty of self contained essences since everything is
interdependent). A human being is a mass of interdependent arisings called
"body" "consciousness" etc, none of which is stable or self-contained. So it
is literally impossible to comprehend all the causes and conditions that go
into any occurrence, so it can never be as simple as "bad people are born as
cripples". To me, what is valuable in this theory, and what fits with the
findings of science, is this idea of interdependence, rather than a
moralistic conception of karma as reward and punishment.

You ask if it is bad to idolize Buddhism: of course it is, and ironically,
the Buddha himself (insofar as we know what he said) would have agreed. He
told his students to test everything he said, which is what we now call the
scientific method. Where Buddhism really shines (so to speak) is in its
centuries of collective investigation into consciousness done from a
first-person perspective.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:32 PM, hstraub64 <straub@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com <metatuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Dante
> Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
> >
> > I dont think there is any substantial difference between
> > "believing" and "wishing" in this particular case. If we agree (as
> > I hope we can since I assume everyone here has more than one brain
> > cell) that the following is complete bullshit:
> >
> > "anyone who at the moment of death is not a Muslim will go to hell"
> >
> > then, this belief is completely arbitrary. As such, a person must
> > have a reason to believe it, that is, something about this belief
> > must be attractive or desirable to him or her. Such a person would
> > also want their beliefs to turn out to be true (I doubt anyone wants
> > to be proven wrong in their beliefs), therefore, they desire it to be
> > true. QED.
> >
>
> Well, in theory there is definitely a difference, at least, as I said, for
> christians - the question is addressed at more than one place in the bible.
> But in reality, it might indeed not matter substantially...
>
>
> > Buddhism has plenty of "medieval superstitions" including both
> > topics you mentioned, but Buddhism would never say that
> > non-Buddhists will go to some kind of hell, only Muslims and
> > Christians believe that.
>
> Lately, something came to ma mind about this one. I have to repeat in
> advance that I am not really qualified - but AFAIK, buddhists believe that a
> "bad guy" (or whatever word would be appropriate) will be reborn as insect,
> or as cripple. This, to me, sounds a little similar to what you wrote
> above...
>
> I remember some news in the U.K - there was a slightly prominent man who
> called himself a buddhist, and he publicly stated things like: people with a
> dssabling are so because of something they did in their previous life - and
> this thought, when followed further, can lead into a disquieting direction,
> something like "if you are disabled, it's your own fault". That's why that
> news stirred up quite some noise. Well, the probability is quite high the
> man in question did not really know well - but I have to say things like
> this make me cautious. In the western world, people tend to idealize
> buddhism - maybe too much, IMHO.
>
> I would like to know your opinion about this.
> --
> Hans Straub
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗ambassadorbob <owlsgrease@...>

Dadgum! Took the bait agin, dit'n I?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
>
> the theory of karma & rebirth is basically the theory of causality. Now,
> there is a simplistic, literal, and dare we say "fundamentalist" version of
> karma that indeed would say that if, for example, one is born with a
> handicap, it is due to actions in a past life. The old saying goes, "if you
> want to know what kind of actions you performed in your past life, look at
> your present circumstances. If you want to know what your future life will
> be like, look at your present actions." This is a very neat concept, but the
> actual theory is not so simplistic.
>
> The Buddhist theory of causality is called "dependent arising". On this
> theory, all that exists is one interconnected mass of dependent arisings,
> none of which are self contained or independent (this is the meaning of
> "emptiness": things are empty of self contained essences since everything is
> interdependent). A human being is a mass of interdependent arisings called
> "body" "consciousness" etc, none of which is stable or self-contained. So it
> is literally impossible to comprehend all the causes and conditions that go
> into any occurrence, so it can never be as simple as "bad people are born as
> cripples". To me, what is valuable in this theory, and what fits with the
> findings of science, is this idea of interdependence, rather than a
> moralistic conception of karma as reward and punishment.
>
> You ask if it is bad to idolize Buddhism: of course it is, and ironically,
> the Buddha himself (insofar as we know what he said) would have agreed. He
> told his students to test everything he said, which is what we now call the
> scientific method. Where Buddhism really shines (so to speak) is in its
> centuries of collective investigation into consciousness done from a
> first-person perspective.
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:32 PM, hstraub64 <straub@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com <metatuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Dante
> > Rosati <danterosati@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I dont think there is any substantial difference between
> > > "believing" and "wishing" in this particular case. If we agree (as
> > > I hope we can since I assume everyone here has more than one brain
> > > cell) that the following is complete bullshit:
> > >
> > > "anyone who at the moment of death is not a Muslim will go to hell"
> > >
> > > then, this belief is completely arbitrary. As such, a person must
> > > have a reason to believe it, that is, something about this belief
> > > must be attractive or desirable to him or her. Such a person would
> > > also want their beliefs to turn out to be true (I doubt anyone wants
> > > to be proven wrong in their beliefs), therefore, they desire it to be
> > > true. QED.
> > >
> >
> > Well, in theory there is definitely a difference, at least, as I said, for
> > christians - the question is addressed at more than one place in the bible.
> > But in reality, it might indeed not matter substantially...
> >
> >
> > > Buddhism has plenty of "medieval superstitions" including both
> > > topics you mentioned, but Buddhism would never say that
> > > non-Buddhists will go to some kind of hell, only Muslims and
> > > Christians believe that.
> >
> > Lately, something came to ma mind about this one. I have to repeat in
> > advance that I am not really qualified - but AFAIK, buddhists believe that a
> > "bad guy" (or whatever word would be appropriate) will be reborn as insect,
> > or as cripple. This, to me, sounds a little similar to what you wrote
> > above...
> >
> > I remember some news in the U.K - there was a slightly prominent man who
> > called himself a buddhist, and he publicly stated things like: people with a
> > dssabling are so because of something they did in their previous life - and
> > this thought, when followed further, can lead into a disquieting direction,
> > something like "if you are disabled, it's your own fault". That's why that
> > news stirred up quite some noise. Well, the probability is quite high the
> > man in question did not really know well - but I have to say things like
> > this make me cautious. In the western world, people tend to idealize
> > buddhism - maybe too much, IMHO.
> >
> > I would like to know your opinion about this.
> > --
> > Hans Straub
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

i didn't know anyone was discussing which religion is "better". i
thought we were discussing views of "hell" and karma. islam and
christianity both consign non believers to hell. i already spoke of
the fundamentalist view of karma that simplistically equates immoral
actions with undesireable consequences. i also pointed out the more
sophisticated buddhist view of dependent arising. if someone would
like to explain the thinking behind the muslim or christian
consignment of non-believers to hell i would be most interested.

On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:39 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > You ask if it is bad to idolize Buddhism: of course it is, and
> ironically,
> > the Buddha himself (insofar as we know what he said) would have
> agreed. He
> > told his students to test everything he said, which is what we now
> call the
> > scientific method. Where Buddhism really shines (so to speak) is
> in its
> > centuries of collective investigation into consciousness done from a
> > first-person perspective.
>
> I doubt the Buddha would approve of you getting into a game of "my
> religion is better than your religion".
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> i didn't know anyone was discussing which religion is "better". i
> thought we were discussing views of "hell" and karma. islam and
> christianity both consign non believers to hell. i already spoke of
> the fundamentalist view of karma that simplistically equates immoral
> actions with undesireable consequences. i also pointed out the more
> sophisticated buddhist view of dependent arising. if someone would
> like to explain the thinking behind the muslim or christian
> consignment of non-believers to hell i would be most interested.

Sure. It's the same as the Buddhist belief that one has to reach
enlightenment to escape samsara. Christians believe that a part of
this enlightenment is understanding that all of existence is around
for a reason, and that it exists exactly as it should, and that it is
"perfect," although we may not be able to see it that way due to our
limited perspective. They also believe that there is a higher
intelligence out there that sees everything exactly as perfect as it
is, and that is God. And, they also believe that since this God is
perfect, and there's so much shit wrong on earth, that he wouldn't be
perfect unless he had somehow did something to fix it. And they
believe that he did just that by sending Christ to earth and all of
that, and so even though terrible things still happen on Earth, it
symbolizes that all is right with the world "under the surface." So
the Christian view is that understanding all of this is one of the big
milestones along someone's path to enlightenment.

So they believe that if you die without grasping that concept, then
your post-death state will be one of frantic confusion and suffering,
or "hell." Buddhists believe that if you die without reaching
enlightenment, you'll be born again and again until you do. The
discrepancy is mainly one of cosmology.

I'm not going to comment on Islam, as I don't really know too much
about it in depth.

-Mike

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Pete McRae <owlsgrease@...>

And, there are more refined Christian teachings that include karma, death and rebirth, etc. Hell is a fairy tale, just like every other myth or story about a god, goddess, saint, monster, or enlightened being. If you like the story, read it, tell it, raise your kids on it, etc. If you don't like it, go to hell.Can anyone tell me where Satanists consign/send people they don't like? Church? Yoga retreat? The Washington lobby of The American Friends Service Committee?
--- On Wed, 11/18/09, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: does this sound familiar?
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 10:22 PM

> i didn't know anyone was discussing which religion is "better". i

> thought we were discussing views of "hell" and karma. islam and

> christianity both consign non believers to hell. i already spoke of

> the fundamentalist view of karma that simplistically equates immoral

> actions with undesireable consequences. i also pointed out the more

> sophisticated buddhist view of dependent arising. if someone would

> like to explain the thinking behind the muslim or christian

> consignment of non-believers to hell i would be most interested.

Sure. It's the same as the Buddhist belief that one has to reach

enlightenment to escape samsara. Christians believe that a part of

this enlightenment is understanding that all of existence is around

for a reason, and that it exists exactly as it should, and that it is

"perfect," although we may not be able to see it that way due to our

limited perspective. They also believe that there is a higher

intelligence out there that sees everything exactly as perfect as it

is, and that is God. And, they also believe that since this God is

perfect, and there's so much shit wrong on earth, that he wouldn't be

perfect unless he had somehow did something to fix it. And they

believe that he did just that by sending Christ to earth and all of

that, and so even though terrible things still happen on Earth, it

symbolizes that all is right with the world "under the surface." So

the Christian view is that understanding all of this is one of the big

milestones along someone's path to enlightenment.

So they believe that if you die without grasping that concept, then

your post-death state will be one of frantic confusion and suffering,

or "hell." Buddhists believe that if you die without reaching

enlightenment, you'll be born again and again until you do. The

discrepancy is mainly one of cosmology.

I'm not going to comment on Islam, as I don't really know too much

about it in depth.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

>Christians believe that a part of
> this enlightenment is understanding that all of existence is around
> for a reason, and that it exists exactly as it should, and that it is
> "perfect," although we may not be able to see it that way due to our
> limited perspective. They also believe that there is a higher
> intelligence out there that sees everything exactly as perfect as it
> is, and that is God. And, they also believe that since this God is
> perfect, and there's so much shit wrong on earth,

hang on, you just said "all...exists exactly as it should, and that it
is perfect". so how could there be anything "wrong"?

>that he wouldn't be
> perfect unless he had somehow did something to fix it.

how can you fix something thats already perfect?

>And they
> believe that he did just that by sending Christ to earth and all of
> that, and so even though terrible things still happen on Earth, it
> symbolizes that all is right with the world "under the surface." So
> the Christian view is that understanding all of this is one of the big
> milestones along someone's path to enlightenment.
>
> So they believe that if you die without grasping that concept, then
> your post-death state will be one of frantic confusion and suffering,
> or "hell."

what does the "god of love" do to alleviate the suffering of those in
this "hell" state? Or can they alleviate it themselves?

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> >Christians believe that a part of
> > this enlightenment is understanding that all of existence is around
> > for a reason, and that it exists exactly as it should, and that it is
> > "perfect," although we may not be able to see it that way due to our
> > limited perspective. They also believe that there is a higher
> > intelligence out there that sees everything exactly as perfect as it
> > is, and that is God. And, they also believe that since this God is
> > perfect, and there's so much shit wrong on earth,
>
> hang on, you just said "all...exists exactly as it should, and that it
> is perfect". so how could there be anything "wrong"?

There's plenty of stuff that seems "wrong" if you just look around
with your eyes and see. The way that this apparent wrongness is
reconciled with the underlying "rightness" of the world is, as
Christians believe, symbolized through Christ, which to them shows
that even the apparent wrongness is alright.

> >that he wouldn't be
> > perfect unless he had somehow did something to fix it.
>
> how can you fix something thats already perfect?

Christians believe that in order for it to be perfect, God would have
had to do something to reconcile the two abovementioned things, and
they believe that he did.

> > So they believe that if you die without grasping that concept, then
> > your post-death state will be one of frantic confusion and suffering,
> > or "hell."
>
> what does the "god of love" do to alleviate the suffering of those in
> this "hell" state? Or can they alleviate it themselves?

You asked me to explain the Christian view on things, and I did. As
there are thousands of "Christian views" on this subject, I picked the
one that to me seemed most rational and advanced out of the lot. I'm
not a practicing Christian myself or a firm adherent of any religion.
Buddhism is the philosophy that I am closest to, but I see no reason
to believe in an infinite series of rebirths any more than there is an
eternal state of "heaven" or "hell" after death.

So you're now enticing me into a debate about the validity of
Christian beliefs, which I don't really feel like getting into.
Especially considering that I am not, in any event, a practicing
Christian.

-Mike

🔗Pete McRae <owlsgrease@...>

Dante,I apologize in advance for lack of a more sure footing on this...but how are maya and suffering inertwined? Are they the same thing? Is "enlightenment" the experience of the "perfection" of the universe? Is freedom "perfect"? Is there a responsibility -and risk- which is the price of freedom? Is redemption different from salvation?As I understand it, to break the iron law of karma is to attain freedom from (death and) rebirth. This is essentially the same as Christian "salvation", again, as well as I can grasp it. (And, I don't suppose you'll encounter it as a teaching in most "organized", ie highly politicized (!) Christian movements.) But it is essentially the same -I believe- as Buddha's compassion. (Again, with apologies for my own sloppy reading.) The story as I have it (and somewhat garbled, again by me) is that God gave human beings free will, and the responsiblity for the consequences of its exercise. When humans had so botched the
situation that it seemed unlikely that they could or would redeem themselves, God chose to undertake to experience first-hand exactly the what the problem might be, and to make His _own_ blood sacrifice for their redemption. The incarnation of God in the Christ being is that sacrifice, by God, for humanity. The suffering of humanity itself then became as a sacrificial offering of humanity to God, expressed in now bloodless ceremonies. The old ways of blood sacrifices had to be superseded. The Mass of bread and wine is that symbol of Christ's blood redeeming the Earth creation spoiled by humanity, in a representation/re-creation of The Last Supper. Again, I might get some flak from certain doctrinaires but...That's the best I can do at the moment for a thumbnail. Hopes it's at least mildly interesting. Thanks!Pete

--- On Thu, 11/19/09, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:

From: Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>
Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: does this sound familiar?
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 11:45 AM

>Christians believe that a part of

> this enlightenment is understanding that all of existence is around

> for a reason, and that it exists exactly as it should, and that it is

> "perfect," although we may not be able to see it that way due to our

> limited perspective. They also believe that there is a higher

> intelligence out there that sees everything exactly as perfect as it

> is, and that is God. And, they also believe that since this God is

> perfect, and there's so much shit wrong on earth,

hang on, you just said "all...exists exactly as it should, and that it

is perfect". so how could there be anything "wrong"?

>that he wouldn't be

> perfect unless he had somehow did something to fix it.

how can you fix something thats already perfect?

>And they

> believe that he did just that by sending Christ to earth and all of

> that, and so even though terrible things still happen on Earth, it

> symbolizes that all is right with the world "under the surface." So

> the Christian view is that understanding all of this is one of the big

> milestones along someone's path to enlightenment.

> So they believe that if you die without grasping that concept, then

> your post-death state will be one of frantic confusion and suffering,

> or "hell."

what does the "god of love" do to alleviate the suffering of those in

this "hell" state? Or can they alleviate it themselves?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>

Hi Pete

>how are maya and suffering inertwined?

maya is a hindu concept that all that we experience is an illusion. If
we take it for reality, then it causes us suffering.

>Are they the same thing?

some dreams are fun.

>Is "enlightenment" the experience of the "perfection" of the universe?

with these kind of questions you have to specify which tradition you
are talking about because they all have different answers. My personal
view is that enlightenment is an ongoing and (hopefully) never ending
process of expansion and exploration.

>Is freedom "perfect"?

truckloads of ink have been spilt over the question of freedom, if we
even have any, and of what kind. there is no consensus.

>Is there a responsibility -and risk- which is the price of freedom? Is redemption different from salvation?As I understand it, to >break the iron law of karma is to attain freedom from (death and) rebirth.

In mahayana Buddhism, the attainment of Buddhahood does release one
from karma and allows one to freely manifest one's self in any world
system (or many simultaneously) for the benefit of other beings. A
nice story. To me all manifestation is dependently arisen, so there is
no "thing" to attain freedom from karma. If anything is truly free,
it is something like the awareness of reading this right now.

>This is essentially the same as Christian "salvation", again, as well as I can grasp it. (And, I don't suppose you'll encounter it as >a teaching in most "organized", ie highly politicized (!) Christian movements.) But it is essentially the same -I believe- as >Buddha's compassion.

In the Dzogchen tradition, the three attributes of the ground of
everything are emptiness, spontaneous arising, and responsiveness
(compassion). these are like axioms, so they simply are. The suffering
of other sentient beings elicits compassion, the more "enlightened"
you are, the more compassionate is your response.

> (Again, with apologies for my own sloppy reading.) The story as I have it (and somewhat garbled, again by me) is that God gave >human beings free will, and the responsiblity for the consequences of its exercise. When humans had so botched the
> situation that it seemed unlikely that they could or would redeem themselves, God chose to undertake to experience first-hand >exactly the what the problem might be, and to make His _own_ blood sacrifice for their redemption. The incarnation of God in the >Christ being is that sacrifice, by God, for humanity. The suffering of humanity itself then became as a sacrificial offering of >humanity to God, expressed in now bloodless ceremonies. The old ways of blood sacrifices had to be superseded. The Mass of >bread and wine is that symbol of Christ's blood redeeming the Earth creation spoiled by humanity, in a representation/re-creation >of The Last Supper. Again, I might get some flak from certain doctrinaires but...That's the best I can do at the moment for a >thumbnail. Hopes it's at least mildly interesting. Thanks!Pete

I cannot comment on the Christian tradition since I have never been
able to make heads or tails of any of it.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

in various msgs, Dante wrote:

> i didn't know anyone was discussing which religion is "better".
> i thought we were discussing views of "hell" and karma. islam
> and christianity both consign non believers to hell.

I'm not aware of a canonical christian view on hell, or the
afterlife in any form. The spectrum of christian belief is
extremely broad, even within your local church, let alone
across the various sects. I know christians who don't believe
in anything much resembling hell, and others who wouldn't
claim to have any idea about an afterlife. The bible doesn't
offer much on the subject, and where it does it often appears
to contradict itself.

One general class of beliefs, to which Mike's explanations
may belong, hold that god wanted to create something in
"his own image", so we are godlike in important ways, among
them that we have free will, and thus we are free to do evil.
The setup is often seen to remedy 'benevolent god' paradoxes --
the ills of human existence are natural consequences of our
choices, and god's hands are largely tied if he wants to
respect our nature. It owes a lot to our experience of
parenting, hence phrases like "God the father" or "all God's
children". The supposed use of human prophets and even Jesus
can be explained as necessary means if god wants to confer
some parental advice under these constraints.

> You ask if it is bad to idolize Buddhism: of course it is,
> and ironically, the Buddha himself (insofar as we know what
> he said) would have agreed.

Yes, I'm aware. Similar ironic fates befell Socrates and
Jesus. Though it's also a common ploy of self-help gurus to
profess their own irrelevance, only to be caught being
relevant somewhat later. Eckart Toll, for example, seems
to have clearly overstepped his own claims of irrelevance.

> He told his students to test everything he said, which is
> what we now call the scientific method.

I think it's safe to say that nothing in Buddhism had any
impact on what we now call the scientific method.

> Where Buddhism really shines (so to speak) is in its centuries
> of collective investigation into consciousness done from a
> first-person perspective.

And what are the key discoveries of this investigation?
Where are they available for public perusal?

I've been asking these question independently for decades.
The "discoveries" seem to either have all been made already
by Buddha. Or else, I'll have to make them myself through
meditation. And I'll either need years of practice in
particular meditation techniques that can only be revealed
to me slowly as I go by accomplished Buddhists. Or else
any devoted meditation will do and good luck.

So my conclusion has been that there aren't any discoveries
at all. I'm willing to change my mind though.

-Carl

🔗Dominique Larre <domilare@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Pete McRae <owlsgrease@...>

Hi Carl,

>> He told his students to test everything he said, which is

>> what we now call the scientific method.

> I think it's safe to say that nothing in Buddhism had any

> impact on what we now call the scientific method.Of course not. Nothing in "subjective" experience has anything to do with "the scientific method". Certainly nothing in experience that calls into question "accepted science" has anything to do with (any?) "scientific method". Does it? And, isn't "the scientific method" about as quaint and childish as The Bible, already?

>> Where Buddhism really shines (so to speak) is in its centuries

>> of collective investigation into consciousness done from a

>> first-person perspective.

> And what are the key discoveries of this investigation?

> Where are they available for public perusal?In the innumerable published accounts of personal "super-sensible" (ie, "spiritual") experiences. All superstition, of course. It might have seemed once as if human sensititvity actually exceeded that of the most elaborate human-manufactured measuring instruments. Not much recently though, eh? Now that science has reached to sub-sub-sub- atomic levels? Why does it seem to keep going "down" instead of "up"? ((;-) But, "sub-harmonics"? No! ;-))My most startling accomplishment lately seems to be that of convincing my guitar students that the "low" strings on their guitars are actually "up" in space, in the most common string arrangement. The literalism (or whatever more scary thing it is than that...) of their consciousness is almost impenetrable, at first. (But they can play the &^%$ out of some video games, you bet!) After a few weeks, or months (!) maybe, they seem get
comfortable with the idea that "up" in pitch on the instrument is actually "down" in space.
Whew! Who would dare to try to turn something like "consciousness" inside-out or
upside-down, nowadays? Who would dare to try to cut the pharmaceuticals out of the depression business? Sorry...

> So my conclusion has been that there aren't any discoveries

> at all. I'm willing to change my mind though.-CarlNo, you shouldn't (change your mind)! Please don't! There are no "discoveries" that are personal AND universal. There is no such thing as human self-knowledge. There is no such thing as "consciousness-raising" outside of partisan politics. It's all a fraud. It's all alchemy and numerology, or worse! Buddha, and Christ, etc. were just 'lucky' paupers (or, rich kid hippies turned "paupers"?) who made the history books, somehow. Probably for some witticisms they couldn't/can't live down. ;-)L,P

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]