Which Crowd Do You Belong To?

[theeKultleeder]

How paradoxical to attempt the slaying of a man who wished harm on no one, and yet, it is very much in alignment with what I understand about Buddhism. Bear with me here; I'm not an expert.

In the Kalama Sutta Buddha says, "Do not accept anything because it comes from the mouth of a respected person. Rather, observe closely and if it is to the benefit of all, accept and abide by it." Buddhism is a spiritual path that most in the Judeo Christian faith find difficult to understand. Buddhism really doesn't follow any belief structure as stringent as that of Christianity or Islam.

The Buddha taught that you were supposed to free yourself from the shackles of what you have been led to believe is true and accept that which you understand from empirical knowledge. Buddhism is built upon observation and the rebuttal of faith in tradition. The Judeo-Christian sects are built upon blind faith in the face of observed events. You would never catch a Buddhist handling a poisonous snake to prove his piety.

Zen Master Lin Chi spoke thus, "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet a Patriarch, kill the Patriarch." Lin Chi isn't condoning murder, he is using a metaphor to explain the nature of Buddhism. Don't believe what some one says, no matter how holy they are, just because they say it. Listen to their words and then explore them yourself.... Kill Buddha.

Dae Kwang "Kill the Buddha" 1997, Providence Zen Center, http://www.kwanumzen.com/pzc/newsletter ... uddha.html

Materialism is nothing new:

In Ancient Indian philosophy, materialism developed around 600 BCE with the works of Ajita Kesakambali, Payasi, Kanada, and the proponents of the Carvaka school of philosophy. Kanada was one of the early proponents of atomism. The Nyaya-Vaisesika school (600 BCE - 100 BCE) developed one of the earliest forms of atomism. The tradition was carried forward by Buddhist atomism and the Jaina school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

"...The Buddhists denied the existence of substantial matter altogether. Movement consists for them of moments, it is a staccato movement, momentary flashes of a stream of energy... "Everything is evanescent“,... says the Buddhist, because there is no stuff... Both systems [Sānkhya, and later Indian Buddhism] share in common a tendency to push the analysis of Existence up to its minutest, last elements which are imagined as absolute qualities, or things possessing only one unique quality. They are called “qualities” (guna-dharma) in both systems in the sense of absolute qualities, a kind of atomic, or intra-atomic, energies of which the empirical things are composed. Both systems, therefore, agree in denying the objective reality of the categories of Substance and Quality,… and of the relation of Inference uniting them. There is in Sānkhya philosophy no separate existence of qualities. What we call quality is but a particular manifestation of a subtle entity. To every new unit of quality corresponds a subtle quantum of matter which is called guna “quality”, but represents a subtle substantive entity. The same applies to early Buddhism where all qualities are substantive… or, more precisely, dynamic entities, although they are also called dharmas ('qualities')." (Stcherbatsky 1962 (1930). Vol. 1. P. 19).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_atomism

Which crowd do you belong to?

The autokinetic effect is a phenomenon of human visual perception in which a stationary, small point of light in an otherwise dark or featureless environment appears to move...

Individual observers set their own frames of reference to judge amplitude (and possibly direction). Because the phenomenon is labile, it has been used to show the effects of social influence or suggestion on judgements. For example, if an observer who would otherwise say the light is moving one foot overhears another observer say the light is moving one yard then the first observer will report that the light moved one yard. Discovery of the influence of suggestion on the autokinetic effect is often attributed to Sherif (1935), but it was recorded by Adams (1912), if not others.

Many sightings of UFOs have also been attributed to the autokinetic effect's action on stars or planets.

[Doodad]

Crowds drool.

[Crow]

Wonderful post.

[H_C_E]

Worthy post.

Funny reaction.

Fug's First Law: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.

Firesign Theatre sez: Eveything you know is wrong.
They also said something about not crushing dwarves so what could they possibly know...

HCE

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

What is the fascination with perception not necessarily being an accurate reflection of surroundings?

Just because the brain can be confused or attempt to make over-reaching connections doesn't mean there isn't material around it creating stimuli. Or material WITHIN it creating stimuli.

If your software is slow or glitches or crashes do you say it or the computer hardware isn't really there unless the software is perfect?

I have a great book on hypnosis from 1900 by Dr. Duncan Quackenbos of Columbia University called 'Hypnotism In Mental and Moral Culture.' He thinks he can cure criminals and the mentally ill with suggestion and has some success but not as much as he wants.
Still, for 1900, he's working the equivalent of magic for some desperate people.

I wonder if Groucho Marx got his Dr. Quackenbush character's name from this guy.

[orz]

What is the fascination with perception not necessarily being an accurate reflection of surroundings?

The fact that it's an interesting idea that's undeniably true to some extent?

[Doodad]

What is the fascination with perception not necessarily being an accurate reflection of surroundings?

Do you have a few centuries?

Short answer, it's Freudian. The nexus of neurotic and spiritual/new age or whatever is obvious.

[Pele'sDaughter]

What is the fascination with perception not necessarily being an accurate reflection of surroundings?

Perception is a function of awareness. Do we see people who are going through the motions but with no awareness of what they're actually doing or why?

[theeKultleeder]

What is the fascination with perception not necessarily being an accurate reflection of surroundings?

Do you have a few centuries?

Short answer, it's Freudian. The nexus of neurotic and spiritual/new age or whatever is obvious.

This is something you could follow up on. Please? I suppose you're referring to some kind of denial of death. Well, that's funny, because in earlier Buddhism one meditates on the stages of decay of a corpse. In later Buddhism one trains in death. The Tantrics have a whole list of subjective symptoms that accompany the stages of death. It is biologically based introspective data. One trains in death in order to maintain conscious wakefulness during the process. An analogue is leaning to do the same thing during the stages of sleep so one may dream lucidly.

The "Buddhist atomists" managed to come up with a highly accurate description of sub-atomic particle behavior long before any one thought of a microscope or a particle smasher. To me, that discovery of the hidden by naked awareness is fascinating.

Doodad, if you're going to start analyzing people, please develop a sense of humor beyond the reflexive/defensive.

[Doodad]

What is the fascination with perception not necessarily being an accurate reflection of surroundings?

Do you have a few centuries?

Short answer, it's Freudian. The nexus of neurotic and spiritual/new age or whatever is obvious.

This is something you could follow up on. Please? I suppose you're referring to some kind of denial of death. Well, that's funny, because in earlier Buddhism one meditates on the stages of decay of a corpse. In later Buddhism one trains in death. The Tantrics have a whole list of subjective symptoms that accompany the stages of death. It is biologically based introspective data. One trains in death in order to maintain conscious wakefulness during the process. An analogue is leaning to do the same thing during the stages of sleep so one may dream lucidly.

The "Buddhist atomists" managed to come up with a highly accurate description of sub-atomic particle behavior long before any one thought of a microscope or a particle smasher. To me, that discovery of the hidden by naked awareness is fascinating.

Doodad, if you're going to start analyzing people, please develop a sense of humor beyond the reflexive/defensive.

Who have I analized? I merely pointed out a "nexus," a connection. Are you suggesting that is inappropriate in a discussion? I doubt you are given your prior posts so wtf is going on?

Denial of death was not the point btw but what Freud said about religion

While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possession of the truth, in our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded. Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race. Its consolations deserve no trust. Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery. The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundation instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilised individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /freud.htm

[Pele'sDaughter]

Don't believe what some one says, no matter how holy they are, just because they say it. Listen to their words and then explore them yourself.... Kill Buddha.

Compare with:

Adapted from "The Voice of Knowledge" by don Miguel Ruiz, published by Amber-Allen.

Before we were born, a whole society of storytellers was already here. The storytellers who were here before us taught us how to be human. First they told us what we are-a boy or a girl-then they told us who we are, and who we should or shouldn't be. They taught us how to be a woman or how to be a man. They told us to be a proper woman, a decent woman, a strong man, a brave man. They gave us a name, and they told us the role we would play in their story. They prepared us to live in the human jungle, to compete with one another, to impose our will, to fight against our own kind. They filled us with knowledge, and of course we believed them. From the storytellers around us, we learned how to create our own story.
By exploring the story that we create, I discovered that the story has a voice. You can call it "thinking" if you want. I call it "the voice of knowledge" because it's telling you everything you know. It's always trying to make sense out of everything. That voice is always there. It never stops. It's not even real, but you hear it. You can say, "Well, it's me. I'm the one who is talking." But if you are the voice that is talking, then who is listening?

The voice of knowledge can also be called the liar who lives in your head. The liar speaks in your language, but your spirit, the truth, has no language. You just know truth; you feel it. The voice of your spirit tries to come out, but the voice of the liar is stronger and louder and it hooks your attention almost all of the time. You hear the voice, and what is it telling you? "Look at you. Who do you think you are? You will never make it. You aren't smart enough. Why should I try? Nobody understands me. How can I be happy when millions of people are dying of starvation?"

That voice is usually lying because it's the voice of what you have learned, and you have learned so many lies, mainly about yourself. The voice of knowledge can come from your own head, or it can come from people around you, but your emotional reaction to that voice is telling you, "I'm being abused." Every time we judge ourselves, find ourselves guilty, and punish ourselves, it's because the voice in our head is telling us lies. Every time we have a conflict with our parents, our children, or our beloved, it's because we believe in lies, and they believe in them, too.

But it's not just that. When we believe in lies, we cannot see the truth, so we make thousands of assumptions and we take them as truth. One of the biggest assumptions we make is that the lies we believe are the truth! For example, we believe that we know what we are. When we get angry we say, "Oh, that's the way I am." When we get jealous: "Oh, that's the way I am." But is this true? I'm not sure about that. I used to make the assumption that I was the one who said all those things that I didn't want to say. It was a big surprise when I discovered that it was not me; it was the way I learned to be. And I practiced and practiced until I mastered that performance.


Two thousand years ago one of the greatest masters said, "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Free from what? From the storyteller who lives in your head and talks to you all the time. I no longer have that voice in my head, and I can assure you that it's wonderful. When the voice in your head finally stops talking, you experience inner peace.

That voice has been in control of your head for so many years, and no, it won't give up just because you want it to leave you alone. But at least you can challenge it by not believing what it tells you. If you follow these two rules, all the lies that come from the voice of knowledge won't survive your skepticism and will simply disappear.

Rule number one: Don't believe yourself. Listen to your story, but don't believe it because now you know that it's mostly fiction. When you hear the voice in your head, don't take it personally. You know that it's usually lying to you. Listen and ask if it's speaking the truth or not. Lies can only survive if you believe them. If you don't believe your own lies, you can make better choices based on truth.

Rule number two: Don't believe anybody else. You know that if you lie to yourself, surely other people lie to themselves. And if they lie to themselves, they will lie to you also. When people talk, you have no idea if what they are saying is coming from their heart or from the liar who lives in their head. Listen to other people tell their story, but don't believe them. You know that it's just a story that is only true for them, but listen because the communication can be wonderful.

You can change your life by refusing to believe your own lies. Start with the main lies that limit the expression of your happiness and your love. If you take your faith away from the lies, they lose their power over you. Then you can recover your faith and invest it in different beliefs. If you stop believing in lies, your whole life changes just like magic. You will be free of fear, drama, and conflict. This is the absolute truth, and I cannot put it more simply than that.



http://www.beliefnet.com/story/151/story_15176.html

[theeKultleeder]

Who have I analized? I merely pointed out a "nexus," a connection. Are you suggesting that is inappropriate in a discussion? I doubt you are given your prior posts so wtf is going on?

Denial of death was not the point btw but what Freud said about religion

While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possession of the truth, in our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded. Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race. Its consolations deserve no trust. Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery. The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundation instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilised individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /freud.htm

Cool. What is he basing his opinion, his belief, on there? A flawed and primitive understanding of traditions outside of his own debased monotheism? I honestly can't detect a trace of scholarship in the above passage. It sounds like a reaction-formation against his own stifling contemporary culture. I can't blame him.

But you miss the main point of my rebuttal - sorry to put you on the defensive again. A problem with undertaking contemplative practices is that you have to do them to find out whether or not they work, kind of like an experiment. So, if you haven't had the experiences that dedicated practitioners report, neither you nor Freud are qualified to make blanket statements about the practices.

Looks like objective, scientific types have their in-groups and out-groups, too.

[Doodad]

Who have I analized? I merely pointed out a "nexus," a connection. Are you suggesting that is inappropriate in a discussion? I doubt you are given your prior posts so wtf is going on?

Denial of death was not the point btw but what Freud said about religion

While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possession of the truth, in our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded. Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race. Its consolations deserve no trust. Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery. The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundation instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilised individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /freud.htm

Cool. What is he basing his opinion, his belief, on there? A flawed and primitive understanding of traditions outside of his own debased monotheism? I honestly can't detect a trace of scholarship in the above passage. It sounds like a reaction-formation against his own stifling contemporary culture. I can't blame him.

But you miss the main point of my rebuttal - sorry to put you on the defensive again. A problem with undertaking contemplative practices is that you have to do them to find out whether or not they work, kind of like an experiment. So, if you haven't had the experiences that dedicated practitioners report, neither you nor Freud are qualified to make blanket statements about the practices.

Looks like objective, scientific types have their in-groups and out-groups, too.

I seldom am on the defensive. Don't project.

The sorry old pseudo you're an Orientalist BS posited in an argument that one can't argue outside their culture is belied by the fact that wherever we are born, no matter the culture, we spend time in a womb, struggle through the birth canal and then are parented by a father with more muscles and a huge penis and a mother, bla bla. The experience is primal and universal despite any local traditions which will of course affect the final psychology. Freud was not a monotheist btw equating all religion as bogus. As far as scholarship, the speech was to a group of peers who would of course know his scholarship.

And what makes you think I haven't "DONE," them? At 56 years of age, I've "done," a few things on my trip to geezerhood. lol

[Telexx]

Sickman Fraud was virtually wrong on everything.

Thanks,

Telexx

[theeKultleeder]

The sorry old pseudo you're an Orientalist BS posited in an argument that one can't argue outside their culture

Who argued that? I said if you haven't undertaken a subjective practice you can't be qualified to comment on the effects.

The experience is primal and universal despite any local traditions which will of course affect the final psychology.

So is non-conceptual awareness, but you have to experience it in the waking state. It is not to be underestimated or theorized about. As an aside, it seems to be interpreted by local cultural memes in much the same way the biological experiences you mention are.

Freud was not a monotheist btw equating all religion as bogus. As far as scholarship, the speech was to a group of peers who would of course know his scholarship.

He was wired into the monotheist culture, from which most anti-religious sentiment comes. Again, I can't blame him.

And "equating all religion as bogus," certainly shows to the critical thinkers here how infantile and semi-formed Freud's own thinking was. Apples=oranges? I think not.

And what makes you think I haven't "DONE," them?

For the sake of civility I won't answer.