10
   

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 08:38 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...
...according to the religious non-dualists and Buddhists here in A2K...without them, there would be no universe.


The Buddha never taught that, "there would be no Universe" if there were no humans. You are misinformed about Buddhism if you think that is correct. I am a Buddhist here on A2K and Buddhists should not believe (because there is no evidence for it) that the Universe requires humans for that purpose.




I was not talking about what the Buddha taught. I am talking about what the non-dualists and Buddhists there in A2K assert or imply.

I've covered that in my reply... I'm not sure why you need to reply as if I didn't?


Well, apparently you did not understand what I wrote in my response.

In any case, I am delighted you feel what the Buddha did or did not write is important and informative...just as I am delighted some people feel what Jesus is reported to have said is important and informative.

I happen to think both groups have gove over-board.
igm
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 09:05 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I happen to think both groups have gove over-board.

This has nothing to do with my reply or the OP. Therefore...




No thanks!


JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 10:54 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Well, apparently you did not understand what I wrote in my response.


That seems to occur in lots of interactions with lots of people, Frank. That seems to be something that should not occur with regular frequency for a skilled editorial writer or a top of the class English guru.

Then what most often follows is you refusing to explain.

That too seems to be something that should not occur with such regular frequency for a skilled editorial writer or a top of the class English guru.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 01:10 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I happen to think both groups have gove over-board.

This has nothing to do with my reply or the OP. Therefore...


[youtube]]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]

No thanks!





I do not understand your reply here.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 01:10 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Well, apparently you did not understand what I wrote in my response.


That seems to occur in lots of interactions with lots of people, Frank. That seems to be something that should not occur with regular frequency for a skilled editorial writer or a top of the class English guru.

Then what most often follows is you refusing to explain.

That too seems to be something that should not occur with such regular frequency for a skilled editorial writer or a top of the class English guru.


http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/vomit.gif
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 04:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
My first post was clear... and correct.
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...
...according to the religious non-dualists and Buddhists here in A2K...without them, there would be no universe.


The Buddha never taught that, "there would be no Universe" if there were no humans. You are misinformed about Buddhism if you think that is correct. I am a Buddhist here on A2K and Buddhists should not believe (because there is no evidence for it) that the Universe requires humans for that purpose.


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jul, 2013 04:32 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

My first post was clear... and correct.
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...
...according to the religious non-dualists and Buddhists here in A2K...without them, there would be no universe.


The Buddha never taught that, "there would be no Universe" if there were no humans. You are misinformed about Buddhism if you think that is correct. I am a Buddhist here on A2K and Buddhists should not believe (because there is no evidence for it) that the Universe requires humans for that purpose.





Please quote where I said the Buddha taught that the Universe requires humans for that purpose...or stop mentioning it to me.

By the way, Marilyn Monroe NEVER mentioned that the letters of the alphabet she hated most were "i" "g" and "m."
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 05:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
igm wrote:

My first post was clear... and correct.

Frank Apisa wrote:

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...
...according to the religious non-dualists and Buddhists here in A2K...without them, there would be no universe.


The Buddha never taught that, "there would be no Universe" if there were no humans. You are misinformed about Buddhism if you think that is correct. I am a Buddhist here on A2K and Buddhists should not believe (because there is no evidence for it) that the Universe requires humans for that purpose.


Frank Apisa wrote:

Please quote where I said the Buddha taught that the Universe requires humans for that purpose...or stop mentioning it to me.

Why would I need to? I never said you did say, "the Buddha taught that the Universe requires humans for that purpose". Please also notice the 'if' in my reply which is therefore not accusatory... and I can of course mention something as many times as feel is necessary... without permission to do so.

You do realize that science is fundamentally - non-dual.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 05:29 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

igm wrote:

My first post was clear... and correct.

Frank Apisa wrote:

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...
...according to the religious non-dualists and Buddhists here in A2K...without them, there would be no universe.


The Buddha never taught that, "there would be no Universe" if there were no humans. You are misinformed about Buddhism if you think that is correct. I am a Buddhist here on A2K and Buddhists should not believe (because there is no evidence for it) that the Universe requires humans for that purpose.


Frank Apisa wrote:

Please quote where I said the Buddha taught that the Universe requires humans for that purpose...or stop mentioning it to me.

Why would I need to? I never said you did say, "the Buddha taught that the Universe requires humans for that purpose". Please also notice the 'if' in my reply which is therefore not accusatory... and I can of course mention something as many times as feel is necessary... without permission to do so.

You do realize that science is fundamentally - non-dual.


You originally wrote:

Quote:
The Buddha never taught that, "there would be no Universe" if there were no humans. You are misinformed about Buddhism if you think that is correct.


You obviously were suggesting that I had said that was the case.

Under any circumstances...I do not care what the Buddha taught or said and I am not sure why "what the Buddha" taught or said is so important to folk like you...other than for the same reason that what Jesus supposedly said and taught is important to Christians.

I have no problems with your "beliefs" or guesses about REALITY.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 05:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:


Frank Apisa wrote:

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...
...according to the religious non-dualists and Buddhists here in A2K...without them, there would be no universe.


You originally wrote:

Quote:
The Buddha never taught that, "there would be no Universe" if there were no humans. You are misinformed about Buddhism if you think that is correct. I am a Buddhist here on A2K and Buddhists should not believe (because there is no evidence for it) that the Universe requires humans for that purpose.


You obviously were suggesting that I had said that was the case.


If you accuse a Buddhist of something then you infer that the Buddha taught it. I merely pointed out that the Buddha did not teach it. So I am obviously not suggesting that you said that was the case. Why would I accuse you of anything... there is no need as you completely misunderstand Buddhism... and that's a fact.

You do realize that science is fundamentally non-dual?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 05:55 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:


Frank Apisa wrote:

THANK HUMANS THERE ARE HUMANS, BECAUSE...
...according to the religious non-dualists and Buddhists here in A2K...without them, there would be no universe.


You originally wrote:

Quote:
The Buddha never taught that, "there would be no Universe" if there were no humans. You are misinformed about Buddhism if you think that is correct. I am a Buddhist here on A2K and Buddhists should not believe (because there is no evidence for it) that the Universe requires humans for that purpose.


You obviously were suggesting that I had said that was the case.


If you accuse a Buddhist of something then you infer that the Buddha taught it. I merely pointed out that the Buddha did not teach it. So I am obviously not suggesting that you said that was the case. Why would I accuse you of anything... there is no need as you completely misunderstand Buddhism... and that's a fact.

You do realize that science is fundamentally non-dual?


Yeah...lots of Buddhists suggest that anyone who does not buy into Buddhism...simply misunderstands it.

Lots of Buddhists also suggest it is not a religion...but it is.

Respectfully as possible, igm, I think it more probable that most Buddhists misunderstand Buddhism more than those of us here on the outside of the religion.

Not sure what you mean that science is fundamentally non-dual...so obviously I cannot say that I do "realize" it.

However, I am willing to listen to your rationalization of that comment.

igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 06:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
I refer you to my opening post.

I can't talk to you about Buddhism because you haven't ever shown you would understand anything I have to say on the subject and you have no interest in it... other than the occasional misinformed snipe at Buddhists (you've mention no names in this thread and that say something about you Frank) that post on A2k.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 06:32 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

I refer you to my opening post.


I just re-read your opening post. What was it I was supposed to see?

Quote:
I can't talk to you about Buddhism because you haven't ever shown you would understand anything I have to say on the subject and you have no interest in it...


But you ARE talking to me about it...so why say that you "can't?"

Buddhism to me essentially is a gigantic appeal to authority. "The Buddha taught..." gets boring. Who the hell is the Buddha or you to claim that the Buddha is somehow "enlightened"...and has reasonable answers to difficult questions?


Quote:
...other than the occasional misinformed snipe at Buddhists (you've mention no names in this thread and that say something about you Frank) that post on A2k.


I acknowledge that I do take an occasional shot at Buddhism...but compared with some of the stuff thrown here, I do not really get close to the line, let alone "over it." I laugh at some of the Christianity shots; I laugh at some 0f the atheists shots; I laugh at some of the agnostic shots...and I laugh at some of the Buddhist shots.

Lighten up. Some of the stuff is funny and clever.

The rest of this final comment of yours is almost unintelligable. What were you attempting to say?


igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 06:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
Your OP has nothing to do with Buddhism... so try to leave Buddhists out of your fluff...

The rest of what you've said is not backed up by anything substantive as usual... and therefore I have nothing more to say until you backup your statements against Buddhism with a reasoned argument.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 07:39 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Your OP has nothing to do with Buddhism... so try to leave Buddhists out of your fluff...

The rest of what you've said is not backed up by anything substantive as usual... and therefore I have nothing more to say until you backup your statements against Buddhism with a reasoned argument.


I consider Buddhism to be nothing more than an appeal to authority...and I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.

If that is not "reasoned" enough for you...I suggest you keep your promise not say anything more.

If you do say more...I will assume you did find it to be both "reasoned" and persuasive.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 10:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jul, 2013 10:54 am
@Frank Apisa,
Now didn't I just recently mention this, Frank. Right behind your post and right in front, are folks that don't find your editorial writing skills to be quite as sharp as your profile suggests.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 08:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I consider Buddhism to be nothing more than an appeal to authority...and I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.

I disagree.

1. How do you know that, "Buddhism to be nothing more than an appeal to authority"?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Buddha taught the opposite:

This is one of the best if not the best Buddha quotes. It sets the tone for what Shakyamuni is really saying.

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."

"Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion."

"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."

- The Buddha


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. How do you know that, "Buddhists are pretentious guessers"? Give at least one example.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 08:38 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I consider Buddhism to be nothing more than an appeal to authority...and I consider Buddhists to be, for the most part, pretentious guessers.

I disagree.


Fine. That is your right.

Quote:
1. How do you know that, "Buddhism to be nothing more than an appeal to authority"?


An appeal to authority essentially is saying that because so-and-so said such-and-such...it must be correct.

You Buddhists do that all the time. So I use the term "appeal to authority."

In fact, your next comment is such an appeal:

Quote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Buddha taught the opposite:


Quote:
This is one of the best if not the best Buddha quotes. It sets the tone for what Shakyamuni is really saying.

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."


Wouldn't it be great if a few Buddhists actually started following that advice.

Quote:

"Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion."


Great advice, Frank Apisa in A2K.

Quote:
"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."

- The Buddha [/i]


Not bad advice at all...the Frank Apisa in A2K.



Quote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. How do you know that, "Buddhists are pretentious guessers"? Give at least one example.




Igm.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jul, 2013 08:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
You seem to agree with what the Buddha had to say. He does not teach that one should rely on authority when contemplating his teachings.

igm wrote:

How do you know that, "Buddhists are pretentious guessers"? Give at least one example.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Igm.

That's not an example... you'll need to give an example of igm making a pretentious guess... and saying it is Buddhism.. or... just an example of a pretentious guess not being attributed to Buddhism (I don't believe that will count as an example though).
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 03:31:32