Man, komm mal wieder auf den Teppich. It was a Chinese Buddhist Chan monastery where they had scrolls with Chinese Buddhist teachings written by monks like those sitting in such monasteries - and you make it a civil rights case, basing on a superpedantic bean-counting thinking separated from the events by 12 hundred years. It was an educational demonstration and/or a display of Hui Neng's enlightenment in the meaning that he had broken through to an understanding of how limited all word-making necessarily always is. And you make it a bureaucratic formality of today's standards.

That is hilarious!

He did not enter that palce of worship, because he already lived there, the story goes. He was a helper in the kitchen, was somewhat too unadapted, nevertheless the abbot was aware of his potential and gave him permission to stay, and gave him separate teaching lessons. When he had Satori, he stormed out of the abbot's room and into the library. And no, the abbot was not angry. He confirmed his enligthenment instead.

And you think it was a culture clash, eh? Another Zen story given for educational illustration goes like this. The abbot sits on a small path at a mneadow, when a working monk comes along with a wheelbarrow. "Please, master, move your feet slightly to the side, so that I have room to pass", he asked. The abbot said "What rests, one should lket rest". The monk replied "And what rolls one should let roll", and rolled the wheelbarrow right over the abbot's feet. As far as I recall, the abbot on that day declared this moink to have fpound enlightenment. - You probably only see the act of physical assault in this, and form a law case of it.

I do not expect somebody who knows nothing about Zen to have an immediate understanding of why so much appears as absurd and counterintuitve in Zen and its tradition. You cannot understand that from all start on if it is all new to you. But what leaves me stunned is the narrow mind that tries to reduce it to materialistic acts of bureaucratic, formal meaning exslcusively. You see, all other people I told these stories asked "I do not understand, what is it aboiut, why did he do it, isn'ÄT that absdurd?" You file a comlaint at the court and think that is all about it. that illustrates an extremely minimilastic and reductionistic mindset, I would say, probably one that cannot even imagine the chance that something could be any different than what that mind already has decidced to take as the only possible option for defining how things can be - it'S own interpretation, that is.

Seen that way, your reaction is truly unique.

But what appears as absurd and illogical in Zen, has only this as a goal: to break apart right this thinking pattern, to push the student beyond the limits of right this kind of thinking that makes him believe that his ego is the master of the world. Breaking through the narrow, limited scope of the dualistic and polarising ordinary mindset that is the cause of all the conflicts we get ourselves entangled in. To give up judging, and for a start leave it to witnessing. It is a difference whether you say: "I don't like that woman in the street, that hilarious dress she wears, isn'T it impossible! Somebody really should have a qword with her about it", or whether you say "I see that women over there, she is dressed in that dress that really catches attention because of X, Y, and Z, and now she is heading for the busstop." - The first already emotionally rants, and reacts by habit without n ot being aware that it is habit controlling your reaction, and you start with already judging. The latter is just a sober witness report. Who of the two illustrates the mindset that is more free, independent, autonomous and sober? Which of thre two has the greater chance to rersult in you not dpoing harm to the overall situation, and if you act in the the context of this situation, has you acting on the basis ob fairtness and objectivity? Are you more free if you are controlled by habits that you leave unquestioned, and that you are not aware of, or by being reflective about yourself?

I offer no beliefs, although you have chosen with iron determination to claim the opposite, and by that distort reality for you do not want to deal with what I indeed really say. I do not even explkain the content of any such belief of my own that you claim I hold. All I do is two things: I ask questions on the nature of mental processes and our assumntpions about things, and I try to explain the working mode, the m,odus operandi, by which I am aware I construct the reality I prefer to live in. A working method, and the result of a working process, are two totally different things.

You can claim as often as you want that I believe this or that, and that I am a believer of "my things". Endless repetition as the only argument coming fro m you, does not makje a false statement of yours any less wrong. As I see it, what I tried to desribe is too alien from what you are used to, and it is so new and different from what you are used to take for the common way that you simply rtefuse to acept that it nevertheless does exist. Your modus operandi in other words is this: "It should not be so it cannot be, and thus I cut of some here, and add some things there, until it fits the schemes I am used to. Afterwards, I judge the result (that is my result and not the original source) by the standards I am used to."

A total confusion. ;) And form of fanatism that is extremely resistent to any form of influencing it, and that labels any act of defence against it as an aggression by the victim.

Scripture believers. Pffft. They often have burned infidels. I prefer to burn instead said scriptures that makes them that insane. In Cairo and Libya, a mob of blind hysterics running on lower instincts that got set aflame again, have stormed US diplomatic missions, a US envoy or ambassador was murdered. Over scripture.

I think Skybird's sikanautajauheliha is very hyppykeppi, but on the other hand August has a great karpalovadelmamehu. They both have their laatikkopiironkipöytä very puolijoukkueteltta but I'm still wondering if suihkumoottoriturbiini. In any case, it sure seems that Aku Ankalla on punainen auto. Correct?

Don't talk to me about murder. On this very forum you have advocated deliberately murdering the innocent children of Burmese generals in order to force them to allow more political freedom in their country.

That sir is the mark of a Zealot and in my eyes it makes you no better than the fanatics who stormed our embassies.

Absolutely. :har:

Wondering about that too. Perhaps lentokonesuihkuturbiinimoottoriapumekaanikkoaliups eerioppilas?

Well now you're just being näkkileipä. :stare:

careful August you will be put back on his ignore list yet again.
You know what you say about people who get put on ignore lists.:haha:

Good post though.

I actually went and looked most of that up. :har:

May the Schwartz be with you.........

And ryvita with you

Ukko is going to smite you, heathen mansikkahillo people!

So abstract, yet so effective.

This is Salvador Dali of thread derailment :o

Ahh tribesmen...your bacon fu is still impressive.
Enjoy.

Muhummad Ali

Moro Dowly & Hottentott! :salute:

Kirjoitatte hyvin ruotsia tässä kierre! :O:

*ducks from flying puukkos*

Wo ich kaufe Lederhosen kann, das vom realen Schnurrbarthaar gebildet wird? :hmmm:

Mein Esel ist tot, you see. :-?

Nice attempt. But what for? There is no medal you can win here. So when you run out of argument, why don'T you just shut up, instead of trying cheats and defame others by intentionally misquoting them, giving yourself a bad name that way as a cheater. I recall that thread, it was years ago, it had nothing to do with the issue here, and I made a very different point back then than what you now imply in an attempt to give me bad name. But why caring for such subtleties when lies serve your purpose so much better.

I take from this desperate stunt that you have no more arguments to defend your confusion and that you ran out of knowledge on what is being talked about in this thread.


---



For the record, in a years ago ago thread about Burma I said that tyrants most likely educate their children in the same spirit they act by themselves, so that their children, when being grown up, do like their fathers; so in order to make tyrants like in Burma giving up their tyranny it could be considered legal to threaten their families or when upprise of th epeople occurs it may not be sufficient to justg kill the tyrant, but his offpsrings as well since else they will survive and bring back conflict later in a bid to regain what their fathers have lost. I also said, I think in a different thread at that time, that when it comes to weighing the fate of millions against the fate of a few, threatening the families of tyrants in order to make them give up their power can be considered a valid option. Compare to for exmaple the defence in some states for shooting down hijacked passanger planes, sacrificing the few in order to save the many on the ground. A policy that August's country subscribes to, btw, both regarding hijacked planes and collateral damages caused by drone warfare as well - the ratio the US finds acceptable between killed valid targets and collateral losses, rates higher than 1:10.

Why August linked a discussion on Chan buddhism and psychology to Burmese tyrant'S families instead of mentioning the shooting order for hijacked planes or the high rate of collateral losses by drone warfare, and why he thinks any of this has anything to do with an eplanation of the thinking frame of Chan buddhism, will remain his own secret. You could as well answer with "Blue" when somebody asks you for the time.

No, I have stated my position on this quite clearly I think. Unlike you I don't have to resort to typing several pages of voluminous backpedaling and fake outrage just because someone calls you on a simple point about vandalism.

As I said at the time maybe that's a "valid option" in Skybirds world but it's not in the world of the sane. The very fact that you feel it is ok to commit these crimes tells us a lot about you, and let me say it's not a very flattering viewpoint.

I, too, remember this discussion, and August is correct. Your assertion that the spilling of the blood of innocents in a 'just crusade' is a service of justicie is humanly cold, and ethically reprehensible. I am sorry, but you will have to own those remarks.

He did it becuase it is reference to the mindset of an adherent to a particular philosophy. For you, nearly any collateral damage is permissible so long as the means to end are met. This is a dangerous view. This, contrary to your statement, has everything to do with the issue at hand. There is no misquote inherent. You claim there is in your first paragraph, but then concede this in your third. Inconsistency indeed.

And for emphasis:

As does your's and every other nation on earth. The self-preservation of nation-states is universal. Pointing out the stick in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own is not virtuous.

I do not deny that somethign was said by me at that time. I deny that it was like you and Augiust make it appear now. I also deny that it was that context-less as you and August now claim it was.

Quoting out of context and by that distort what somebody said and give it a bad twist is one of the often committed sins in this forum, and August is one of the most prominent masters of this art. But it is cheating, it is rude rethoric tricking. It is the reason why I had him on the ignore list for so long.

Another example for what I - so often in these years - complained about:

You could also foul-name me by saying that "Skybird wants nuclear wars". In a way it is correct that I expressed something like that - but it is also wrong. I did not talk about general nuclear war and nuking other states at random will. The point is,I said I will carefully selected nuclear strikes with mini-nukes agfainst certain ultra-hardened Iranian key componnents that now are driven deep inside mountains, for I doubt these can be reached and destroyed by any conventional ammuntiion anymore. Sopmebody once "auoted" me with that I want tio nuke cities. This I never said. And I also never spoke out in favour of anything like an arbitrary conflict anywhere on the globe being turned into a nuclear war at the first possible opportunity. So, you can refer to me and say I do not rule out nuclkear strikes in prinicple when it comes to Iran, or the Pakistani weapon stiocks beiung ijn danger to fall into terrorist hands. But when you do not mention the context in which I said that, and when you are not precise regarding what I really said, then you intneitonally distort what I said, hoping to score an easy rehtoric victory without having to care for an argument .

What it comes down to is that August runs by a method - also in discussions with others that turn angry - of that just anything is allowed if somebody opposes his views and he runs out of reasonable arguments. He then draws it to the personal level, very often. Note that his last post to me to which I answered did not include any argument on the matter of this thread at all, and he also did not refer to anything I tried to explain to him, when I saw that it was new stuff for him. It was just an attempted defamation on the basis of a distorted quote, and more it never was meant to be. That's cheap. The only forum members I remember to exceed his excellence in doing so, are Tribesman, and Subman1. Although Tribesman, last time I read him (and that is a long time ago), was camping in a very different opinion camp, by method he and August operate by the same standards.

In the end, Tak, August does not like when religions get rejected in their claim to be granted special rights and special freedoms and special exceptions from general rules to which everybody else is being subjected by law. And you do not like that rejection, too. But religious people like you should ask themselves why you claim the right to push your freedoms at the cost of others who not only not share your belief, but also claim the right to not be bothered by you practicing it. And this is where I compare to the neighbour in the flat beside your appartement, the one running his radio too loud. I refuse to accept that whenever he becomes npoisy with it, I need to go there and knock his door and friendly or angrily tell him to turn his damn music silent so that I am not forced to share his loife and radio program. I insist that people all by themselves play thaeir damn radios in such a manner that their neighbours must not be bothered in the first. But religious missionaries - and there are many here on this board - do not accept that and think their freedom to act as they want is more precious and valid than that of others not wanting to get bothered by them. It is ab out double standards. Priviliged standards for relgious ones, and infidels, or wqorse: atheists, are expected to accept taking the longer road, to give room, to fall back. And when they don't and refuse to buy bull and insist their freedom is not of less value than that of relgious people - then they get called the aggressors and the intolerant ones. But looking at the special rights granted to religions already the many exceptions from laws, taxes, jurisdiction, the special status they can act on in society and public sectors like education and health, it is hardly convincing to claim that religions are "under attack" and are the victims of evil atheist being on the march. That is a classical projection - to accuse others of what one is practicing oneself.

Leave relgion to thyself. Yur porcious opersonal beleif is just this: private. Where you turn it to the public, you turn your religion into politics, anbd yourself you turn ionto an aggressor. Whjat you see as your idol, and your relation as you define it, is an intimate thing between it and you. Dont' bother the world with it. You have no right to demand the world nedding to take note of it,k catring for it, accepting to give you special status because of it. Your freedoms end where you start to limit the freedom of others. Your claim to be peaceful turns into a lie where you expect the other to react to your advance, may it be that the other should tell you he does not want to deal with you, may it be that the other should evade so that you have your way, may it be that you demand entrance into education and law-making on the grounds of your religion. Where you expect the other to behave lime this, you are the agressor.

And that is what I bare my fangs about. I do not want to tell my neighbour time and again to turn down his ****ing radio - i de,mand him to take care all by himself tha he does not turn it up too much from all start on. Don'T bother me, and I don'T bother you. Start to push me, and the more I push back, increasingly angry. It'S so easy to coexist and live peacefully with me, door by door. Some call it the Golden Rule. I call it reciprocity.