Bush intel?
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:11:00 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:47:54 GMT, escapee wrote: (snip) You gave me one example of your belief of his lying, but he didn't lie. No, he just "selectively told the truth". That's even better than outright lying. If he is so glaringly lying, there'd be a lot more on the tip of your tongue. It wouldn't be a labor to find the lies in your mind. They'd be right up there. If you think Michael Moore is dishonest, you have to come up with a lot more than an opinion to convince me. You didn't see Fahrenheit 9-11, yet, you say he is dishonest in it. Interesting. Nope. Read my post again. I didn't see Farenheit 9/11, yet, I say he is dishonest. Got it? If you can quote me saying he's dishonest in Farenheit 9/11, go for it. I'm usually more careful than that. If I had to guess, I'd probably guess it's full of blatant lies, half-lies, and "selective truths", along with lies of omission, but since I don't have to guess, I'll just go with what I do know. I know he lacks integrity. But all you came up with is one example, and not a very convincing one, either. I need much more to convince me someone is telling fibs, lies, selective truths, or lies of omission. You have given me no good examples. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
Bush intel?
I feel sorry for you. You have quite an angry life.
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat) opined: Clearly I do know more, but that needn't mean I know very much. You can pretend to quote the Dalai Lama off the top of your head, but you're bullshitting & you know it. Here's an ACTUAL quote of the Dalai Lama XIV, on the topic of whether or not the Virgin Mary is a Goddess: "Whenever I see an image of Mary, I feel that she represents love and compassion. She is like a symbol of love. Within Buddhist iconography, the Goddess Tara occupies a similar position" [Dalai Lama XIV, 1996]. The Dalai Lama XIV also said of Tara, "She is the Goddess who oversees the actions of all Buddhas." But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume, that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness -- not your forte either. The official teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, which the Dalai Lama represents, has a strong presence of gods & goddesses. Northern or Tibetan buddhism is a WHELTER of gods & goddesses! I don't say you have to study buddhism to have it as your faith, but it would help to study it before you represent it to others, as these errors are too sweeping. It would be possible to cite rare forms of Buddhism wherein the gods & goddesses are very greatly diminished, but the Tibetan form isn't one of those. For you to say buddhists don't pray to divinities is absurd. A basic Tibetan buddhist prayer begins thus: "Compasionate Savouress Tara, Goddess born of tears, you are infinite virtue." That doesn't mean you can't believe any ol' thing YOU want, it's just odd to pretend the leader of Tibetan buddhism doesn't believe in northern buddhist divinities. As well to say you're an atheist because you believe in Jesus. So if you really were in the presence of the Dalai Lama, you were either too overawed to be paying proper attention, or so far back in the crowd you couldn't actually hear him. His words are easily found written down, though, if you'd care to try for a real citation of the Dalai Lama, the living god, promoting atheism. Alhtough I grew up in a Buddhist household & attended Buddhist temple for years with my (step)mother who was a bikuni raised from age five in a Buddhist monastery, unlike you I won't say what all buddhists believe. "Belief" is a strange thing, & if you "believe" you are an atheist because you're Buddhist, then in a weird Zen sort of way I'm willing to believe that for you, it's true, though it certainly would never apply broadly to buddhism, let alone the divinity-fixated northern form. Faith isn't based on reason, & your unreasonable belief that belief is atheistic, well hey, I'm sure there's a sound of one hand clapping in there somewhere. It remains the majority of buddhists, including most certainly those who adhere to that which is promulgated by the Dalai Lama, believe in & pray to buddhas, bodhisatvas, & gods. I could recommend you an elementary reading list if you like, but really you could pick up any book about the divinities with the words Northern buddhism, Tibetan buddhism, or Tantric buddhism in the title, & learn a great deal about the gods & goddesses of Buddhism. Siddhartha himself never taught that gods were not real; he not only believed in the gods, he spoke to them, he converted many of them to his philosophy. Siddhartha's form of Buddhism was not the Tibetan form which is much more divinities-oriented than was the buddhism of Siddhartha, who taught that the gods & goddesses are themselves, like us, trapped in the wheel of illusion. That lessens their significance, but it is not atheism. Siddhartha's form of Buddhism is not the usual form practiced today, the northern forms that dominate hold divinities with profound esteem, including surprisingly enough Jesus and Mary as just two more in an endless parade of divinities. Atheism is what the Beijing government imposes on Tibet, & it is fear of the influence of the Dalai Lama that keeps China insistant that he cannot return to Tibet, ever, & even possessing a photograph of him is illegal. The anti-Dalai Lama campaign in Tibet is defined by the Communist Party as "actively promoting atheism." They don't have to even mention the Dalai Lama, they only have to promote atheism. It is insufficient to be a nonbeliever; one must actively promote atheism to be properly patriotic. The Goddess Tara is particularly important to the Dalai Lama. Tara's masculine counterpart is Avalokitesvara, & the Dalai Lama purports to be an incarnation of Avalokitesvara; the Daila Lama thus shares Tara's title "Ocean of Wisdom" & he is said to be a Living God. An atheist wouldn't believe any of this. To me it is all merely poetry, & I try to maintain a respectful agnosticism for love of my late mother Lumchuan, though probably I'm much closer to an atheist personally, even though I do maintain a Tara shrine (my Tara having been blessed & sealed in a Nepalese temple that long sheltered the Dalai Lama) & I make up poems & offerings to her just in case my mom was right, & cuz its a fun aesthetic thing to do, whether or not silly. -paghat the ratgirl Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
Bush intel?
|
Bush intel?
In article ,
wrote: I feel sorry for you. You have quite an angry life. Heh heh heh heh. On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat) opined: Clearly I do know more, but that needn't mean I know very much. You can pretend to quote the Dalai Lama off the top of your head, but you're bullshitting & you know it. Here's an ACTUAL quote of the Dalai Lama XIV, on the topic of whether or not the Virgin Mary is a Goddess: "Whenever I see an image of Mary, I feel that she represents love and compassion. She is like a symbol of love. Within Buddhist iconography, the Goddess Tara occupies a similar position" [Dalai Lama XIV, 1996]. The Dalai Lama XIV also said of Tara, "She is the Goddess who oversees the actions of all Buddhas." But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume, that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness -- not your forte either. The official teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, which the Dalai Lama represents, has a strong presence of gods & goddesses. Northern or Tibetan buddhism is a WHELTER of gods & goddesses! I don't say you have to study buddhism to have it as your faith, but it would help to study it before you represent it to others, as these errors are too sweeping. It would be possible to cite rare forms of Buddhism wherein the gods & goddesses are very greatly diminished, but the Tibetan form isn't one of those. For you to say buddhists don't pray to divinities is absurd. A basic Tibetan buddhist prayer begins thus: "Compasionate Savouress Tara, Goddess born of tears, you are infinite virtue." That doesn't mean you can't believe any ol' thing YOU want, it's just odd to pretend the leader of Tibetan buddhism doesn't believe in northern buddhist divinities. As well to say you're an atheist because you believe in Jesus. So if you really were in the presence of the Dalai Lama, you were either too overawed to be paying proper attention, or so far back in the crowd you couldn't actually hear him. His words are easily found written down, though, if you'd care to try for a real citation of the Dalai Lama, the living god, promoting atheism. Alhtough I grew up in a Buddhist household & attended Buddhist temple for years with my (step)mother who was a bikuni raised from age five in a Buddhist monastery, unlike you I won't say what all buddhists believe. "Belief" is a strange thing, & if you "believe" you are an atheist because you're Buddhist, then in a weird Zen sort of way I'm willing to believe that for you, it's true, though it certainly would never apply broadly to buddhism, let alone the divinity-fixated northern form. Faith isn't based on reason, & your unreasonable belief that belief is atheistic, well hey, I'm sure there's a sound of one hand clapping in there somewhere. It remains the majority of buddhists, including most certainly those who adhere to that which is promulgated by the Dalai Lama, believe in & pray to buddhas, bodhisatvas, & gods. I could recommend you an elementary reading list if you like, but really you could pick up any book about the divinities with the words Northern buddhism, Tibetan buddhism, or Tantric buddhism in the title, & learn a great deal about the gods & goddesses of Buddhism. Siddhartha himself never taught that gods were not real; he not only believed in the gods, he spoke to them, he converted many of them to his philosophy. Siddhartha's form of Buddhism was not the Tibetan form which is much more divinities-oriented than was the buddhism of Siddhartha, who taught that the gods & goddesses are themselves, like us, trapped in the wheel of illusion. That lessens their significance, but it is not atheism. Siddhartha's form of Buddhism is not the usual form practiced today, the northern forms that dominate hold divinities with profound esteem, including surprisingly enough Jesus and Mary as just two more in an endless parade of divinities. Atheism is what the Beijing government imposes on Tibet, & it is fear of the influence of the Dalai Lama that keeps China insistant that he cannot return to Tibet, ever, & even possessing a photograph of him is illegal. The anti-Dalai Lama campaign in Tibet is defined by the Communist Party as "actively promoting atheism." They don't have to even mention the Dalai Lama, they only have to promote atheism. It is insufficient to be a nonbeliever; one must actively promote atheism to be properly patriotic. The Goddess Tara is particularly important to the Dalai Lama. Tara's masculine counterpart is Avalokitesvara, & the Dalai Lama purports to be an incarnation of Avalokitesvara; the Daila Lama thus shares Tara's title "Ocean of Wisdom" & he is said to be a Living God. An atheist wouldn't believe any of this. To me it is all merely poetry, & I try to maintain a respectful agnosticism for love of my late mother Lumchuan, though probably I'm much closer to an atheist personally, even though I do maintain a Tara shrine (my Tara having been blessed & sealed in a Nepalese temple that long sheltered the Dalai Lama) & I make up poems & offerings to her just in case my mom was right, & cuz its a fun aesthetic thing to do, whether or not silly. -paghat the ratgirl Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Bush intel?
In article , Mark
Anderson wrote: In article says... But it was NOT a generation of dopefiend draft dodgers vs baby killers. It was just our generation, & the real division were the Haves who could get out of having to go all or could go as officers, & the Have-nots who had no choice. I don't think being an officer in Vietnam was any picnic either as they got killed in large numbers too -- especially fresh Lietenants right out of ROTC or one of the military acadamies. Recently I read "The Long Gray Line" written by Rick Atkinson that documents the West Point class of 1966, the West Point class that lost the most people to the Vietnam war. Former general Wesley Clark happened to be valedictorian of that class BTW but he was not mentioned much in the book. Many of that class organized and raised money to build the Vietnam war memorial in Washington DC which the book describes. One of the officers of that class, after he returned from Vietnam, apparently did get spit on at an airport once when he was walking through wearing his uniform. Point well taken. Even Kerry got wounded, & he was a rich kid. He had a choice though; the boys on my block had no choice, & I guess that has never stopped bothering me. Presently it's bothering me that guys in my current neighborhood, who thought they were done after twelve years of service, are being called back. They're not complaining very loud, but they haven't looked happy. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Bush intel?
|
Bush intel?
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:12:56 GMT, escapee wrote:
(snip) But all you came up with is one example, and not a very convincing one, either. Ah, so Moore's lies have to be big enough to convince you? If he keeps sneaking in little ones that's OK? So much for critical thinking. :/ I need much more to convince me someone is telling fibs, lies, selective truths, or lies of omission. You have given me no good examples. So, do your own homework. Watch the movie again. Sounds like you need to anyway, if you can't even remember the little anti-gun propaganda cartoon that was in there. There are plenty of lies in it, but I didn't bother to remember them all, since I wasn't planning to keep track of them. All I was doing was checking to see if it was as dishonest as I'd heard it was. At one point in the movie I did think about trying to keep track of all the lies in there, but then I figured it wasn't worth the effort. Michael Moore isn't important enough to me for that much work. He has admitted that he joined the NRA to help destroy it. Sounds like a lack of integrity to me. |
Bush intel?
|
Bush intel?
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:07:28 GMT, escapee wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:57:02 GMT, (The Watcher) opined: That's only one of the many Flip Flops Kerry is quoted on. Not a flip flop. He, with many others were duped. Whether he was duped or not, he's changed his position. That's a Flip Flop. Lied to by Collin Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush/Cheney. One thing a responsible adult does is accept responsibility for his actions. Name some more. Too easy. Doesn't own an SUV. Owns an SUV. Tossed his medals. Didn't toss his medals. Plenty more if you go look for them. I don't need to, since I wasn't going to vote for Kerry anyway. You mean WMD's like the Chemical Weapon Sarin or the Chemical Weapon Mustard Gas, which have been used in Iraq? They never existed. Trace amounts were discovered. No, the Sarin that was "discovered" was not a trace amount. It was a binary artillery round. That means it was a complete artillery round containing Sarin. Mustard gas was found earlier. Anyway, trace amounts of WMD's are STILL WMD's, unless you want to change the definition of WMD's again. Trace. They are not WMD's. They'd be W'sMD, which is why they are called WMD. 20/20 hindsight is handy, but nobody has it available at the time decisions are made. We all have to make decisions with the information that's available at the time. The current administration gave an absolute statement that WMD definitely existed and they (Iraq) had them. I remember that part. They knew where they were, I don't remember that part. Got any quotes of them saying they knew where they were? If they knew where they were why was Hans Blix over there looking for so long? they were certain. That was what they told the Congress. They lied. If they didn't lie, they were absolutely incompetent and deserving of being fired. If Congress was dumb enough to expect 100% certainty from ANY intelligence organization, they are all absolutely incompetent and deserving of being fired, too. Gathering intelligence practically NEVER has 100% certainty of anything. This modern witch hunt of talking about "intelligence failures" because of less-than-100% accurate intelligence is amazing to me. Anybody who expects 100% accuracy from intelligence gathering is out of touch with reality. Even the best intelligence gathering groups probably never achieve 100%. |
Bush intel?
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:07:28 GMT, escapee wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:57:02 GMT, (The Watcher) opined: That's only one of the many Flip Flops Kerry is quoted on. Not a flip flop. He, with many others were duped. Maybe he shouldn't be president, then, if he's so easily duped. ;) Lied to by Collin Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush/Cheney. Something tells me you wouldn't accept that excuse from Bush if he tried to use it. (snip) |
Bush intel?
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:49:44 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat) wrote: (snip) But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume, that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness -- not your forte either. The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the atheists. ;) I will clarify; Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana tradition does not believe in creation or creator. I said nothing of any deities. The Dalai Lama is not the living god, has never once said that, nor has anyone else said that who is Buddhist. He repeatedly says he's a simple Buddhist monk. He is not god, living or dead. Paghat loves to know everything. I feel sorry for her. She's a very angry woman. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
Bush intel?
In article , (The
Watcher) wrote: On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat) wrote: (snip) But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume, that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness -- not your forte either. The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the atheists. ;) He'd probably like to, but the Beijing atheists attempting cultural genocide are busily oppressing Tibetans, imprisoning them if they are caught with even a photograph of the Dalai Lama, banning his return home, & giving free land to any Chinese who will move into Tibet to eradicate Tibetan culture. From which we learn, at least, that not all evils in this world are inspired by religious fanatics, even atheists can suck bigtime. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Bush intel?
In article ,
wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:49:44 GMT, (The Watcher) opined: On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat) wrote: (snip) But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume, that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness -- not your forte either. The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the atheists. ;) I will clarify; Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana tradition does not believe in creation or creator. What you said exactly was "Buddhism can be considered atheist." You never mentioned Mahayana, which in any case is not unique among buddhism in assuming the gods came after the ultimate reality, but which most certainly does preserve a gigantic role for the gods -- that is hardly atheism which is what you claimed buddhism to be. The Dalai Lama believes in many gods & says Tara oversees the doings of all Buddhas. Tara, Savioress, Deity, is the most important of many goddesses of Mahayana buddhism. You bolstered your false claim with a made-up quote from the Dalai Lama. That you're not well versed in Buddhism is fine; most christians don't know squat about christianity, but they love Jesus & that's enough. And for you to be a good Mahayana buddhist requires no specific knowledge (fortunately for you) but does require that you practice kindness. Although even that generally evades you, you could start now! I said nothing of any deities. Oh just stop with the fibbery. First of all, an atheist is NOT someone believes in all gods but doesn't believe they created the world; an atheist is someone who believes there is no God or gods. You followed up with your original dumb statement "Buddhists can be considered atheists" -- vis, nonbelievers in god or gods -- with the even dumber statement "Deities are bodhisattvas." Well, not all deities are bodhisattvas by any means, but if saints & bodhisattvas ARE regarded as no different than gods, then Tibetan buddhism is rampant at several levels with every conceivable sort of god from Kali as originator of Time right on down to bodhisattvas who hold themselves back from the ultimate enlightenment to remain & assist the unenlightened. All of which puts buddhism about as far away from "Atheism" as arch-theism ever gets. Even the limited issue of how the universe was created is not as you represent it, since in Mahayana buddhism creation issued from out of Kali as a manifestation of Time, & will someday be restored to Kali putting an end to this bad universe. She is not Creator precisely but is the greatest power by which the universe came into being, & by the same power is sustained. It was spun out of her radiant trangle before the beginning, & will be devoured by her at the end of time, & beyhond both ends of that calander is the One Supreme Reality -- which is to say, Kali. That is the basis of Mahayana creation & uncreation myth, which developed directly into Tantricism which increases the importance of Kali as the One Reality (Nirvana). It is a word-game to say she brought the universe into existance but did not create it, for the universe is of herself & not separate from her; that what she seemingly created doesn't actually exist but is an illusion so she created nothing; & it is that nothingness which we through faith, kindness, & knowledge may eventually recover. But as the Dalai Lama interprets Mahayana, all that is required is simple human kindness, therefore it focuses more on the role of Tara as ultimate compassion, the Goddess born into this world from a teardrop. Such gods & goddesses as that came along long after the universe was manifest. When Mahayana became Tantricism Kali's role was more of a focus, but the fact that Mahayana focuses more on Tara does not really diminish the Kali. Before Mahayanism, Siddhartha's original teachings more greatly restricted the significance of the Hindu gods, even Kali, real though they could be, they had no serious purpose in the path of enlightenment. Mahayanismn, or Northern Buddhism, restored the Hindu divinities to their former significance, & added mew divinities. The Mahayana position for Kali is closest to that for hindu saktism, which likewise believes no god actually created because only Mahakali as Ultimate Reality is real, & anything any god believes he achieved was actually the result of the existance of an Ultimate Power, which is Mahakali. The Dalai Lama is not the living god, has never once said that, nor has anyone else said that who is Buddhist. He repeatedly says he's a simple Buddhist monk. He is not god, living or dead. The Dalai Lama is the living embodiment of all Tibetan gods, & is a double-incarnation of two specific gods. The humble beauty of a God manifesting as a simple monk is the point, kiddo. He also never says he is a teacher; he is instead an example. Ask him if he's an important man. He will smile & say he is an unimportant man. Though the Dalai Lama embodies all Gods, he is in particular a manifestation of two divine beings: First he is Amitabha, God of the Western Paradise, & a sun-god. Because Amitabha cannot descend to the world of matter as anything but light, in order to manifest physically he first descended into the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (the male twin of female Tara), & it is Avalokiteshvara who descends into every incarnated Dalai Lama. So the Dalai Lama is Two Gods, Two Gods, Two Gods In One. This is the Double-Incarnation of the Living God. In Mahayana buddhism Amitabha is definitely a God, though not in the sense of an Almighty God, since he repre3sents a level of godhead all enlightened beings can achieve. Whether Avalokiteshvara as "mere" bodhisattva is also a god is more questionable, but you're not the first one to assume indeed that bodhisattvas are gods. Even of bodhisattvas are more like saints, Amitabha certainly is a god, & he is visible to all as the Sun, is present in all heat energy, is ruler of all meditations, whose warmth is kindness, & who receives prayers from Mahayana buddhists who address him as Shining Lord, Unbounded Light, Opulent Sun, the Infinite Revelation. In other forms of buddhism it is denied that Amitabha is a god at all, but in the form you mention, Northern Buddhism, Amitabha is the tutelary God of Lamism, & most assuredly a sun-god & addressed as one. In Mahayana portraits he is usually red, dressed in layers of monks robes. So when the Dalai Lama says "humbly" he's a monk, that's because he is a manifestation of the god of monks. To some extent he duplicates or supplants Kali as the chief authority & energizing power of the physical universe, but where her power is devouring, his is gentleness, though even the Shining Lord can devour illusions & flesh & materiality with his fire of knowledge. (I take much of this from THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA. It would be possible to play word-games that Dalai Lama is not a manifestation of the Gods, but Victor & Victoria Trimondi are the western authorities on this, & barring an ability to read both Tibetan language & Sanskrit, will stand as better authorities than you or I -- & they are clear, the Dalai Lama is worshipped as a manifestation of the Tibetan gods. Is he really? Of course not -- unless you share that faith -- & that you can claim to be a Mahayanist denying every basic tenant of that faith is oh so Zen). Paghat loves to know everything. I'm perfectly aware that knowing more than you know doesn't mean I know a great deal at all. But really, that you persist in abhoring a love of knowledge is very unbuddhist of you. I feel sorry for her. She's a very angry woman. Don't project your anger on others. I rarely engage you in anything because you're nuts. I really thought that in my first factual correction you'd have no reason to lose your marbles again, but as you like to be rude while you repeat & justify your errors, I can play it your rude way too. A civil conversation being impossible with you, then a heated one will do. If you weren't so damned angry it wouldn't bother you so much to have such a big error corrected. You could have as easily laughed at yourself & said, Oh I know, I don't know where I got that dumb statement, but oh well. You may well have good reasons in your life to be angry instead of amused, sure, so when you project that on me, ninety-nine times out of a hundred I overlook it. And will probably overlook it the next ninety-nine times you pull that one out. But the only real correction I intended before you got so ****y was when you call this sort of stuff Atheism which is simply silly. You heap lies on silliness pretend the Dalai Lama personally told you so. That you can't even now admit to posting outrageous nonsense is almost comical. Sticking to the entirely incorrect idea that buddhists are atheists is your stubbornness, not mine; your response to the correction is your anger, not mine. I will own up to my own failure at kindness similar to yours, but then I'm not pretending to be a follower of mahayana northern buddhism. I like to discuss this stuff because I loved my mom whose faith it was, & because I find human capacity for myth-making to be fascinating stuff, NOT because I think you're ignorant though you respond as though that's the whole point. Yet when in the past I've attempted to be kind to you, you've just gotten ****ier. But I will even so close with as kind a thought as I can muster in your behalf: It's not important that you know so little; it's more important, for your own well being, that you cease to get so peevish & defensive about your own mistakes. -paggers -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Bush intel?
In article ,
wrote: On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:49:44 GMT, (The Watcher) opined: On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat) wrote: (snip) But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume, that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness -- not your forte either. The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the atheists. ;) I will clarify; Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana tradition does not believe in creation or creator. What you said exactly was "Buddhism can be considered atheist." You never mentioned Mahayana, which in any case is not unique among buddhism in assuming the gods came after the ultimate reality, but which most certainly does preserve a gigantic role for the gods -- that is hardly atheism which is what you claimed buddhism to be. The Dalai Lama believes in many gods & says Tara oversees the doings of all Buddhas. Tara, Savioress, Deity, is the most important of many goddesses of Mahayana buddhism. You bolstered your false claim with a made-up quote from the Dalai Lama. That you're not well versed in Buddhism is fine; most christians don't know squat about christianity, but they love Jesus & that's enough. And for you to be a good Mahayana buddhist requires no specific knowledge (fortunately for you) but does require that you practice kindness. Although even that generally evades you, you could start now! I said nothing of any deities. Oh just stop with the fibbery. First of all, an atheist is NOT someone believes in all gods but doesn't believe they created the world; an atheist is someone who believes there is no God or gods. You followed up with your original dumb statement "Buddhists can be considered atheists" -- vis, nonbelievers in god or gods -- with the even dumber statement "Deities are bodhisattvas." Well, not all deities are bodhisattvas by any means, but if saints & bodhisattvas ARE regarded as no different than gods, then Tibetan buddhism is rampant at several levels with every conceivable sort of god from Kali as originator of Time right on down to bodhisattvas who hold themselves back from the ultimate enlightenment to remain & assist the unenlightened. All of which puts buddhism about as far away from "Atheism" as arch-theism ever gets. Even the limited issue of how the universe was created is not as you represent it, since in Mahayana buddhism creation issued from out of Kali as a manifestation of Time, & will someday be restored to Kali putting an end to this bad universe. She is not Creator precisely but is the greatest power by which the universe came into being, & by the same power is sustained. It was spun out of her radiant trangle before the beginning, & will be devoured by her at the end of time, & beyhond both ends of that calander is the One Supreme Reality -- which is to say, Kali. That is the basis of Mahayana creation & uncreation myth, which developed directly into Tantricism which increases the importance of Kali as the One Reality (Nirvana). It is a word-game to say she brought the universe into existance but did not create it, for the universe is of herself & not separate from her; that what she seemingly created doesn't actually exist but is an illusion so she created nothing; & it is that nothingness which we through faith, kindness, & knowledge may eventually recover. But as the Dalai Lama interprets Mahayana, all that is required is simple human kindness, therefore it focuses more on the role of Tara as ultimate compassion, the Goddess born into this world from a teardrop. Such gods & goddesses as that came along long after the universe was manifest. When Mahayana became Tantricism Kali's role was more of a focus, but the fact that Mahayana focuses more on Tara does not really diminish the Kali. Before Mahayanism, Siddhartha's original teachings more greatly restricted the significance of the Hindu gods, even Kali, real though they could be, they had no serious purpose in the path of enlightenment. Mahayanismn, or Northern Buddhism, restored the Hindu divinities to their former significance, & added mew divinities. The Mahayana position for Kali is closest to that for hindu saktism, which likewise believes no god actually created because only Mahakali as Ultimate Reality is real, & anything any god believes he achieved was actually the result of the existance of an Ultimate Power, which is Mahakali. The Dalai Lama is not the living god, has never once said that, nor has anyone else said that who is Buddhist. He repeatedly says he's a simple Buddhist monk. He is not god, living or dead. The Dalai Lama is the living embodiment of all Tibetan gods, & is a double-incarnation of two specific gods. The humble beauty of a God manifesting as a simple monk is the point, kiddo. He also never says he is a teacher; he is instead an example. Ask him if he's an important man. He will smile & say he is an unimportant man. Though the Dalai Lama embodies all Gods, he is in particular a manifestation of two divine beings: First he is Amitabha, God of the Western Paradise, & a sun-god. Because Amitabha cannot descend to the world of matter as anything but light, in order to manifest physically he first descended into the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (the male twin of female Tara), & it is Avalokiteshvara who descends into every incarnated Dalai Lama. So the Dalai Lama is Two Gods, Two Gods, Two Gods In One. This is the Double-Incarnation of the Living God. In Mahayana buddhism Amitabha is definitely a God, though not in the sense of an Almighty God, since he repre3sents a level of godhead all enlightened beings can achieve. Whether Avalokiteshvara as "mere" bodhisattva is also a god is more questionable, but you're not the first one to assume indeed that bodhisattvas are gods. Even of bodhisattvas are more like saints, Amitabha certainly is a god, & he is visible to all as the Sun, is present in all heat energy, is ruler of all meditations, whose warmth is kindness, & who receives prayers from Mahayana buddhists who address him as Shining Lord, Unbounded Light, Opulent Sun, the Infinite Revelation. In other forms of buddhism it is denied that Amitabha is a god at all, but in the form you mention, Northern Buddhism, Amitabha is the tutelary God of Lamism, & most assuredly a sun-god & addressed as one. In Mahayana portraits he is usually red, dressed in layers of monks robes. So when the Dalai Lama says "humbly" he's a monk, that's because he is a manifestation of the god of monks. To some extent he duplicates or supplants Kali as the chief authority & energizing power of the physical universe, but where her power is devouring, his is gentleness, though even the Shining Lord can devour illusions & flesh & materiality with his fire of knowledge. (I take much of this from THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA. It would be possible to play word-games that Dalai Lama is not a manifestation of the Gods, but Victor & Victoria Trimondi are the western authorities on this, & barring an ability to read both Tibetan language & Sanskrit, will stand as better authorities than you or I -- & they are clear, the Dalai Lama is worshipped as a manifestation of the Tibetan gods. Is he really? Of course not -- unless you share that faith -- & that you can claim to be a Mahayanist denying every basic tenant of that faith is oh so Zen). Paghat loves to know everything. I'm perfectly aware that knowing more than you know doesn't mean I know a great deal at all. But really, that you persist in abhoring a love of knowledge is very unbuddhist of you. I feel sorry for her. She's a very angry woman. Don't project your anger on others. I rarely engage you in anything because you're nuts. I really thought that in my first factual correction you'd have no reason to lose your marbles again, but as you like to be rude while you repeat & justify your errors, I can play it your rude way too. A civil conversation being impossible with you, then a heated one will do. If you weren't so damned angry it wouldn't bother you so much to have such a big error corrected. You could have as easily laughed at yourself & said, Oh I know, I don't know where I got that dumb statement, but oh well. You may well have good reasons in your life to be angry instead of amused, sure, so when you project that on me, ninety-nine times out of a hundred I overlook it. And will probably overlook it the next ninety-nine times you pull that one out. But the only real correction I intended before you got so ****y was when you call this sort of stuff Atheism which is simply silly. You heap lies on silliness pretend the Dalai Lama personally told you so. That you can't even now admit to posting outrageous nonsense is almost comical. Sticking to the entirely incorrect idea that buddhists are atheists is your stubbornness, not mine; your response to the correction is your anger, not mine. I will own up to my own failure at kindness similar to yours, but then I'm not pretending to be a follower of mahayana northern buddhism. I like to discuss this stuff because I loved my mom whose faith it was, & because I find human capacity for myth-making to be fascinating stuff, NOT because I think you're ignorant though you respond as though that's the whole point. Yet when in the past I've attempted to be kind to you, you've just gotten ****ier. But I will even so close with as kind a thought as I can muster in your behalf: It's not important that you know so little; it's more important, for your own well being, that you cease to get so peevish & defensive about your own mistakes. -paggers -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter