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

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:09:43 -0700, (paghat)
opined:

The wheel of illusion, which is the material universe as snare, is a
creation of gods. Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods, whether
Hindu or Christian gods, they may well all exist, Buddhism does not deny
them. It posits instead that gods, like the rest of us, are trapped in
this shared wheel of illusion. And whether its the million gods of tantric
& northern buddhism, or just a shitload of bodhisattvas who linger to help
us escape, Deities they are, so this cannot be likened atheism, despite
that the Mormon heads of the national offices of Boy Scouts of America
decided heathen Buddhist scouts & Unitarians can no longer earn religious
merit badges because they must be athiests.

-paghat the ratgirl

H.H. The Dalai Lama said in my presence, while being asked if Buddhists were
atheists, answered "Yes, Buddhism can be considered atheist since we do not
believe in creator nor creation." I said nothing of deities which are
bodhisattva's or anyone in the existence of samsara. Buddhists do not believe
you pray to a god or gods for things. It's not like that. But I suppose you
know everything about Buddhism so I should give up now.

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

--
"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

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

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.

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

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:44:47 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
The real answser to Watcher's ridiculous assertion that such
commemorations don't exist for Vietnam vets I already corrected with this
long list of Vietnam war memorials:

First you should read Watcher's assertion.
Before you can correct it you have to understand it. I still stand by what I
wrote, that the COUNTRY should do something to honor the vets who served in
Vietnam and survived.

There are nearly 400 listed in that book, & no state lacks such memorials.

No state sent troops to Vietnam, either. The United States of America shipped
soldiers there. It's decent of the states to put up memorials, but that doesn't
take the responsibility from the US government. One thing they teach in the
military is that you can delegate authority but you can't delegate
responsibility.

If you've not time, energy, or physical ability to visit even the nearest
ones, do at least take an e-journey to some of the web pages linked from
the vietvet.org page I provided. If each of us will honor vets even to
that small degree, arguments about how they've never been honored won't
have to sound so damned silly.

So yes, even us peacenik lefties of the Vietnam & Hippy era, who've been
charged with spitting on vets & calling them baby killers, in reality care
a great deal. If only the ****ers & moaners would make an effort beyond
merely assuming!

Actually, there is a new generation ready to take up the mantle of disrespecting
the soldiers and blaming them for the war. I've seen some of it online, and seen
reports of it in some newspapers. The freshest one was from Seattle recently.
Maybe a little effort to make sure history isn't repeated would be nice, too.

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.

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.

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%.

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)

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

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

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

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