ex-l wrote:Just a short while ago you were telling us that there was no such thing as the self. So, please tell us ... who is there to be offended?
If you took the time to understand what others write, rather than see each post as an opportunity to reinforce your own echo, you may have picked up what was said. The Buddhist concept of Self is not the vedantist double-think of "all is illusion" (except the unproven, unprovable notion of eternal atman) which led to many Brahmins calling Shankara a crypto-buddhist, and others confusing that with the actual Buddhist notion. The Buddhist teaching is that there is no
eternal identity/personality, no atman (anatta). There is obviously a conventional self that can be extracted from the background noise. One of the causes of "dukh" or suffering is the attachment to the idea of permanent self.
So, please tell us ... who is there to be offended?
I am not personally offended - I object on principle to arbitrary editorial censorship - having my posts rewritten and moved - and boorish bullying, to demand, distract and make accusations. All members on this forum are equal, but some are treated more equally than others. If you use the search facility and type in the word "stupid' or "ignorant" - guess who the search results reveal as using that kind of language about others the most?
Frankly, I don't give a toss about how much someone knows ... or pretends to know. What I care about is the sincerity of someone's heart ... but if one is going to engage in sophistry, one really, really, really must get one's facts right.
Here we have hyperbole (3x really's) a contradiction and a put-down. Firstly, that somehow I am insincere, that sincerity is to be adjudged and that it is ex-l's job to be the judge of sincerity. Secondly, that he doesn't "give a toss about how much someone knows ... or pretends to" ... as long as facts are "right." If you don't give a toss - why is that any issue to you? And what if someone gets facts right is that really or pretending to know? It's all self justifying bullsh** my dear. As soon as someone starts justifying, you have to ask, why are they covering their arse?
I am sorry but I don't think we are here to talk spiritual bollocks
Again, a subjective decision - Bollocks judged as such by the same self- appointed judge of what is acceptable, what is really knowing and what is pretend knowing, who is sincere and who is not, a person who asks that others be respected but rather than correct a minor misconception politely with a courteous "by the way, he's a lawyer" (i.e. my presumption that someone called "Doctor" - Dr Ambedkar - was a medical doctor, shock horror) instead you
command "shut your gob" - implying that nothing written by such an ignorant fool need be considered as having any value. I said before, I am interested in constructive dialogue and building a conversation, not adversarial point scoring - who picks the most nits.
No one knows everything, everyone knows what they know. We can all be corrected if we are to learn anything.
Sophistry
One of the main tricks of any sophist is to distract from the main thrust and body of an idea by picking up on minor errors and holding them up loudly and repeatedly, as a proof of 'total error' - like the East Anglia emails were presented as somehow demolishing the whole scientific case for climate change. A fact is only one thing in isolation. It doesn't negate another fact only of itself. Meaning is built on more than any single fact, it requires a combination of facts, precedence, context and yes mr Slammer - interpretation. (Another difference between Vedanta and Buddhism. The world is real, the illusion is the idea that our current "belief" about it is also real and permanent) We all do it - interpret meaning - all the time with every thought breath and action. ("This" means I am fine as I am, "that" means I better move my arse or else ...). Meaning is not solely communicated through facts, and never by facts alone. Often analogy, humour, satire etc make a point more immediately than "fact". If the meaning is clear but a single fact that's not
that relevant to the meaning at hand is wrong, why go nuts?
In my opinion, where filthy Shudra failed was in not really getting down and discussing their BK issues and experiences in a way that would have help them and others
Again a judgement, this time that I "failed". What is this? A test? who is a success and who is a failure? Again the assumption that someone other than the writer decides how and what is to be written, what is or is not helpful to each an every person who may read it, now or in future. That invalidates all but those who share the "judge's' prejudices.
I am ex-BK. Note well: E - X - as in "no longer'. I am not interested in banging on about the BKWSU's inability to live up to its ideals, or the corruption that takes place. That's been well covered by those better placed. This happens in all societies including Buddhist or any other. I will read others if they choose to write on that. I may reply, but I'd hope to feel free to write honestly
My interest of late was, particularly replying to others questions, in sharing stuff that I have enjoyed and benefitted from that have enabled me to live more wholly than I did as a BK or as a newly departed disgruntled ex trying to work it out (or myself out). There's nothing wrong with being angry or disgruntled or resentful if that's where you are at, man)! if someone wants to maintain the rage, that's their decision, and they can carry on about that - but it;s not me any more, i do not have that singular focus. i am sure others also want to discuss life after BKs,not just life in the BK shadows - and part of that is exploring alternative philosophy, spirituality and so on.
If an ex-BK comes here and writes about how they overcame their BK hangups by going to a health resort, or visiting brothels, practicing Buddhist tantra, writing fiction, being a political activist, whatever - in every case you could choose some measure to "prove" reasons why that is "imperfect', or how degraded, corrupt, ineffectual or decadent these things are. A great formula for doing nothing. Or you could look at why they found it beneficial, hwo to discern the real value of that from the pitfalls.
Let's hope they can get over their "it's-my-Buddha-and-I-am-not-playing-anymore" tantrum and get down to his core BK related issues.
I did not reply because of your childish taunt of childishness, I replied to clarify for other readers. I do contribute to a number of online forums, mostly non- BK related, and never encountered such disingenuous manipulation of a forum by one member as I have here with ex-l. I'd rather sing in the rain than learn to play monopoly.
As for core related issues - no one is more adept at being "sophist- icated", "objective" and 'logical" while not revealing their personal "core-related issues" than ex-l. That is his choice. But don't expect it of others either.
Let me know if the same kind of editorial interference will continue. If you say "it may" based solely on a person's (your) taste or discretion rather than the agreed "Terms and conditions" - then goodbye.
Nothing personal. Life is short.