Sam Harris, Ben Affleck and Bill Maher (and others) argue Islam

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline

danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
> Estrangement

Old Seer wrote:
The eye wouldn't evolve to see an illusion. Illusion cannot be unless one is illusionary in the first count.

 

   In a word . .  estrangement

 




 




 

  Off-site --

   I said I would try,  Are you willing to finally try now ?!???

 

Other  OFF-Site . . . Context-independent properties (Context-independent properties)

 

   Image not part of comment or this discussion!  And, Definitely not representing Emblem or Emblematic of Maya

 

  -----  -----

   Other Unrelated --  The Best thing could be the  off-putting, objectionable nature of one recent YouTube video set its' images as  further use, to a specific purpose of the scenes of Ms. Gabriella Cilmi - Defender (on YouTube)

   Meaning ?

   Recall --

   A  Proverb  --  The Lord has made everything for his own purposes,  even the wicked ones for a day of disaster (*irritating smirk*)

   Seriously though

    Talk - Talk

  ----  ----

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:We evolved

Old Seer wrote:

We evolved becasue of a need to. There had to be something to see for the eye to evolve. The eye wouldn't evolve to see an illusion. Illusion cannot be unless one is illusionary on the first count. Was the brain producing illusions before the forming of the eye.

I disagree with the "there had to be something to see for the eye to evolve".

An illusion is a misperception of real external stimulus. 

The illusion buddhism teaches is the misperception of our environment by placing emotional attachments.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I made a post here

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

We evolved becasue of a need to. There had to be something to see for the eye to evolve. The eye wouldn't evolve to see an illusion. Illusion cannot be unless one is illusionary on the first count. Was the brain producing illusions before the forming of the eye.

I disagree with the "there had to be something to see for the eye to evolve".

An illusion is a misperception of real external stimulus. 

The illusion buddhism teaches is the misperception of our environment by placing emotional attachments.

And scrubbed it. I found I had to look up some things on Buddism to have a better understanding and was way off.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I disagree with the "there had to be something to see for the eye to evolve".

An illusion is a misperception of real external stimulus. 

The illusion buddhism teaches is the misperception of our environment by placing emotional attachments.

Actually---the brain has to form be fore an illusion can be, would that not be correct. If not, then --if the brain was formed by an illusion then an illusion was fromed by an illusion. I'm looking at--- an illusion is formed in the brain, that means that the brain cannot be an illusion---to form another illusion. I'm taking Buddisn to mean that "life" itself is an illusion. (I may not have that correct) That means, who was there to determine that the brain was an illusion. If there's no material brain then how can a non material anything form the idea that something is an illusion. What this means then, that the material that makes the brain has to be actual material and can't be an illusion. (I think) If we or life and all other things are an illusion then how do we know that there's such a thing as an illusion---or we formed the illusion that all is an illusion. This isn't makeing any sense as I see it. I would say the Buddists are dead wrong. How do we know that it's just an illusion that everything is an illusion.

It seems they never sat down and analysed they could be wrong---or if they found they were wrong, that too would be an illusion. I think they should have a few physisicts in thier group. I can't fathom that everything is an illusion. It doesn't work for me.  Smiling

Make sure you understand delusion, illusion an hallucination.

An illusion is looking at an object and not seeing it for what it really is; this is why "illusionists or magicians" trick people. They make a golf ball turn in to a dove.

You see the golf ball in the hand, they show it to you, but then because the brain functions in specific ways they use that against you and make you think the ball turned in to a dove by slight of hand.

Now we all know a golf ball can't turn in to a dove. We are all scientists here, of some degree. We are free thinkers and logical. Yes, we might not know how they did it but we all disbelieve that the golf ball is actually now a dove. We know the golf ball is in the sleeve or in the pocket.

(i reserve the right to continue this tomorrow morning. I gotta crash)


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
At this time

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I disagree with the "there had to be something to see for the eye to evolve".

An illusion is a misperception of real external stimulus. 

The illusion buddhism teaches is the misperception of our environment by placing emotional attachments.

Actually---the brain has to form be fore an illusion can be, would that not be correct. If not, then --if the brain was formed by an illusion then an illusion was fromed by an illusion. I'm looking at--- an illusion is formed in the brain, that means that the brain cannot be an illusion---to form another illusion. I'm taking Buddisn to mean that "life" itself is an illusion. (I may not have that correct) That means, who was there to determine that the brain was an illusion. If there's no material brain then how can a non material anything form the idea that something is an illusion. What this means then, that the material that makes the brain has to be actual material and can't be an illusion. (I think) If we or life and all other things are an illusion then how do we know that there's such a thing as an illusion---or we formed the illusion that all is an illusion. This isn't makeing any sense as I see it. I would say the Buddists are dead wrong. How do we know that it's just an illusion that everything is an illusion.

It seems they never sat down and analysed they could be wrong---or if they found they were wrong, that too would be an illusion. I think they should have a few physisicts in thier group. I can't fathom that everything is an illusion. It doesn't work for me.  Smiling

Make sure you understand delusion, illusion an hallucination.

An illusion is looking at an object and not seeing it for what it really is; this is why "illusionists or magicians" trick people. They make a golf ball turn in to a dove.

You see the golf ball in the hand, they show it to you, but then because the brain functions in specific ways they use that against you and make you think the ball turned in to a dove by slight of hand.

Now we all know a golf ball can't turn in to a dove. We are all scientists here, of some degree. We are free thinkers and logical. Yes, we might not know how they did it but we all disbelieve that the golf ball is actually now a dove. We know the golf ball is in the sleeve or in the pocket.

(i reserve the right to continue this tomorrow morning. I gotta crash)

I can see that they don't mean "everything" is an illusion. What stymied me is --they seem to be on the same understanding of things as we Old Seers or very very simular. Remember now--we say what's considered Christianity in the world is not--or everyone has it but don't realize what it is. To us--there are no real practising Christians--not even us Old Seers. The present world interferres to much and knocks one out of it and one can't stay there for long. I placed a note in my message file to the other Smurfs asking--what do we know about Buddism? We haven't ever studied other religions. I'm going to spend some time on buddusn today to form  more clear insights.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
it's always been a

it's always been a controversy in buddhism whether or not the external, material world actual "exists" and how it "exists." if i recall correctly, there are some extreme idealist schools of buddhist thought, mostly in the yogacara tradition, that insist that the world our senses perceive is completely illusory, even in the crude sense of westerners, but they are a minority, and virtually unknown among lay practitioners.


pretty much all schools of what scholars like paul wilson now call "mainstream (i.e. non-mahayana) buddhism," which is almost exclusively represented today by the theravada school, insist on the reality of the material world. the reason why we still say buddhism has no ontology is that even these buddhists insist that it has no unconditioned reality, therefore it cannot definitively be said to be (aristotle's εἶναι). in south asian thought, any kind of ultimate being (again, i'm thinking mostly in terms of greek, ὄν) must be unconditioned by anything else. in buddhism, such an unconditioned being does not exist. this is the essence of theravada anatta ("no-soul," i.e. no ground of being) and mahayana sunyata ("emptiness").


unlike pretty much all of western thought up until the 20th century, south asian thought has always admitted to varying levels of truth between "ultimately true" and "ultimately untrue." in buddhism, this is known as the two levels of truth, samvrtisatya (relative truth) and paramarthasatya (ultimate truth). for most schools of buddhism, the material world absolutely does exist in the realm of samvrtisatya, which is the only realm the majority of people need concern themselves with, but is illusory in the sense of paramarthasatya.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Angels do inhabit our planet & many are their types and number

 re :: Angels do inhabit our planet & many are their types and number

 

Old Seer wrote:

And scrubbed it. I found I had to look up some things on Buddism to have a better understanding and was way off.   Smiling

        One of the essential truths in Vedic literature  IS  the  concept of Maya, I only mention this because I was to have mentioned the term '' Maya ''

      Smitten upon once beholding that maiden of transcendent beauty

 Smitten upon once beholding that maiden of transcendent beauty

 

 

  Forever Young --

  ''Janamejaya (Janamejaya was a Kuru king) after asking: "Why, O regenerate one, did that maiden betake herself to ascetic penances, in days of old, 'til  she became old ? For what reason did she practise penances, and what was her's. Unrivalled and fraught with mystery is the discourse.. "There was a rishi of abundant energy and great fame, named Kuni-Garga. That foremost of ascetics, having practised the austerest of penances, O king, created a fair-browed daughter by a fiat of his will. Beholding her, the celebrated ascetic Kuni-Garga became filled with joy. He abandoned his body, O king, and then went to heaven. That faultless and amiable and fair-browed maiden, meanwhile, of eyes like lotus petals continued to practise severe and very rigid penances. She worshipped the pitris and the gods with fasts. Though her desire had been for giving her away to a husband, fore her true desire was for a husband. she yet did not wish for marriage yet, for she did not see a husband that could be worthy of her.

Continuing to emaciate her body with austere penances, she devoted herself to the worship of the pitris and the gods in that solitary forest. In the forest, Although engaged in such toil, O monarch, and although she emaciated herself by age and austerities, yet she regarded herself happy. At last when she (became very old so that she) could no longer move even a single step without being aided by somebody, she set her heart upon departing for the other world.

Beholding her about to cast off her body, Narada said unto her, 'O sinless one, thou hast no regions of blessedness to obtain in consequence of thy not having cleansed thyself by rite of marriage! O thou of great vows, we have heard this in heaven! Great hath been thy ascetic austerities, but thou hast no claim to regions of blessedness!'

Hearing these words of Narada, the old lady went to a concourse of rishis and said, 'I shall give him half my penances who will accept my hand in marriage!' After she had said those words, Galava's son, a rishi, known by the name of Sringavat, accepted her hand, having proposed this compact to her, 'With this compact, O beautiful lady, I am beholding your CAPTIVATING BEAUTY; I shall accept thy hand, that thou shalt live with me!' Having agreed to that compact, she gave him her hand.

Indeed, Galava's son, according to the ordinances laid down and having duly poured libations on the fire, accepted her hand and married her. On that night, she became a young lady of the fairest complexion, robed in celestial attire and decked in celestial ornaments and garlands and smeared with celestial unguents and perfumes. Beholding her blazing with beauty, Galava's son became very happy and passed one night in her company.

At morn she said unto him, 'The compact, O brahmana, I had made with thee, hath been fulfilled, O foremost of ascetics! Blessed be thou, I shall now leave thee!' She once more said, 'He that will, with rapt attention, pass one night in this tirtha after having gratified the denizens of heaven with oblations of water, shall obtain that merit which is his who observes the vow of brahmacarya for eight and fifty years!' Having said these words, that chaste lady departed for heaven.

The Rishi, her lord, became very cheerless, by dwelling upon the memory of her beauty. In consequence of the compact he had made, he accepted with difficulty half her penances. Casting off his body he soon followed her, moved by sorrow, O chief of Bharata's race, and forced to it by her beauty. Even this is the glorious history of the old maid that I have told thee! Even this is the account of her brahmacarya and her auspicious departure for heaven. While there Baladeva heard of the slaughter of Shalya. Having made presents unto the brahmanas there, he gave way to grief, O scorcher of his foes, for Shalya who had been slain by the Pandavas in battle. Then he of Madhu's race, having come out of the environs of Samantapanchaka, enquired of the rishis about the results of the battle at Kurukshetra. Asked by that lion of Yadu's race about the results of the battle at Kurukshetra, those high-souled ones told him everything as it had happened."

  Maya  is a powerful influence, as we see in this object-lesson. On the other hand, the inner person of the heart is far more precious!

 

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYMxU5Id5rs {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYMxU5Id5rs}

 




 

  0ff - site --

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x2H-zQjgurQ {http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x2H-zQjgurQ}

   P.S.  --   Hugs . . OXOXO,  Maddeningly Provocative  I  LOVE IT (55555) !!

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ah yes-

I was 13 when that song was on the radio.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm baffled, really

iwbiek wrote:
it's always been a controversy in buddhism whether or not the external, material world actual "exists" and how it "exists." if i recall correctly, there are some extreme idealist schools of buddhist thought, mostly in the yogacara tradition, that insist that the world our senses perceive is completely illusory, even in the crude sense of westerners, but they are a minority, and virtually unknown among lay practitioners.
pretty much all schools of what scholars like paul wilson now call "mainstream (i.e. non-mahayana) buddhism," which is almost exclusively represented today by the theravada school, insist on the reality of the material world. the reason why we still say buddhism has no ontology is that even these buddhists insist that it has no unconditioned reality, therefore it cannot definitively be said to be (aristotle's εἶνα&iotaEye-wink. in south asian thought, any kind of ultimate being (again, i'm thinking mostly in terms of greek, ὄ&nuEye-wink must be unconditioned by anything else. in buddhism, such an unconditioned being does not exist. this is the essence of theravada anatta ("no-soul," i.e. no ground of being) and mahayana sunyata ("emptiness&quotEye-wink.
unlike pretty much all of western thought up until the 20th century, south asian thought has always admitted to varying levels of truth between "ultimately true" and "ultimately untrue." in buddhism, this is known as the two levels of truth, samvrtisatya (relative truth) and paramarthasatya (ultimate truth). for most schools of buddhism, the material world absolutely does exist in the realm of samvrtisatya, which is the only realm the majority of people need concern themselves with, but is illusory in the sense of paramarthasatya.

From what I see from online info on Buddhism --is that it is the same as what us Old Seers have. We have additions however, in understanding the cause of one peoples troubles with another people. What we have we don't consider a religion, but rather an understanding. I'm amazed. From what I'm gathering (if I have it understood) Buddhism isn't actually a religion either--but and understanding. So, 2500 years ago an individual thought up or came across information of an enlightenment. I agree--he sure did. Our problem with forwarding what we know/have is- we garnerd it from the bible. But, what has to be understood is that our interpretation is very different then the Pope's (other religions developed from the book), and this interpretaion has led us to the same place that Buddhism is.

I've stated in a few past posts (not intending to get into preaching) that the book is very different then what people think it is or know it to be. The wesrtern civilizations (Euros) merely attached their religion to the book and ended up with what their religion was as before, and what theyn have is a terriblemess that goes nowhere. Well, back to the online info, I have to know more.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I was 13 when

Old Seer wrote:

I was 13 when that song was on the radio.

Are you 85?

edit] sorry, if you were 13 then; then by now you are 98.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I was

13 in 54 - earth angel by the penquins. I listened to KASM Albany MN whilst milking cows and cleaning barn.  There was a morning anchorman named Crazy Cliff doing the farm news in the morning. IE--gooooodmornin ( cow bell klanging)all you tee jucers, truck drivers,telephone janglers,waitresses, gear jammin peddle pushin buddies, and engineers all messin around this morning with the paper carriers, cooks and grease monkeys (cow bell) gooooooood morning. In the evening they would allow one hour for rock and rooll--which was new at that time. Yupe, I had a ducktail hair do too about 56. Butch wax and Brylcreem were the cat's meow.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth