Apech

Could the last one to leave turn the lights out, set the alarm and lock the front door. Thanks.

Nope. The general forum is for general discussion about spiritual paths. The Taoist Dis. is for Taoist only. If the Christian stuff you are referring to is Immortal4life's stuff then I need to point out after a lot of agonising we had online poll in which most people said it should stay in General Discussion - so its not going to get moved now. I think we have too many subs already ... quite a few get very little use (Articles, Vedanta ...) ... I think Christain Mysticism + Gnostic Christianity is legit for General

Would there be tambourines, 1950's style glasses and no sex before marriage?

I wouldn't do this for just anybody! Green Tiger - second from bottom Heironymous _ bottom ...no reflection on your value or worth ... just how new you are PM next time if you want attention ... this thread got a bit lost.

@green tiger Sorry matey completely missed this before. Will try to find time later to do it ... got to eat now I am being called to the table!

Socrates

Has this thread gone ... to the dogs?

Just want to say that I understood from the beginning why you started this thread and why you thought it important to do so. I didn't see it as an attack on Tibetan Buddhism ... it was almost as if you were saying - look even in Tibetan Buddhism even the DL makes the mistake of under playing this problem. When I was a practicing TBist a few years ago I noticed that 'sexual misconduct' was the area which was fudged over the most. In terms of lying, stealing, killing ... there was no issue really ... intoxication was fairly loosely enforced because most people drank ... what was said was don't get blind drunk cos that damages your consciousness ... but sexual misconduct ... was difficult. We were instructed on the basis of standard texts like Gampopa's Jewel Ornament etc... which contain list of prohibitions such as not sleeping with a prostitute paid for by someone else (!) ... + the usual list against homosexuality and so on ... but it was all kind of skated over with the general injunction to 'not do sexual harm' ... which the texts did not explicitly say. It seemed to me, rather with Leviticus that the whole thing needed revising up to common morality in the 21 century ... but there was a reluctance to tamper with what have come to be regarded as 'perfect' teachings. In Buddhism its all under the heading of skillful means anyway ... harmlessness being the watchword ... and within the view that the reason bad acts are bad is because they generate harmful karmic conditions for oneself and others. I think this is a useful way to think because it avoids the need to think about moral absolutes ... which in theistic systems are God given ... or dictated on Mt. Sinai (which in my view far from making them absolute makes them arbitrary). The DL is celibate and has not had sexual relations with anyone ... he has said this in interviews and I have no reason to doubt ... he is therefore probably the worst person to decide on what the rules around sexual behaviour should be. He may not be able to fully relate to the harm done. he is probably allowing himself to be guided by what these medieval texts say. Which in the subject area is not really enough.

@twinner I think I agree that the cover up tendency is a big problem. Institutions (of all types) seem to want to protect themselves over and above protecting their members (the abused ones). Presumably this is because those in authority over such institutions think they have so much to lose. This leads to poor decision making based on self interest. It seems to happen in every case ... and so you can conclude that its a problem to do with how human beings organise themselves.

I'm not an atheist either ... but I do like to listen to them speak. I don't have to agree with someone to enjoy listening to their arguments. At least they give a damn. I'm not an atheist but I don't believe in the god that the Christians etc. believe in. Or rather I don't think they (the Christians) know what they believe in but will not rest till I am converted to their confusion.

Actually they say there is no evidence that God does exist. Not quite the same thing. I would also add that in my view the God they doubting doesn't exist. Its a fabrication and in that sense they are right. "A softcore moderate Agnostic" ... so that's "I don't know whether god exists or not, he might he might not, I'm 'moderate' whatever that means in this context, so my thoughts are flexible so as not to offend" ... yikes ... change the subject ... do not engage in serious conversation.

I am a viscous frog does this help clarify my position?

No he'll take her shopping of course. Duh! She could do with a new outfit.

The man is just lulling her into a false sense of security ... the dog is his assistant.

Yes but she seems to be putting all her weight on his private parts ... that's got to hurt.

Joining a religion or religious group does not make you a better person or less likely to commit unacceptable acts. After all, all you have done is joined something. This is the same for becoming a monk. It doesn't make you any better than anyone else. Its a charade based on a kind of appearance of spirituality and not actual spirituality. In fact I'm not even sure if being spiritual in any sense makes you better than anyone else. It probably makes you different. It probably means you have thoughts and feelings that other people do not have access to. But it doesn't make you more likely to behave better does it? Unless you have developed a higher sensitivity to the feelings of others perhaps ... which would make you less likely to be able to harm them. Religion in the sense of organisations, gurus, teachers (who go beyond teaching how to do something for yourself) is all pure nonsense. Organised religion is afraid of the gifted individuals who think for themselves. In fact most of the founders of organised religions were such persons themselves and have been captured by the church. In a sense we should welcome the lifting the lid on all this stuff. Its a good reminder not to get drawn in. Think for yourself. Live in doubt and uncertainty if necessary. Endure you own hardship. Suffer your own pain. Learn your own lessons. Do not give this responsibility to someone else. Any good teacher worth his/her salt will tell you this and not let you do otherwise. This is the only protection against any kind of abuse.

Beware I am a viscous God.

I agree that religion is natural. Even Neanderthal we are given to believe left grave goods which indicates a belief in some kind of afterlife. BUT I feel that what most churches indulge in is not actually 'participating in spiritual activities together'. They are just doing something around wish-fulfilment and social control. For the very reason that they don't critically examine themselves and what they do ... they end up in a hell of a mess. This includes the terrible hypocrisy of preaching 'goodness' and practicing abuse. You can see in the Hitchens (et al) youtube video debates around religion/atheism that the Christians are desperate to avoid any kind fo analysis beyond ... just believe what the bible says. You can imagine how hard it is for the church leaders (Pope, DL and everyone else) to admit to there being something rotten in the midst of their pretendy perfection. At least the scientists question things. Basically I would say that what the churches, mosques and synagogues practice is actually not religion, if you choose to define religion in any sensible kind of a way. I would even go so far as to say they are actively stopping people expressing their genuine spontaneous personal experiences.

Maybe its the institutions which are the problem. Including the idea of being a celebate monk. This is probably a lifestyle suitable only to a very few people. Others take it one but cannot keep to it and end up twisted/weak and so on. If it happens in Christain and buddhist institutions then it may be something about human beings and not about those religions. Unless of course you believe that there is something rotten in all religion. As a Christopher Hitchens fan (but still a spiritual person!) I can see that validity of this last view.

Vmarco, This (the bolded statement) is a very sweeping and damning judgement on another poster. How can you possibly know this is true? Do you know the person you are replying to? Have you met them? Do you actually know that they are 'unable to consider others'? Can't you see that you cannot possibly know if this is true or not? I am assuming you come on TTBs because you want to discuss with others. If so perhaps discussion would be better if you tried to be a little less judgmental in your style. A.

Hi, The sub-forums were created in response to user requests for them to exist. Mostly it was felt by some that they wanted a specific place on here to discuss subjects in a slightly more controlled way. And so that threads would not get 'lost' in general discussion. For instance the TTC sub was created to exclusively discuss the TTC. By controlled, I don't mean controlled by the moderation team but by those who chose to engage in this way ... the original idea gave limited mod powers to volunteers. It was never the idea that they would be exclusive i.e. not all vedanta threads are moved to that sub forum. And the same goes to Buddhism. I don't know exactly why Twinner chose to post this here instead of in the Buddhist sub but I would guess he wanted a discussion involving a wider range of people than those who normally look in the B sub. That's completely ok. You can start threads on anything to do with any spiritual path in General. I think everyone wants to preserve the open and free form debate that exists here. The only moving of threads that I would envisage would be the other way round. If someone starts a thread on something which is clearly not Buddhist in the B-sub then I think we would move it to here. If you don't like the subs - you don't have to use them. Its a choice. But if you do then you would be expected to stay within the subject area. On a more general point there's lots of parts of TTBs that get very little use. e.g. Articles, Off Topic. Off Topic is there to discuss anything you want (xpt. offensive stuff, porn and so on) if something is moved there it is not a relegation ... but I think people see it that way. The PIT is a dumping ground for anything borderline - cos we don't like deleting anything but spam. Otherwise TTBs is your oyster. Apech (as me but vaguely for the mod team)

I totally misunderstood your first post. BUT your English is better than most. Totally clear and lucid. If you wish to share any more philosophical gems please do!

@bubbles Thank you for this reply - very illuminating. @Vmarco What did you mean by exist = stand alone ???