Apech

The hard majority masturbate. Ok. Maybe not so hard after a while just pale and spotty. Ok I'll try again I suppose because I don't get your answer. In general women are angry. In general women are not angry. In general women are angry but in general they are not angry. I'm sure you are going to say context. So skip that and just tell what these statements actually mean.

Sloppy (or anyone), Just one thing has been puzzling me. For those who think (not including me) that 'in general' can mean some but not the majority. Does this mean I can say this: In general women have brown eyes. (majority) In general women have blue eyes. (many but not a majority) In general women have brown eyes but in general women have blue eyes. (both) ... I don't really care because I think the whole argument is daft ... but maybe some one could answer.

Oh! with the City ... sorry.

How many of those women tasted cheesy? Come on be honest.

No ... are you?

I think we always said that the Pit is moderated in extremis and to me that would include personal threats. If some one posted white supremacist racist material I would moderate that as well - so there are exceptions. I completely support what Mal has done here.

A few painful meetings ... yes. In any case 'in general' means the majority of the set you are talking about ... either 'women' ... or 'women you have met'. But if you make a statement like "In general women are shorter than men" people will understand that you think that most women are shorter than men ... not just the women you have met ... you might hang around with a lot of tiny people ....

I usually enjoy reading your posts GiH ... but you have lost me here.

If he said he liked Limburger cheese in general then he would probably mean that he liked most of the L. cheese he had eaten.

He's eaten most of it ... hence the need for exercise.

Hi seth, I'm going to try to answer your OP (rather than tell you you asked the wrong question!). I studied Buddhist philosophy about ten years ago and this is from memory and also I will just say how I understand it in my own terms (i.e simple English). The whole philosophical journey starts with asking whether or not anything exists which is fundamentally real in and of itself. In other words is there anything, object, idea or essence which does not depend on anything else to exist, is permanent and is wholly itself (i.e. has not parts). If there is - then it has a self. Its fairly easy to look round the observable world and see that there isn't anything like this. Just ask yourself about the objects in the room where you are sitting one by one, was it brought about by some process external to itself? will it last forever? is it made of parts? the answer to all three is always yes. So no ordinary objects have a 'self'. Having done this then turn the spotlight on the thoughts and ideas in your mind and you will similarly see that they arise dependent on causes, have a finite lifetime and can be broken down into parts - although it is slightly harder to see than with objects this is still the case. Lastly turn the spotlight on yourself. How did you arise? Will you live for ever? Do you have parts? And you will see just like everything else you have no self. In essence this is the Rantong view. Everything is empty of self. And that's it. Obviously it has huge ramifications but in itself it is as simple as that. Some people's reaction to this is to suggest either that as things appear to exist then there must be some eternal essence underpinning them - even though those things in themselves have no self - the essence does have a self. This is Eternalism. otherwise some people go the other way and say because nothing has a self then everything is meaningless and there is just a complete absence of anything. This is Nihilism. The Rantong view refutes both of these positions although it holds resolutely to the view of emptiness of self and refuses to accept the underlying essence of Eternalists or the complete absence of the Nihilists. The 'problem' arises then in examining what are viewed as the positive qualities of Buddhahood, or the enlightened mind. For instance the enlightened mind is compassionate. From where does compassion arise? Same for generosity, patience and so on. Where do these qualities come from? Is the compassion of the enlightened mind actually real? the Zhentong school would say yes. They would say that although the Rantong view is correct in that nothing has a self, in fact Buddha-nature is a real existent and the origin of the positive qualities of the enlightened mind and Buddhahood. In this case the Zhentong Buddhists say that everything is 'empty of other', that is empty of anything other than Buddha-nature itself. So Rantong = empty of self Zhentong = empty of other The Rantong Buddhist would say oh this is just reintroducing the self when we got rid of it. But the Zhentong Buddhists would say if you practice any kind of tantra then you are already implicitly accepting the Zhentong view (because of the yiddam). In the end these are philosophical views which are not the same as inner realization - following which there will be no conflict at all. This is my go at answering your questions. Hope it helps. I'm sure if I got something fundamentally wrong I will be corrected by our 'real' Buddhists.

They did before the state of Israel was created there are many testimonies to this effect that I have seen on TV documentaries about the history of the Middle East. But I have to say you are right to be cynical. As I say, I like to dream nice dreams.

Ah well, I still like to dream that some people somewhere can have different views and yet co-exist and inspire each other. Maybe not in ancient China, maybe only in the distant future. But I am dreamer.

Welcome to TTBs. A.

Hi Pritesh, Welcome .. look forward to your ideas! A.

Maybe one of the impressive things about Taoism and Buddhism is that in China they managed to co-exist and inspire each other. I'm not a scholar or Chinese history so I am sure someone can pop up and point out the times they fought each other - but in the end we have Chan and books like the Golden Flower which came out of the soup of Taoism and Buddhism.

Isn't a dichotomous a giant extinct amphibian? Some of them had two brains, one in their head and one in their tail. So the middle point access will be somewhere round their tummy button, I suppose.

Well thanks! Mods have limited access to the high level stuff though.

I am deleting 10/12 a day and I know Mal and others are too. We are being targeted at the moment and some of the forum tools to prevent this don't work as well as they should. Please be patient it tends to come in phases and should soon die down.

How many wives do you have? (and please no cheating by counting concubines).

I tried to read a Graham Hancock book once ...

The sphinx is constructed on what is probably a natural mound or outcrop of rock - one which was probably sacred fro a long time before dynastic Egypt - the rain erosion is not so strange.

Fascinating! Thanks.