can't you see the gods can take away your family, your children, your wealth, your health, even your sexual abilities anytime they want to?

[steve]

Continued

 

I still respect you, but I will appreciate it if you stop lying.

I respect you as well. I've been honest throughout this conversation.

 

In particular you said you agree with almost everything and then proceeded to disagree with practically the entire post. So at best you agree with 5% and disagree with 95%. And then you presented it as a slight disagreement.

I did agree with most of what you said as far as criticism goes but not insult. You choose to merge the two. I insist on making a distinction. That is the fundamental difference. You used the word criticism but equate it with insult - that is inaccurate. Any attempt to equate the two is disingenuous and nothing but a desperate attempt to win the debate.

 

Is this your idea of being "nice"? Don't you see this kind of dishonesty is exactly what I oppose? So you think you're doing me a service by presenting such false front to me? No, I reject it. I don't want that kind of service. Be straight with me. If you disagree don't try to sweeten your post artificially.

 

I am disappointed.

No, this was not my attempt at being nice, nor was it an attempt at being not nice. It was simply a plea for civility to the entire forum. I disagree with your position that small insults are OK and I will stand my ground and not be intimidated. I have not been dishonest in the least. If I can help you see the difference between an insult and a criticism then I will feel that I've done you a service. If not, then at least I've tried. If you are not interested in seeing the difference, I can live with that.

I am being completely straight with you.

You are free to believe me or not, that is your privilege.

There is no artificial sweetness here.

I am equally disappointed with you because I do value many of your opinions and contributions, but that's OK, I do not expect you to conform to my values or expectations and I do not expect you to be concerned with my approval.

You do not deal well with a challenges to your opinions.

We've been there before in discussions on this forum.

One of the most difficult things to do in life is learn how to recognize and accept when you are wrong, even harder to admit it publicly. On the other hand, all is a matter of personal perspective. You are entitled to your opinion and me to mine.

If you disagree regarding the distinction between insult and criticism, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Be well

[goldisheavy]

I think I've struck a nerve.

 

Certainly. Good job.

 

Absolutely not. With respect to criticism, I agree with you. With respect to insults, I disagree. My post referred to insults. Nearly your entire post referred to criticism, therefore I was completely honest in saying I agreed with your post. I believe the difference is meaningful. The intention of an insult is to attack the person. The intention of a criticism is to challenge an idea, opinion, or behavior.

 

This just means either I failed to communicate effectively or you failed to understand me. My post was precisely about insults and not about criticism. Usually insults occur at the same time as does the criticism, and that's not a coincidence.

 

Surprising or not, they are unnecessary and unhelpful.

 

Insults can be both necessary and helpful. Notice I am not saying "Insults are always necessary and always helpful." Notice that I am saying "can be"?

 

Then your experience is limited or you are being disingenuous.

 

On the contrary. My experience is vastly more thorough than most other peoples because I've lived in two different societies so I have a better perspective than someone who's only ever lived in just one, which is most people. That's just when it comes to worldly experience.

 

So when I am telling you that there was a kid who used to beat me for a year and then when I beat the kid back, we became friends the next day, I am not lying. You can trust me on that. It's not even irrational either. Perhaps you can't comprehend this, but when I hit the kid back, I earned his respect and we had no problems whatsoever later on. Does this mean everyone I fought became my friend? No, it doesn't. I fought lots of times growing up, including fighting with my friends plenty. I've never stopping being a friend just because someone punched me in the face either. And all this I am talking about physical fighting, which is more severe and more "in your face" so to speak, than insults on the internet, which are much more ethereal and abstract. I have tolerance but I expect my friends to have it too.

 

Nearly every insult on the web or in person leads to reprisal followed by escalation. Most violence begins with words. You are welcome to deny that but such denial is empty.

 

If what you're saying was true, we'd have WW3 already. Obviously you are exaggerating. Of course there is always a freak case here and there that gets into the media about someone getting violent in response to some online quarrel. Those cases get into the media precisely on the account of their freakish nature.

 

I agree that fighting can often lead to friendship but I don't think insults are a healthy or predictable way of making friends and you certainly don't mean to say that you insult people to make friends, do you?

 

Steve, when did I say that insults are altogether healthy?

 

If you eat a plateful of salt, is that healthy? But if you put a sprinkle of salt on a plateful of potatoes is that healthy? Obviously there is a difference.

 

If you read my argument as saying, let's just insult the hell out of each other, then you're doing everyone a disservice. I am arguing against the extremism here. I am arguing against absolutism. I agree that insults are something that easily becomes bad, but at the same time, I don't agree that insults are absolutely and unequivocally bad, which is what I think your position is.

 

I am willing to moderate myself but I am not willing to censor myself. In other words, I can cut down the salt, but don't ask me to become salt-free -- it ain't happening. You'll always be getting some degree of salt and pepper from me (and from everyone else too, whether you like it or not, and from the world and even from your own body as well).

 

Is roughness always negative? Perhaps not.

 

Good, so there is some hope that you're not an extremist.

 

Are personal insults appropriate and acceptable on this forum? No.

 

That's an extremist position. I think a small amount of insults are acceptable on this forum. Do you see the difference here? I am not saying, "Yo, let's all start being absolute dicks to each other." That's not whatsoever what I am arguing. I am simply saying "Loosen up and don't jump to conclusions so quickly." If someone gets a little hot, that's OK! It happens sometimes. Learn to be more tolerant. Instead you're learning to be more controlling and more demanding of your environment. You want this forum to be a perfect environment and you're not happy with anything less than perfect. If we equate this forum to potatoes then you want them salt-free. That's too extreme.

[goldisheavy]

Not only is that the rule of the forum, it is a basic principle of civil discourse.

 

Civil discourse is dishonest discourse. It's too heavy on pretense and formalism. This is why our society is in such deep shit right now. We can't really be honest with each other anymore.

 

I will refrain from insulting people and you may do as you see fit.

 

Wrong. You've already insulted me numerous times. You just don't get it. You called me "disingenuous" which is a polite way of saying "you lied." That's an insult. Further, you presented my nuanced argument against extremism as a simplistic "let's all be dicks to each other" argument. That insults my intelligence.

 

This is exactly why I said there is no clear line between criticism and insult. You think you're just politely and constructively criticizing me and I am thinking you're insulting me here. Of course I think your use of insults is a judicious and reasonable one, so I am more than glad to hear you out, just as is, uncensored and uncut.

 

Again, I agree. All communication is an unbroken spectrum of expression. Insults and criticism are closer to one another on that spectrum than to praise

 

That's an understatement.

 

. If you feel drawn to personal insult, that is your prerogative. I maintain that it is an immature and unskillful method of communication.

 

I maintain that the overuse of insults is unskillful.

 

Criticism can be skillful or unskillful, depending on the presentation. Criticism is valid and welcome on this forum. Crossing the line at personal insult is not permitted, nor should it be in my opinion.

Again, you are free to disagree.

 

Of course I disagree. I oppose all dogmatic rules. I oppose polarization of insults. If you say "personal insults are always bad" then how is that not a dogma?

 

Again you are being disingenuous here. My point is well made and incontrovertible, IMO (but of course, it is just my opinion). It is certainly possible to insult someone on occasion without insulting them with every comment. It happens on this forum all the time. Insults, by definition, are personal: Merriam-Webster - insult: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly. Not every insult is associated with a personal vendetta. Certainly that does occur rarely, as you suggest. Occasional insults are much more frequent but are insults nonetheless. Just because an insult is offered in association with a belief does not mean it is not hurtful and not an insult.

Case in point -

A: I belief Laozi is an immortal

B: I disagree, Laozi just means old man, you are wrong and you are gullible and I can prove it (criticism)

B: I disagree, Laozi just means old man and you are a moron and an asshole because you're stupid enough to believe that (insult)

 

Now you are the one who is misrepresenting here and not me. Why? Because look how you've butchered my side of the argument. Look at your B2. Your B2 is 50% insult. Writing comments that are half insult and half content is not something I support. Furthermore, how often does B2 appear? If the person is generally polite but then one day says something like B2, that's OK in my view. Why? Because I am not dogmatic. Because I am willing to take things in context. So overall you can see the person doesn't rely on insults as the main vehicle for delivery, and then an occasional insult is OK.

 

I think you have a serious problem Steve. You think you're the champion of tolerance, but actually you are promoting intolerance here. Are you aware of it?

 

You know in Russian there is a parable about the princess on the pea. It's very apropos. Let me briefly tell you about it. It's basically a story about a spoiled princess who was used to everything being perfect. So when a pea got caught under her mattress she woke up with a bruised back. So why is this significant?

 

It's significant because you're advocating a very coddled environment. What will be the result of that? The result, if you succeed, will be that everyone will become more sensitized. Thus what used to not be insulting in a slightly rougher environment will become insulting in a more coddled environment. So you're not actually getting rid of insults that way, you're simply lowering the bar for what is considered an insult. The more coddled and protected the environment, the lower the bar goes. Not only does this fail to actually get rid of the phenomenon of insult, but it makes it that much easier for people to feel insulted. I'm not even going to mention what happens to the flow of information in such an environment.

 

Suffice it to say, if you take your dislike of insults and fashion it into an extremist and dogmatic doctrine, the results will be very negative not only for you personally, but for the whole of humanity.

 

I agree with all of the above except the assertion that the judicious use of insults is acceptable.

 

OK, so when I call you an extremist, I am correct.

 

 

No need to be patronizing. My original post was not an attack on you personally, it was my intention to share a personal view that could potentially benefit others.

 

Steve, your view is harmful. It's not beneficial.

 

If you feel that the difference between elimination and moderation is sufficiently complex or subtle to require elucidation, please expound.

 

What do you think I have been doing all this time?

 

Fascinating, why would you think that? I've never complained to any moderator about any post since I joined the TaoBums with one exception. I complained to Sean about procurator - a self-proclaimed Nazi who was verbally attacking a Jewish member through personal mail on the forum. I'm not insulted at all. Your paranoia is yours, not mine. I've not backstabbed you nor have I made any particular effort to be nice and smiles to your face. Thank you for your honesty.

 

I am not paranoid. I completely believe you and take you at your word right now. You should try to understand where I am coming from. I see the conditions in your psyche just right for the sneaky "snake in the grass" behavior. Why? Because you prefer an excessively whitewashed environment. This means you sometimes have trouble expressing certain things to others, just like you have trouble hearing certain things (it goes both ways). This means there will likely be times when you feel offended or insulted, but instead of exchanging energy directly, honestly, you're going to (thanks to your preference of least resistance) go behind someone's back and complain in secret. It doesn't mean you do that. I completely trust that as of yet you don't do that. But at the same time, the conditions are perfect in your psyche for you to start behaving in that way if not now, then perhaps soon. Because you're demonstrating an intolerance of insult here. Instead of arguing for moderating insults you are arguing for complete cessation of insults. That's exactly what intolerance look like.

 

The law and order people turn out to be the most intolerant ones. Why? Why do you think that is? It's obvious in retrospect, right? They can't tolerate even the slightest affront, that's why they are so heavy on punishment. It goes hand in hand. At the same time, those same people, thanks to that self-same intolerance of affront will not punish you in your face, but they'll more often than not go behind your back.

 

You might want to look up "right-wing authoritarianism" on google for an enlightening discussion on this topic.

 

By the way, this posts costs $50 dollars. Where do I send the bill, Steve? Just kidding!

Edited May 23, 2011 by goldisheavy

[DalTheJigsaw123]

i used to smoke for 5 years..

 

i went to sheer hell just to quit the addictions of nicotine..

 

now i am trying to quit sex which is impossible because everybody is trying to throw the forces of lust at me..

 

but we will see what happens when i move to India..

 

my point is.. if i am going to die tommorrow.. there are going to be two things i will ask the universe for..

 

firstly, i will ask the universe to destroy the animal ego in me.. especially the attachments of greed and lust.. that would be one of the greatest achievement I will ever accomplish in my life..

 

secondly, i will ask the universe to grant me an immortal body of light.. that would be THE greatest achievement for me in my life..

 

Pulling away from sex is one of the most difficult things ever!

I am trying to stop masturbation and I am having a lot of problems.

[steve]

 

This just means either I failed to communicate effectively or you failed to understand me. My post was precisely about insults and not about criticism. Usually insults occur at the same time as does the criticism, and that's not a coincidence.

 

It may take me a while to address the whole post. Here is a brief start.

Please show me where you referred to insults in your post.

Perhaps you meant to equate insult with disrespect?

That would be as inaccurate and misleading as equating insults with criticism because, like criticism, disrespect may be directed at the opinion, not the person.

It is an attack on the person ie insult, that I am addressing.

 

Steve, many people can't see any difference between their viewpoints and themselves. So when the viewpoint is subject to criticism or even disrespect, they take it personally. That's a problem.

 

I don't think I must respect every single belief out there. In my opinion many beliefs lead to harm both for oneself and for others. I tolerate a huge amount of things, especially in the so-called "physical" sphere, but when we come together in a forum, in the mental sphere, I let it be known what's what. Why? Because you can always just skip the post. You don't have to read any specific post here. So in other words, everything on a forum like this is non-coercive. Everything is voluntary. So this is the only realm where we can express criticism and disrespect without physically hurting someone, which is vastly superior to actually physically hurting people and property (which is what eventually happens when disagreements fester and aren't addressed in the open forum).

 

Just like light and shadow, construction and destruction, they all have their place, so does the rough language. Rough language is what allows us to avoid tangible bloodshed down the line. It's what allows us to prevent extremism from crystalizing and stabilizing itself into something less manageable than a forum discussion. It's like a disease that's caught early and requires only a minimum intervention vs one that's left to fester and either requires a dramatic intervention or is fatal at that stage.

 

What if people only built up things and never demolished them? Well, if that's how we did things, we'd never be able to renovate or fix anything.

 

The key to making discussions like these painless is to remember that your opinions are not you. When your opinion is criticized or disrespected, it's not you who is criticized or disrespected.

 

I've always said that too much is too much, but at the same time, there is an allowable limit for just about anything that's well short of "too much." It's my responsibility not to go overboard with the disrespect but at the same time, it's also my responsibility to avoid becoming too upset when "I" am the subject of criticism and disrespect. Of course in reality it's not actually me, it's my opinions that I put forth that could be criticized and disrespected. If everyone else on this forum thought the same way, then all our problems would be manageable and solvable almost always without bans. Then our use of rough language would be moderate and at the same time, people would learn to gracefully handle criticism in a way that allowed people to be productive and flexible with their beliefs and opinions.

 

It's wrong to put the entire onus on one or the other party here, imo. I don't say the entire onus is on the one who is criticized to be more detached and mature, to be less egoistic and more innerly stable. I don't say that. But neither do I say the reverse, that the entire onus is on the person who itches to criticize to completely avoid doing so, or to present criticism in a dishonest way, respectfully, when in fact one doesn't experience true respect for this or that belief or opinion.

 

I believe my approach is not only healthy, it's realistic and attainable. Your approach Steve is essentially non-attainable and will lead to censorship and repression.

[manitou]

Very interesting, I came to this same basic conclusion myself after last year. Our lives are actually orchestrated by our superconscious "Higher Selves" or something. I suspect that we actually have little conscious control at our very limited level of (un)awareness down here.

 

 

Damn! That's good, Vortex.

 

Our superconscious higher selves are living out the hand in life they chose. Good or bad. The superconscious knew from the onset where it was starting from, and where it wants to go. We can enable its progress or we can hamper its progress. If we hamper it too much, we'll probably be recycling again, until we finally get to the point where it gets full sway.

 

From the inside to the outside It is manifesting. We are merely the skinwalkers.

[C T]

 

Our superconscious higher selves are living out the hand in life they chose. Good or bad. The superconscious knew from the onset where it was starting from, and where it wants to go. We can enable its progress or we can hamper its progress. If we hamper it too much, we'll probably be recycling again, until we finally get to the point where it gets full sway.

 

From the inside to the outside It is manifesting. We are merely the skinwalkers.

This is bordering on romanticized speculation.

[steve]

Gold -

After reading the rest of your rebuttal and conisdering how I might respond, I'm happy to let you have the last words. I have nothing more to add other than to summarize my original points:

 

I have advocated that we aspire to communicate without personal insult.

I believe it is possible to achieve this and I do not think it would compromise the quality of communication or intellectual intercourse.

I believe that resorting to intentional personal insult reflects immaturity and lack of skill in communication.

 

I really don't care to spend any more time on this topic. You're making gratuitous assumptions and assertions about my personality, character, and inent that are erroneous. Your attempts at insult are noted and declined.

Clearly, you practice what you preach and I intend to do the same.

I think the community has a clear view of our perspectives and can reach their own conclusions.

[Otis]

It's funny how life trains us for the very things we're talking about.

 

I have chosen to live my life with a man I met in AA 28 years ago. He is a recovering alkie too; but in his case, when he drinks, he is a skid row wino. He hasn't drank in 20 years, but the first 8 were hell. Pure hell.

 

Not only would he periodically fall off the wagon, he would crash cars, he would grow a long pukey beard and be out panhandling change for bottles of Thunderbird or a short dog. It was during this initial 8 year period of time that I learned to live with one foot on a banana peel and one foot in hell.

 

Alanon taught one thing only, after everything is said and done: Stay In Your Own Lane. No matter how painful it is, seeing your partner laying face down in a parking lot next to a dumpster. There is absolutely nothing you can do to change it.

 

As a result of this, I have two sides to me now. One side is totally entrenched in love for everything and everyone. The other side of me is like a switch I can turn on and off; an instantaneous ability to get to the Here and Now and absolutely pay no mind to what's going on around me. It was a survival technique that I learned, but I didn't realize how very spiritual it was at the painful times I had to do it.

 

Even now, although he doesn't drink, his bipolarity creates the same situation occasionally. I have to use the same technique to have a nice day for myself and not buy into his negativity.

 

Yes, life does remove things swiftly. All we can do is stay grounded, stay in tune, embrace the change.

 

It's like we're the projectors showing a movie to Spirit, that's all.

Thank you, Manitou, for this open and excellent share!

[Otis]

If all is impermanent, then realization is impermanent. If any realization is permanent, then ALL is not impermanent.

This is the trap - to believe Buddhahood to be the one permanent thing, Buddhists cling to a goal of attaining it.

Even that must be let go for us to approach liberation.

I think this is addressed by the koan - If you see the Buddha in the road KILL HIM!

 

Now I'm not a Buddhist, mind you, and I'm not at all well versed in scripture and doctrine and metaphysical debate so you can argue circles around me. But I believe this is a critical and subtle attachment that many Buddhists get stuck on.

And I don't mean to imply that you are stuck on it because I really don't know you at all, but I think many are.

I agree, no realization is permanent. Flush buddhahood down the toilet.

Great!

[Otis]

You can't find joys in daily life. So now you chase after spiritual bliss thinking it will lead to salvation. Gold is right, you are trading one fear for another, one goal for another. At heart, it's no different than compared to a man chasing sexual pleasures. You are seeking states, seeking pleasures, seeking powers. How are you any different?

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with either! Be ok with suffering and death. Accept them totally. When you are in struggle with them you are simply creating a reaction, a polarity that strengthens their significance. Everything simple comes and goes, just be at peace with the world.

The rest of your post is excellent, as well!

[Otis]

This really means not seeing the internal meaning of dependent origination/emptiness, a deceptively profound truth about the nature of things.

So, what would you say is the "internal meaning of dependent origination/emptiness"?

[Otis]

Oh, I agree that we should tell it like it is - to be honest with what we say. But if we are trying to have a conversation on a forum we want to draw the person closer to us instead of pushing them away. When we use personal insults we will cause the other person to stop listening to what we are saying and concentrate on finding words that are suggesting an insult so that we can return the insult or report us to the moderators.

Great!

 

Also, insults are easy. Any 3rd grader can insult. It's no sign of mastery.

 

Mastery is shown through listening, through comprehension, through the ability to communicate clearly, through building bridges of understanding for others. Mastery is shown through logic and compassion.

 

So, if someone wants to insult, dismiss, or project on other people, then go for it. But please don't expect to be rewarded with respect, because those actions are nothing impressive. They're the actions of angry children.

[goldisheavy]

Perhaps you meant to equate insult with disrespect?

 

Well, yes. I wouldn't say "equate" exactly, but insults are how you convey the disrespect in an honest way.

 

That would be as inaccurate and misleading as equating insults with criticism because, like criticism, disrespect may be directed at the opinion, not the person.

 

It's up to each person to remember the difference. Conventionally we address the person. The addressed person should know that in reality one's person can't really be addressed at all on an ultimate level. Also the person gets disrespected because the person has a free will. While free will is conditioned and isn't absolute, nonetheless it's there. And to the extent it's there, some amount of disrespect is fairly earned for holding harmful beliefs and expressing bad opinions. This is then further adjusted and moderated for the fact that we're all fallible and may be mistaken. But it never goes to 0. 0 is extremism. 0 is a lie. 0 is false.

 

Advocating anything in totality and in the extreme is almost always wrong and almost always results in an intolerant society that's conditioned to always expect perfection and that's always ever disappointed and angry when it fails to find that perfection it's bred to expect.

 

Once again, I am generally against insults. The difference as I understand it is that you want to take a hard line against insults and I take a "soft" line if you will. That's the only difference. I am against absolutism. I am against saying that insults are absolutely unequivocally bad and wrong in every case. I maintain that the overuse of insults is what's bad. When I ask people to be slightly more accepting toward an occasional personal insult or two, I am asking people to be more tolerant. When you ask all of us to cooperate in creating a dishonest and coddled environment, you're promoting, consenting to, and condoning intolerance.

 

And all that because I am basically saying a post history that's 95% content and 5% insult is OK and yet you say, nothing less than 100% content and 0% insult is OK. You're a greedy and intolerant person if you can't forgive and let go of the 5%. You seek perfection from humanity in a way that's unnatural and unDaoist. There is no perfection like that anywhere and seeking it dogmatically and inflexibly is exactly what Confucious attempted to do, and that's exactly what Zhuangzi criticized.

Edited May 23, 2011 by goldisheavy

[三江源]

.

Edited March 11, 2015 by 三江源

[Otis]

Seems to me that insults on this forum are always delusion, because they are describing the person, and the person is simply not here. The only thing that is present, is the argument. The "other person" is merely a projection of my mind, not a real thing. Only in my imagination can I arrive at "who this is" from "what was written". Insults are just showing the contents of my imagination.

 

So, even for the sake of being honest and non-delusional, I choose not to insult (even if it were not the policy).

Edited May 23, 2011 by Otis

[manitou]

Also, one has to admit that anonymously insulting someone from afar that can't confront you in person is a rather cowardly thing to do.

 

One of the treasures of the sage is Love. This is what we should aspire to for each other.

[goldisheavy]

Also, one has to admit that anonymously insulting someone from afar that can't confront you in person is a rather cowardly thing to do.

 

One of the treasures of the sage is Love. This is what we should aspire to for each other.

 

I agree, but don't forget the flip side of the coin. Failure to tolerate a rare and occasional insult from a stranger on the internet is also a cowardly thing to do, considering the stranger can't get close and back up the insult with a fist in your face to make it really stick. So when insults over the internet mean so very little, trying to argue for a complete abandonment of them is not only extremism and intolerance, it's sheer cowardice and egoism (leggo my eggo).

 

Yes, love is the treasure. Extremism harms love. It's exactly love that compels me to protest extreme ideologies and policies.

Edited May 23, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Sounds like the Palestinians and Isrealis. You insult me and I insult you. (You know, an eye for an eye and all that stuff.) They have been insulting each other for over one hundred years.

[goldisheavy]

Sounds like the Palestinians and Isrealis. You insult me and I insult you. (You know, an eye for an eye and all that stuff.) They have been insulting each other for over one hundred years.

 

Yes, intolerance of insults manifests in many ways. For some it means you feel obliged to respond tit for tat. For others it means brutal and suffocating forum "moderation" (more like censorship in some cases, think e-sangha here). For yet others it means all of the above. For many people intolerance of insult is not just a personal preference, it's seen as a duty prescribed in the holy law. Such people make intolerance their highest and most divine "virtue."

 

Tolerating an occasional insult and forgiveness go hand in hand. If you can't tolerate an affront to your person, the likelihood of you forgiving it or overlooking it is low. At the same time, if you understand nothing is absolutely perfect and that good enough is good enough, and you receive a rare insult and overlook it, you're not the kind of person who's going to clamor for bans or for an insult-free environment. You will be the kind of person who will promote allowing people emotional room to breathe a little, to not be so guarded and formal with what we say.

 

I can tolerate an occasional insult or two. Of course I don't want to listen to someone whose posts are 100% or even 50% insults and otherwise are light on content. When someone heats up from time to time, I don't run to the moderator and I don't start cracking my moral whip. I forgive and move on. I believe I am in the right here and I believe I set an example worthy of emulation. And if you agree, then loosen up on the bans and please loosen up on the extremism. I am specifically not saying it's OK to just start insulting everyone for fun and without limit, which I think is how some people erroneously continue to take what I am saying. I am not asking anyone to be or do something I already am not or don't do times ten.

 

Now, the reason I make this issue personal is so that people have a real target for their, in my opinion, bullshit extremism. For once I let you strike straight at my heart instead of abstractly into thin air. I will champion non-absolutism. I will take your attacks on tolerance personally. This way you will know the truth and you won't be deluded. Otherwise you may talk weakly into thin air, and receive random half-assed replies and pass up on learning something. This way I've actually engaged you. I gave you traction. I let you feel what it's like to actually have a worthy opponent instead of talking to the choir like you always tend to do. Good thing. I hope everyone enjoyed it.

 

By the way, this is tiring and I can't always do it. We must take turns. So this will be $200 dollars for this post. Where do I send the bill? Wait a second... wait a second... keep your money! I am only kidding!

Edited May 23, 2011 by goldisheavy

[steve]

So when insults over the internet mean so very little, trying to argue for a complete abandonment of them is not only extremism and intolerance, it's sheer cowardice and egoism (leggo my eggo).

I've had an epiphany!

I'm an intolerant, extremist, egoist, coward who has the audacity to advocate verbal non-violence on a forum devoted to spiritual investigation.

I feel much better now.

Thanks Gold.

Good times buddy.

[Marblehead]

Gold, you are so f'ed up I am truely surprised that you are able to write so well and express youself as well as you do.

 

(There. I can make insults. Are you happy?)

 

Note to moderators: Just trying to make a point here.

 

So did I gain anything from my above statement? Sure I did. I got to rub my ego. Did I lose anything? Sure I did. I likely lost some respect of some members here. Not that I am searching for respect but I really don't want a bunch of people disliking me or even hating me.

 

I don't believe in the permanent banning of any member from a Taoist forum. That just isn't very Taoist. But I do strongly support suspension for rule violation.

 

Back in the old days here before moderation insults were flying left and right and little substance was being discussed. At least we now have valuable discussions.

 

I really do understand what you are saying Gold, and I actually pretty much live by those rules in my real life.

 

A memory popped up: Yesterday my best friend came over for a visit and he mentioned that most people don't like to talk with his son. I said, "Face it Don, most people just don't like your son."

 

Most people would think that that was bery insulting. My friend laughed and nothing more was said about that because he knows that I was speaking a truth.

 

I used to be a member of a forum where I had been warned twice by moderators for using a naughty word for the purpose of properly expressing myself. Three warnings and you get suspended. In my book, two strikes and you are out. I left the forum because I couldn't be myself while interacting with others on it.

 

I know that some people here think that I am a pussy. All I can say is that one should never judge me according to the words I speak. There are words in one of Leonard Cohen's songs that go "I will help you if I can; I will kill you if I must." I hold thaose words very dear to my heart.

 

I managed twenty years in the Army without getting the Purple Heart. I took good care of myself and never got wounded. I am glad I didn't get that medal.

 

If an insult is needed what is wrong with PMing the person, offer an insult, and just have a really great time throwing rotten eggs at each out until the matter has been settled one way or another without disturbing the flow of the discussion where the insult was felt needed and just respond in a rational manner to the post that was so offensive? (That was a long sentence.)

 

So, bottom line, what you say is true as far as I can see, but it is not allowed here. We still have great flexibility on this board. I don't think the rules are too strict.

 

And I will continue trying to be a nice guy whether you like it or not. So there!!! Hehehe.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

I've had an epiphany!

I'm an intolerant, extremist, egoist, coward who has the audacity to advocate verbal non-violence on a forum devoted to spiritual investigation.

I feel much better now.

Thanks Gold.

Good times buddy.

 

Hehehe. I am delighted to see some humor coming from you.

 

Your ego got a good rubbing from that! Hehehe.

[Vajrahridaya]

So, what would you say is the "internal meaning of dependent origination/emptiness"?

 

If you want to know the dialectic... you can read Nagarjuna.

 

Here's what the Buddha said...

 

Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, which distinguishes nītārtha (clear) and neyārtha (obscure) terms -

 

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one reads the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one reads the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

 

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

 

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..."

 

"In Dzogchen tradition the mass of interdependent origination is considered illusory:

 

[One says], "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist.

 

What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena, is the play of energy of sentient beings. There is nothing external or separate from the individual. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum. This is the Great Perfection that is discovered in the Dzogchen practice.

 

"Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself [sems, citta, mind], (which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition."

 

The experiential result is...

 

Nagarjuna's Mahamudra Vision

 

 

Homage to Manjusrikumarabhuta!

 

1. I bow down to the all-powerful Buddha

Whose mind is free of attachment,

Who in his compassion and wisdom

Has taught the inexpressible.

 

2. In truth there is no birth -

Then surely no cessation or liberation;

The Buddha is like the sky

And all beings have that nature.

 

3. Neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist,

But all is a complex continuum

With an intrinsic face of void,

The object of ultimate awareness.

 

4. The nature of all things

Appears like a reflection,

Pure and naturally quiescent,

With a non-dual identity of suchness.

 

5. The common mind imagines a self

Where there is nothing at all,

And it conceives of emotional states -

Happiness, suffering, and equanimity.

 

6. The six states of being in Samsara,

The happiness of heaven,

The suffering of hell,

Are all false creations, figments of mind.

 

7. Likewise the ideas of bad action causing suffering,

Old age, disease and death,

And the idea that virtue leads to happiness,

Are mere ideas, unreal notions.

 

8. Like an artist frightened

By the devil he paints,

The sufferer in Samsara

Is terrified by his own imagination.

 

9. Like a man caught in quicksands

Thrashing and struggling about,

So beings drown

In the mess of their own thoughts.

 

10. Mistaking fantasy for reality

Causes an experience of suffering;

Mind is poisoned by interpretation

Of consciousness of form.

 

11. Dissolving figment and fantasy

With a mind of compassionate insight,

Remain in perfect awareness

In order to help all beings.

 

12. So acquiring conventional virtue

Freed from the web of interpretive thought,

Insurpassable understanding is gained

As Buddha, friend to the world.

 

13. Knowing the relativity of all,

The ultimate truth is always seen;

Dismissing the idea of beginning, middle and end

The flow is seen as Emptiness.

 

14. So all samsara and nirvana is seen as it is -

Empty and insubstantial,

Naked and changeless,

Eternally quiescent and illumined.

 

15. As the figments of a dream

Dissolve upon waking,

So the confusion of Samsara

Fades away in enlightenment.

 

16. Idealising things of no substance

As eternal, substantial and satisfying,

Shrouding them in a fog of desire

The round of existence arises.

 

17. The nature of beings is unborn

Yet commonly beings are conceived to exist;

Both beings and their ideas

Are false beliefs.

 

18. It is nothing but an artifice of mind

This birth into an illusory becoming,

Into a world of good and evil action

With good or bad rebirth to follow.

 

19. When the wheel of mind ceases to turn

All things come to an end.

So there is nothing inherently substantial

And all things are utterly pure.

 

20. This great ocean of samsara,

Full of delusive thought,

Can be crossed in the boat Universal Approach.

Who can reach the other side without it?

 

Colophon

The Twenty Mahayana Verses, (in Sanskrit,

Mahayanavimsaka; in Tibetan: Theg pa chen po nyi

shu pa) were composed by the master Nagarjuna.

They were translated into Tibetan by the Kashmiri

Pandit Ananda and the Bhikshu translator Drakjor

Sherab (Grags 'byor shes rab). They have been

translated into English by the Anagarika

Kunzang Tenzin on the last day of the year 1973

in the hope that the karma of the year may be mitigated.

 

May all beings be happy!

 

'Since everything is but an apparition

Perfect in being what it is,

Having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection,

One may well burst out in laughter.'

LONGCHENPA

Edited May 23, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Damn! That's good, Vortex.

 

Our superconscious higher selves are living out the hand in life they chose. Good or bad. The superconscious knew from the onset where it was starting from, and where it wants to go. We can enable its progress or we can hamper its progress. If we hamper it too much, we'll probably be recycling again, until we finally get to the point where it gets full sway.

 

From the inside to the outside It is manifesting. We are merely the skinwalkers.

 

I would say this is a good example of Subjective Monist Idealism.