The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[yrreg]

Psychological counseling vs psychotherapy.

Dear Dancing David:

I am happy that we have achieved some kind of camaraderie, unlike someone here who has become rabid in his hatred for me and contempt, and he says so hollering it on every occasion he has to put in a message in reaction to mine; so that his is a message of hatred and contempt for a fellow member here, and nothing else.

---------------------

About what I said:

I think that modern counselors trained in psychology of human behavior, emotions, attitudes, fears, needs, etc., and having a positive outlook for man can still do a better and more realistic job, to enable people to adjust to life and the world in a better way, i.e., more satisfactory manner than Buddhism.

That is my opinion.​

.​

On that score you have brought in what I call psychotherapeutic schools for treating people who are psychologically sick; you use the word therapy continually, but I never use that word, instead I use the word counseling.

And that is funny Yrreg, as discussed in the past, buddhism is similar to the most effective and tested form of counseling/therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy.

But what about the other forms of therapy, practiced by the so called enlightened and modern therapists? Some that border of CBT might be effective like CBT.



Many are hokum, charlatanry and total hogwash and bull-flop.

At the top (IMNSHO) we have Freudian therapy and all it's woo-woo psychodynamic crap. Followed closely by existentialism and all its ilk. Then we have the whole integration movement and many forms of gestalt therapy (although some of it and some of Jung has merit it is overwhelmed by the total and complete piles of bullflop), then there are the namby-pamby touchy-feely types of therapy, ANYTHING that involves regression, most things involving 'recovered' memories, color therapy and the misapplication of feminist therapy to the "diseases of femininity", and then there is the whole "Christian counseling" movement.

Any counseling that does not have a clear cut and measurable goal, any goal that is not intended to be attained in twelve weeks, any practioner who works with basically healthy people for years and years and calls it therapy instead of spiritual coaching.

I have met very good practioners who practice the bogus disciplines and call it therapy. But many people are harmed, exploited and wasting their money in the name of the so called modern therapies you are touting.

.​

To my understanding and I could be mistaken so please correct me, what I mean by psychological counseling is distinctively different from psychotherapy or therapy.

To me with the use of the term psychological counseling, the phrase means that a person is not sick psychologically but only trying to find out what to do with life and how to do it; but with psychotherapy the person undergoing psychotherapy is sick.

Can you do me a favor by looking up reference materials in the web and find out whether there is really such an animal as psychological counseling which is distinct from psychotherapy, where the first is for healthy people but the second is for sick people.

On that basis, I would consider that insofar as psychological counseling is concerned, my view is that modern psychological counseling as I have described above is superior to Buddhist psychological counseling.


Yrreg

 

[Loss Leader]

unlike someone here who has become rabid in his hatred for me and contempt, and he says so hollering it on every occasion he has to put in a message in reaction to mine; so that his is a message of hatred and contempt for a fellow member here, and nothing else.

Hey, that's not fair! My messages are also full of scorn and derision!

 

[Complexity]

Hey, LL - he could be talking about you. He hasn't mentioned my name yet. I am 'someone'!

I'm also apparently rabid and I holler.

What's not to like?

 

[Dancing David]

Dear Dancing David:

I am happy that we have achieved some kind of camaraderie, unlike someone here who has become rabid in his hatred for me and contempt, and he says so hollering it on every occasion he has to put in a message in reaction to mine; so that his is a message of hatred and contempt for a fellow member here, and nothing else.

---------------------

About what I said:

I think that modern counselors trained in psychology of human behavior, emotions, attitudes, fears, needs, etc., and having a positive outlook for man can still do a better and more realistic job, to enable people to adjust to life and the world in a better way, i.e., more satisfactory manner than Buddhism.

That is my opinion.​

.​

On that score you have brought in what I call psychotherapeutic schools for treating people who are psychologically sick; you use the word therapy continually, but I never use that word, instead I use the word counseling.

.​

To my understanding and I could be mistaken so please correct me, what I mean by psychological counseling is distinctively different from psychotherapy or therapy.

To me with the use of the term psychological counseling, the phrase means that a person is not sick psychologically but only trying to find out what to do with life and how to do it; but with psychotherapy the person undergoing psychotherapy is sick.

Can you do me a favor by looking up reference materials in the web and find out whether there is really such an animal as psychological counseling which is distinct from psychotherapy, where the first is for healthy people but the second is for sick people.

On that basis, I would consider that insofar as psychological counseling is concerned, my view is that modern psychological counseling as I have described above is superior to Buddhist psychological counseling.


Yrreg

I use the word therapy because that is the word that is generally used, counseling has an even wider set of uses and connotations. I am not sure about how it is used outside of the USA.

Here in the US the terms are used to denote a level of education and professional accreditation. Therapy is considered to be a higher level of education and training.

Counseling is much more loose in its use and often does not require any sort of training or accreditation.

For example from my own life, it comes down to who pays the bills. Illinois is one of the states with a high level of laws and regulations regarding who may practice what and call themselves what.
Under Medicaid ( a state program funded by the federal government and states and with rules from both and mandated by the federal government) there are specific guidelines as to what will be funded and what the rules are. There has to be an assessment, there has to be a treatment plan and there has to be documentation of all services provided.
Under those rules certain things can only be done by a credentialed therapist who generally has at least a master's degree, 'counseling' can be provided by someone with a bachelor's degree if they are supervised by someone with a master's degree.
This also applies to private insurance as well, with different rules and requirements added on top. The state also regulates who may do therapy or counseling for money and will sometimes come after you, mainly it makes a huge difference if you end up in court. Counseling is now governed by a law that allows for people with bachelors degree's specifically in counseling to get certified.
But as a parallel system to the mental health system there are other systems: addictions, developmental disability, family life skills and domestic violence. All with their own funding sources, requirements and regulations. Some have higher standards and requirements some have lower. Therapy is a term regulated solely by the state for a very specific meaning. Counseling can be defined differently depending on which state agency is the body in charge.

But back to my original start on this derail: there is one proven and effective strategy for dealing with human issues, CBT. There can be counseling regarding issues not related to mental health, financial managements (heavily regulated) and other areas. But while your idea is an interesting one, it is not usually applicable to a state like mine that regulates very heavily what may be done in the name of helping people.

 

[Dancing David]

Funny how you still haven't provided your scientific and sceptical critique of the eightfold path Yrreg!

 

[yrreg]

Loss Leader, you have matured, kudos!

Posted by yrreg
unlike someone here who has become rabid in his hatred for me and contempt, and he says so hollering it on every occasion he has to put in a message in reaction to mine; so that his is a message of hatred and contempt for a fellow member here, and nothing else. ​

Hey, that's not fair! My messages are also full of scorn and derision!

.​

I am not referring to you, Loss, you have outgrown your infantilistic hostility to people who just happen to have different or even opposite views to theirs, and who (the infantilists) are stubbornly immune to open up their own views in black and white for examination.

You are a practicing attorney in New York, you told me; so I knew from the start that one day you will not be looking for people to tag on the label of hate monger because they say that Buddhists cannot contribute anything of worth to the culture of mankind, because their orientation is toward the extinction of life and the whole universe into a kind of non-existence which is in their attitude also pointless to determine exactly what, except that in that state which is the final one of life and the universe, being and non-being are equally pointless -- that will be the ultimate exit from suffering the whole Buddhist system is built upon, as very explicitly and succinctly proclaimed in their statement of belief at the very start: "There is suffering..."


Some people take longer, much longer to grow up, and find the fun in the dissecting of worldviews, withal maintaining oneself on a purely academic level of intellectual curiosity.


But I am not infallible in my assessment of your present intellectual development; just the same I always from habit give people the benefit of the doubt, unless a person keeps shouting from the rooftop everytime he uses speech: "I hate, I hate, I hate..."



Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

You are the believer, you have to state your beliefs first...

Funny how you still haven't provided your scientific and sceptical critique of the eightfold path Yrreg!

.​

I want to get this answer from you, Dancing David, but you have not responded to the question categorically up to now:

Is there anything original from Gautama in his eightfold path?​

If you tell me that you have answered that question already, then just for the record repeat your answer here.

And I want you to recall that in accepted practice among serious discussants, you being the believer in Buddhism are bound to state your beliefs, not the unbeliever; because the believer is in effect the allegator (pun not intended).

For otherwise, the believer will always maintain that the unbeliever does not have the right idea or verbalization of the believer's beliefs.


And that is a waste of time for the unbeliever to give attention to the believer.


Okay, here is the procedure for us to follow in our discussion about Buddhism:

First, you state what you believe to be the beliefs in Buddhism which you believe to be worthy of your belief and observance, clearly and definitively, not wishy washy; so put your beliefs in words which are similar to ones whereby you will bind yourself as regards the money you will pay out for what you stand to get in return.

Second, you state which of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance to be original with Gautama.

Third, then if you want me to do a socalled "scientific and sceptical critique" of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance, then we will see first how critical thinking and empirical evidence can be employed to determine the critically verifiable components of your beliefs on the basis of empirical evidence, as regards your belief and the efficacy for whatever ends the observance of those beliefs are intended by you to realize for yourself, and for others who do as you do in regard to belief and observance.


Please, proceed orderly and keep to meticulous procedure, otherwise you and I are wasting time for ourselves and for readers here.


Yrreg

 

[Complexity]

Loss Leader - I am so glad Yrreg doesn't think I've matured but thinks you have. How are you going to take his slap in the face?

What a bossy little beasty Yrreg is!

He's sort of what I imagine the fundy Christian god would be like if he existed.

Hell would be a blessing.

 

[Dancing David]

.​

I want to get this answer from you, Dancing David, but you have not responded to the question categorically up to now:

Is there anything original from Gautama in his eightfold path?​

If you tell me that you have answered that question already, then just for the record repeat your answer here.

And I want you to recall that in accepted practice among serious discussants, you being the believer in Buddhism are bound to state your beliefs, not the unbeliever; because the believer is in effect the allegator (pun not intended).

For otherwise, the believer will always maintain that the unbeliever does not have the right idea or verbalization of the believer's beliefs.


And that is a waste of time for the unbeliever to give attention to the believer.


Okay, here is the procedure for us to follow in our discussion about Buddhism:

First, you state what you believe to be the beliefs in Buddhism which you believe to be worthy of your belief and observance, clearly and definitively, not wishy washy; so put your beliefs in words which are similar to ones whereby you will bind yourself as regards the money you will pay out for what you stand to get in return.

Second, you state which of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance to be original with Gautama.

Third, then if you want me to do a socalled "scientific and sceptical critique" of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance, then we will see first how critical thinking and empirical evidence can be employed to determine the critically verifiable components of your beliefs on the basis of empirical evidence, as regards your belief and the efficacy for whatever ends the observance of those beliefs are intended by you to realize for yourself, and for others who do as you do in regard to belief and observance.


Please, proceed orderly and keep to meticulous procedure, otherwise you and I are wasting time for ourselves and for readers here.


Yrreg

That is hysterically funny Yrreg, you used 341 words to avoid doing what you said you would do here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2662397&postcount=453

So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.

I believe that the eightfold path is a piece of genuine buddhism Yrreg why do you continue to waffle. Are you avoiding it because...?

I have stated repeatedly that I find the eightfold path to be meaningful and useful. You may not be happy that I have chosen that but there it is.

The rest of your post it just you trying to call retreat an "advance to the rear."

If you can't live by your words that is your issue.

I will repost the eightfold path as I perceive it and as an added bonus, as I believe that the buddha may have been the first person to state the concept of Annatta ( at least that has been recorded), I will categorically state that the eightfold path as interpreted by annatta is something that I have to find merit it. Both are commonly attributed to buddhism.

Third I will sate that I believe that impermanence is a crucial part of the buddha's teaching. there is nothing that does not change, another thing that the eightfold path must be interpreted under.

So again oh Waffle master Supreme, who wiggles to escape his statements:

These are the things that I feel are at the core of buddhism as I believe buddhism to be:

1. The eightfold path.

2. Annatta, there is no soul, there is no transcendent self, there is a body, thoughts, emotions, perception/sensation and habits/memory. that is all to a human, no more.

3. I believe that all is impermanent, all changes, all in whole, all in part, changes and is transitory.

I have stated these things repeatedly in threads here, I have held that these are at the core of the buddha's teachings. I state now as I have in the past that I find them useful.

So please show us that you are the one who is slippery like an eel, and that you are the one who tries to wiggle away after making statements. As the bible and many other places say "By their acts you shall know them."

Peace, glad tidings and may the joy of life suffuse you and yours.

I affirm that this post is written by me, David G. , also known as Snowbird, Anorion and A^3. I affirm that these are my statements and no others, and that they are my beliefs and thoughts as presented herein.

BULLWINKLE!

All hail Eris, All hail Discordia.

Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.
Love is the law, Love Under Will.

So mote it be.

By holy Nu and the infinite stars of her desire I swear on my sacred heart and tongue that these are my beliefs.


(Is that enough of official oathing for you? I can add By Bast's Breasts and Thor's Furry Bunghole if you wish!)

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2667064&postcount=465

Here is the eightfold path as presented by me. With apologies to one and all, this is just my POV.

First is the use of the word right, so substitute healthy.


1. Healthy view
(To remember that thoughts are just thoughts, emotions are just emotions, perceptions are just perceptions, that the body is just the body and that habits are just habits. They are conditioned, ephemeral and are what they are, there is no transcendent self. The practice of the eightfold path is a practice, not a goal.)
2. Healthy intention
(To approach the world with the intent of not harming things, people or other critters. To intend to avoid harming, to intend to be mindful and aware of acts, to intend to create less harm in the world.)
3. Healthy speech
(To approach the world with speech that is peaceful, polite and friendly. To avoid gossip, negative speech and harmful speech.)
4. Healthy action
(To act in a fashion which is not harmful, to refrain from harmful acts.)
5. Healthy livelihood
(To find a profession that does not create harm.)
6. Healthy effort
(To apply one's efforts to reducing harm, avoiding harm, taking accountability for choices, being patient and flexible. To remember that thoughts are choices, that there is the conditioned and that a person may choose to change the routines of life.)
7. Healthy mindfulness
(To focus on the healthful, to focus on one activity at a time, to monitor the thoughts, emotions and acts. To be gentle but to notice that which is harmful and that which is healthy. To encourage the health and discourage the harmful.)
8. Healthy concentration
(To bend all of one's life, acts, thoughts and self awareness to the promotion of health and the avoidance of that which is harmful.)

Please remember to also add that one should be mindful that there is no soul, no transcendent self and that all is impermenent.

I affirm that I have copied this post which was mine and that it is the eightfold path as I view it. i shall answer your questions as they arise Yrreg.

Sincerely
David G.

 

[Complexity]

Love you, Dancing David.

 

[Loss Leader]

I am not referring to you, Loss, you have outgrown your infantilistic hostility to people who just happen to have different or even opposite views to theirs,

Huh. I've now joined the club of people who have had characteristics assigned to them by Yrreg for no discernable reason. I don't really know how to act. I'll have to ask Lisa and the other Yrregian Buddhists for guidance. Is there a support group or a newsletter or something?

Buddhists cannot contribute anything of worth to the culture of mankind, because their orientation is toward the extinction of life and the whole universe

Yrreg, in any case, has not changed at all.

 

[Complexity]

LL - How dare you call Lisa Yrregian!



You know very well that the only Yrregian Buddhist is Yrreg.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Third, then if you want me to do a socalled "scientific and sceptical critique" of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance, then we will see first how critical thinking and empirical evidence can be employed to determine the critically verifiable components of your beliefs on the basis of empirical evidence, as regards your belief and the efficacy for whatever ends the observance of those beliefs are intended by you to realize for yourself, and for others who do as you do in regard to belief and observance.

Ok, I only speak English as my third language, but, what the heck does that mean?

 

[yrreg]

Passing from the talk to the talkers.

[Sorry for being absent here in this JREF forum for some four or five days, owing to the disruption of my telephone line.]​

.​

What I have been trying to do all this time is to examine academically in the spirit of critical thinking and search for empirical evidence the tenets of Buddhism, specifically the Buddhism as customized by latecomers to Buddhism like the ones called by Eastern traditional Buddhists, Western Buddhists, or more correctly Western Buddhist converts.

These Buddhist converts among Westerners are proud to call themselves Buddhists, thinking that at least by calling themselves Buddhists, they are thereby entitled to feel secure in displaying to the West that they are into a creditable worldview of great antiquity and supposedly of superior excellence in terms of enlightenment or knowledge of the authentic realities of genuine spirituality (whatever) -- even though Eastern traditional Buddhists might not be able to recognize them to be Buddhists from their concrete everyday lifestyle, except that they orally claim to follow Gautama, and do meditation.


I was searching the web for the distinction between modern psychological counseling and what I might consider to be Buddhist psychological counseling, and I came upon a most enlightening article by a Buddhist psychotherapist who sought to delve into the lack of integration between the lifestyle of Western converts to Buddhism and their profession of Buddhism:

...frequently those who contacted me wished to enter therapy because their personal problems were blocking the integration of Buddhist practice...
http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29​

So I decided to suspend for the present my participation in this thread in its digression and instead start a new one which is more to my academic curiosity, namely, how the author of that article sees to be the difficulties of Westerners in integrating Buddhism with their personal life behavioral stances.


Please proceed to that new thread; I assure the reader that he will be most enlightened with the findings of that article's author, a psychotherapist treating Western Buddhists, himself a Buddhist of long and broad acquaintance with Western Buddhist converts.

My present curiosity is now directed not so much to the talk as to the talkers in re Buddhism of the Western Buddhist converts. I believe this is a most enriching study, more than the scrutiny of what exactly is the kind of Buddhism as regards quality and quantity espoused by Western Buddhist converts by which they are proud to call themselves Buddhists.

For in looking into the life behavioral actuations of Western converts to Buddhism, we are not dealing with concepts and terms which are the stuff of conventions, but with empirical phenomena of behavior in Western converts to Buddhism.


Yrreg

 

[Complexity]

Yrreg - Please do not apologize for not having been here for a few days - it was quite pleasant.

So you want people to visit a thread in which you boast that you'll be incrementally posting and analyzing an entire document that you hadn't even finished reading?

A thread in which a mod warned you not to violate copyright?

All to further your hatred and fear of Buddhism.

 

[Lonewulf]

Confucius say, think like rooster, act like cock.

 

[yrreg]

For the joy of academic mental pastime, by critical thinking and empirical evidence.

[My regrets again for being absent some over two days after a brief appearance here; my telephone was disrupted again and I learned that the system was undergoing incremental enhancement.*]​

.​

[...]

I will repost the eightfold path as I perceive it and as an added bonus, as I believe that the buddha may have been the first person to state the concept of Annatta ( at least that has been recorded), I will categorically state that the eightfold path as interpreted by annatta is something that I have to find merit it. Both are commonly attributed to buddhism.

Third I will sate that I believe that impermanence is a crucial part of the buddha's teaching. there is nothing that does not change, another thing that the eightfold path must be interpreted under.

So again oh Waffle master Supreme, who wiggles to escape his statements:

These are the things that I feel are at the core of buddhism as I believe buddhism to be:

1. The eightfold path.

2. Annatta, there is no soul, there is no transcendent self, there is a body, thoughts, emotions, perception/sensation and habits/memory. that is all to a human, no more.

3. I believe that all is impermanent, all changes, all in whole, all in part, changes and is transitory.

I have stated these things repeatedly in threads here, I have held that these are at the core of the buddha's teachings. I state now as I have in the past that I find them useful.

So please show us that you are the one who is slippery like an eel, and that you are the one who tries to wiggle away after making statements. As the bible and many other places say "By their acts you shall know them."

Peace, glad tidings and may the joy of life suffuse you and yours.

I affirm that this post is written by me, David G. , also known as Snowbird, Anorion and A^3. I affirm that these are my statements and no others, and that they are my beliefs and thoughts as presented herein.

BULLWINKLE!

All hail Eris, All hail Discordia.

Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.
Love is the law, Love Under Will.

So mote it be.

By holy Nu and the infinite stars of her desire I swear on my sacred heart and tongue that these are my beliefs.


(Is that enough of official oathing for you? I can add By Bast's Breasts and Thor's Furry Bunghole if you wish!)

.​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2667064&postcount=465

Please remember to also add that one should be mindful that there is no soul, no transcendent self and that all is impermenent.

I affirm that I have copied this post which was mine and that it is the eightfold path as I view it. i shall answer your questions as they arise Yrreg.

Sincerely
David G.

.​

Good man, Dancing David (even though you exhibit a tongue not in keeping with academic sobriety), thanks for putting in your own words the eightfold path much vaunted by yourself to be the milestone of Buddhism.

I don't see in your draft any statement to the effect that there is anything new of moralistic and spiritualistic concepts in them, that is not already present in thinkers antecedent to Gautama. Please point out more clearly if you have any asseveration to that effect when you respond to this message.

What I find explicit in your declaration to be new with Gautama is his teaching on anatta.

However, please correct me if I am mistaken, from reading about Buddhism I have come across statements from Buddhist doctrinaires that anatta is not original with Gautama; it was actually already speculated on by his peers much prior to his (Gautama's) own birth, and the idea was further developed with all manners of illogic by some worthies of Gautama's discipleship trying to make sense of Gautama's teachings.

Please comment on what I seem to recall from my readings.


Yrreg

*I confess to be in conflict whether to give up altogether forum posting here... best is to control my time here as to not expend it excessively except during weekends when there is the luxury of two whole days of toying with ideas and words in the contemplation of man, life, nature, and the universe -- this said not in censure of the JREF and its operators but in reluctant commendation, because it has been more much more open minded in recent months than previously, which I can't say for my previous home in IIDB; my impression when they evicted me on the overly broad ground of failure to observe the rules I had agreed to on signing up, my impression then and also now, is that this IIDB forum has grown conspicuously prissy to the detriment of free speech, all because it has allowed itself to be -- against academic delicadeza -- influenced by its alliance with Buddhism and Buddhists; you can write a research paper on why.​

 

[Dancing David]

[My regrets again for being absent some over two days after a brief appearance here; my telephone was disrupted again and I learned that the system was undergoing incremental enhancement.*]​

.


.




.​

Good man, Dancing David (even though you exhibit a tongue not in keeping with academic sobriety), thanks for putting in your own words the eightfold path much vaunted by yourself to be the milestone of Buddhism.

I don't see in your draft any statement to the effect that there is anything new of moralistic and spiritualistic concepts in them, that is not already present in thinkers antecedent to Gautama. Please point out more clearly if you have any asseveration to that effect when you respond to this message.

i have said that it might be, but i am not aware that any others have stated the eightfold path. You are the one who says that it is predated by others. yet, you have in a glaring lack of any sort of acedemic rigour not provide any evidence other than just empty verbal posturing. And you have failed once again to provide a critique of the eightfold path as you said you would.

This is your quote from your post:

So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.

From here : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=453


And it was only later that you started your endless drivel about it being 'original' or not to buddhism.

What is apparent Yrreg is that you are not a man of your word, your statemensta re empty and you are disingenuine.

You are a liar and a scoundrel Yrreg, and why? i have not a clue, i did what you asked and then yous started some sort of mumbo-jumbo claptrap.

You have foresworn yourself yrreg, for shame, you have said what you would do, and it turns out you are a liar.

Sorry. You shame yourself and show no integrity.

What I find explicit in your declaration to be new with Gautama is his teaching on anatta.

However, please correct me if I am mistaken, from reading about Buddhism I have come across statements from Buddhist doctrinaires that anatta is not original with Gautama; it was actually already speculated on by his peers much prior to his (Gautama's) own birth, and the idea was further developed with all manners of illogic by some worthies of Gautama's discipleship trying to make sense of Gautama's teachings.

Your statement and claim therefore your proof, prove that you lack all honor and integrity again, shame yourself and show yourself to be a pretender without meaning and devoid of integrity.

Continue your mockery of a travesty of a hsambles.

"By thier fruits you shall know them."

Please comment on what I seem to recall from my readings.

Please comment on the fact that you are foresworn and haven't any ability to follow through on your own statements.

Scoundrel and charlatan.
[/quote]


Yrreg

*I confess to be in conflict whether to give up altogether forum posting here... best is to control my time here as to not expend it excessively except during weekends when there is the luxury of two whole days of toying with ideas and words in the contemplation of man, life, nature, and the universe -- this said not in censure of the JREF and its operators but in reluctant commendation, because it has been more much more open minded in recent months than previously, which I can't say for my previous home in IIDB; my impression when they evicted me on the overly broad ground of failure to observe the rules I had agreed to on signing up, my impression then and also now, is that this IIDB forum has grown conspicuously prissy to the detriment of free speech, all because it has allowed itself to be -- against academic delicadeza -- influenced by its alliance with Buddhism and Buddhists; you can write a research paper on why.​

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, why don't you tell us that a flying saucer hit the world trade center.

You are bogus.

The vast Buddhist Conspriracy?

More like you just can't live with accountability for your choices.

Blessed be may the light carress you and the darkness cradle you.

 

[Complexity]

Yrreg - I think you should forgo posting here, where you are obviously casting pearls before swine, and invest your time, instead, on your 'contemplation of man, life, nature, and the universe'.