Buddhism as amusement.

Myself, I feel that I am now going to behave myself. For at least a while.

the lack of the self is the essential core of the teachings of the buddha. It is the transcendant self that leads to suffering. Once a person accepts that everything changes and that all is impermanent then it might be easier to detach from attachment to pleasure and avoidance of the unpleasant.

It is theorhetical possible to follow the eight fold path without a belief in annatta, but I am not sure then how correct view and correct understanding would be rephrased. But it is the practice not the belief that makes buddhism effective.
 
I feel as though this thread is missing something somehow. It's like something has been excised - cut away and discarded. It's like an amputation has taken place while we slept. It feels wrong. It feels ... evil.
 
Dancing David,
To the posts that were removed by the cleaning crew, yrreg does not seem so much a troll as someone who seems to suffer like with an unhealthy obsession. I don't really think the 'Buddhism' threads are about Buddhism at all, but something deeper and in common with the 'moderator' threads. There are occasions it seems we approach understanding the deeper issue, and other times not. The drift to the 'moderator' issue seems to be part of the same suffering. I could be wrong though, maybe this is yrreg's idea of a good time. For good or ill, I sense that the mods have had enough of this particular perseveration.
 
Not really Buddhist bashing, but critical investigation of.

Originally Posted by Myriad
I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I can tell you that almost all the species on the planet, and as far as we know, absolutely all species of multicellular life, appeared within the last billion years. Perhaps you meant "million" (in which case the answer is still yes, but I'd have to do some research to come up with a list).​

Well, I'm no expert on fossil dating (though for a while I did have a thing for older women), I believe a good example of a species appearing in the last million years would be homo sapiens.

My apologies if this is an unwanted distraction from Buddhist bashing.

No, no distraction at all, except that this is no Buddhist bashing but critical examination of Buddhism and Buddhists.

I like to hear from you two gentlemen how the appearance of homo sapiens in the last million years can be put in context to the belief of Buddhists that sentient life has always existed.

On the one hand, though I am no fossil expert of any measure but just a curious mind and motivated by the desire for delight in discovery, according to fossils there was a time when man or homo sapiens was not around; on the other hand from my stock acquaintance with Buddhism sentient life has always been around of which one rebirth is man.

What then is the benefit to man to know that he has not been always around and the benefit for man to believe that he has always been around only in diverse rebirths of which homo sapiens is just one?

I will just say for myself, from the standpoint of amusement, these are two realms and levels of amusement, one from what we might consider as founded on fossils and the other as founded on speculation which we can read as fiction or imagination where there is no fossil involved except perhaps in the brain of speculative minds.

What I mean is that we can have amusement galore in the study of fossils which we cannot have as much in the un-knotting of Buddhist beliefs where there can be no consistency among beliefs themselves and with practical everyday life, like the favorite scenario I always take the risk of asking Buddhists who do adhere to the line that the self does not exist, namely, if such a Buddhist sees a stone in a trajectory with his head as the end destination of the stone's travel, would he duck or not duck?

If he were true to his belief in the non-self, he should not duck because it is not necessary for him to duck to escape injury or even death to his head or himself, anyway his self or he himself does not exist.

Now, is that Buddhist bashing or just critical examination of Buddhism and Buddhists?


Yrreg
 
If he were true to his belief in the non-self, he should not duck because it is not necessary for him to duck to escape injury or even death to his head or himself, anyway his self or he himself does not exist.

Now, is that Buddhist bashing or just critical examination of Buddhism and Buddhists?


Yrreg

I see no buddhist bashing in that particular post (a good thing, in my opinion).

But it does seems to be a hobby of yours from earlier posts.

Unfortunately I can't offer any wisdom on these questions. I'll be interested to read what anyone else comes up with though.
 
Write anything but write about yourself.

Dancing David,
To the posts that were removed by the cleaning crew, yrreg does not seem so much a troll as someone who seems to suffer like with an unhealthy obsession. I don't really think the 'Buddhism' threads are about Buddhism at all, but something deeper and in common with the 'moderator' threads. There are occasions it seems we approach understanding the deeper issue, and other times not. The drift to the 'moderator' issue seems to be part of the same suffering. I could be wrong though, maybe this is yrreg's idea of a good time. For good or ill, I sense that the mods have had enough of this particular perseveration.

That is what I am thinking about every time I indulge in forum postings, why do I do critical examination of Buddhism and also dwell on my bannings or other unpleasant experiences in forums I had been to from the beginning of my forum life.

Just one aside, dear Kopji, the way I see it the forum culture is undergoing a change for the better, better from my part as a judge -- who appointed me judge? I, myself, and me, because the "I" is a judge in and of and to anything and everything that presents itself to his presence, for example, a forum that is inviting membership with the welcome mat of general patronage like a movie classified thus.

Forum culture is improving because they are now more into temporary banning than eternal banning. This means that a new consciousness and value system is taking over owners, administrators, and moderators; just as it took mankind millennia to come to the realization that death is not the way of civilization in retributive justice, but rehabilitation and prevention.*

Now, I was saying that and even at this very moment as I write this post that I am asking myself why do I do critical examination of Buddhism and also reflect on my unpleasant incidents in net forums.

The first is because now I realize it is so amusing. Think of something you do that is so amusing that you can't stop doing it even though you feel some qualms of conscience about doing it but you can dismiss them for being possessed of liberty and independence in how you use your time and space and resources. James Randi is one guy who is into skepticism for a great time and makes good money from it, and I wished I could be like him in doing critical examination of Buddhism, making good money also.

But tell me, Kopji, as an adviser, should I stop doing critical examination of Buddhism, and at most take up another world-view to do critical examination of? Is doing critical examination of Buddhism instead of another world-view or not doing any critical examination of anything at all, is that what I should be doing or not doing with my free time and resources of space and interest? Otherwise I am not being what? possessed of a sound personality or mental health?

About the second, dwelling on my unpleasant episodes in net forums. I should not be doing that because society does not look kindly on people who do bring up their unpleasant passages in life. What is that verity? "Laugh and the whole world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone"? Because veryone is supposed to not trouble others with their disagreeable trips, but must put up a stoic front, like the Buddhist who is supposed to be imperturbable until the apprentice is the one to throw hot tea into his face instead of the other way around.

Think how much mankind has gained from whiners who do whine and do something about the object of their whining. Think Buddha(?), think Martin Luther King, think Mandela, think Moses, think Gandhi, think, yes, the unmentionable here, Jesus Christ, think the founding fathers of America, think the founders of modern Israel for the Jews; and if you are an immigrant or from immigrant parents to the US, they were whiners.

I know of people or at least one who whines about hate speech or extremely cruel content from yours truly, and he seems to be achieving some purpose of reward to himself.

So, the anonymity of the net forum is just the place for yours truly to dwell on self-commiseration as a luxury. That is the honest truth of the matter. However, I do exert some moderation in this luxury, just like every luxury in life, and there are few for people unlike Bill Gates with all his billions of dollars who much later in life realized that he could do some good for mankind by investing his cash in spreading computer technology and knowledge freely, aside of course from ensuring that he always comes out with more cash in his own computer enterprise.

Now, take this very important tip from my high school teacher of writing, what to write about? Write about yourself, your hopes, your fears, your pains, your joys, your pleasures, you hates, your likes, etc. And woe is the man who has nothing or dare not write about himself, but must always like a CD or DVD player repeat the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of others -- like many a Buddhist who can't say anything except to quote their Buddhist mentors, starting from the legendary Gautama who never wrote a word himself about himself but others some four hundred years later or more made up so many myths about the man if he did exist at all.

That is an example above of writing about myself, my feeling, etc.


Thanks, Kopji, for your interest in my inner psychology; there is a lot of truth or fact in it. Suffering, isn't that what Buddhism is all about and how to liberate oneself from it. In my case I would rather keep it provided it is still manageable by myself. No, thank you but no thanks to any world-view whereby suffering is the only light at the end of the tunnel. The philosophy of life for me is that there is more to life, of pleasure, delight, and joy than there is of suffering, and no one who has a good head set on perfect balance upon his shoulders should make suffering as Buddhists pretend to do or alas really do so, make suffering the begin all and end all of life and existence.


I like to continue our dialog about your friend's fear that your disbelief or what I call for myself your postgraduation from your lifelong faith is a threat to his faith, if you will permit; and also your new found trove in art as a solution or compensation to your postgraduation from your lifelong faith, again if you will permit -- all of course in the context of whether Buddhism can be some nostrum to yourself as to your friend's kind of predicament if I may use the term.

Sorry for the long post, that is what I do best in my leisure hours, talking about myself and things I love to do for amusement.


Yrreg

*What about vindictive justice? Just keep the convict in detention but still useful to himself and to society by being an exemplar to others to not commit acts whereby they would also be detained even for life. And what do convicts do in prison? Teach them arts and the letters or some useful crafts whereby they can entertain themselves and among themselves, and also allow visits from family and friends. They can also join net forums, no prohibition there, yes? I had a thread in a now defunct but very good forum in the About.com website, where I talked about asking for residency in a prison so that I could continue to live and enjoy a life of thoughts and letters, i.e., writing for the web about, yes, myself. [Smile here.]
 
If he were true to his belief in the non-self, he should not duck because it is not necessary for him to duck to escape injury or even death to his head or himself, anyway his self or he himself does not exist.

Now, is that Buddhist bashing or just critical examination of Buddhism and Buddhists?


Yrreg

Neither, it's a strawman.

Oh, if I had a penny for every time someone have explained to you the concept of no-self. When will it get into your head that it doesn't mean that you don't exist, it just means there's no permanent self. Just get someone to throw enough rocks at your head, and you'll see.
 
Great episode of it, too. Man, I hope the last ten episodes really provide closure because the characters have been wandering around lost for a good five seasons now.

You really think so? I've enjoyed the show from episode one.

I think I read somewhere that there won't be a closure at the end of season 10. They're leaving that for direct to tv movies :)
 
You really think so? I've enjoyed the show from episode one.

I think I read somewhere that there won't be a closure at the end of season 10. They're leaving that for direct to tv movies :)

I hope that they end it in a way that could be satisfying if they never got to make any TV specials - Kind of like the end of season 9 of Friends provided semi-closure if they couldn't agree to a 10th season.
 
*What about vindictive justice? Just keep the convict in detention but still useful to himself and to society by being an exemplar to others to not commit acts whereby they would also be detained even for life.

That is not vindictive justice. What you have described is called "General Deterrence." Vindication would be punnishing someone for no other reason than to inflict pain on one who pained you. Whippings, beatings, life without parole are all frequently cited as more vindictive than other punnishments. General Deterrence is punnishing someone with the purpose of warning others not to engage in that act. Using someone's jail time to make him "useful to himself and to society" is usually called Rehabilitation.

So you've got three concepts pretty well mixed up there but your point - that you are being horribly abused by fools who do not recognize you as the next Martin Luthor King, Ghandi and whomever else you said - is well taken.
 
Just one aside, dear Kopji, the way I see it the forum culture is undergoing a change for the better, better from my part as a judge -- who appointed me judge? I, myself, and me, because the "I" is a judge in and of and to anything and everything that presents itself to his presence, for example, a forum that is inviting membership with the welcome mat of general patronage like a movie classified thus.

Forum culture is improving because they are now more into temporary banning than eternal banning. This means that a new consciousness and value system is taking over owners, administrators, and moderators; just as it took mankind millennia to come to the realization that death is not the way of civilization in retributive justice, but rehabilitation and prevention.*
There's quite a lot there, but I doubt the mods see an endless obligation to rehabilitate. Justice has many aspects, but a fundamental one is maintaining a kind of balance. Rules have consequences, and if not applied with some consistency they are unfair. In the instance of a forum, you promise to behave a certain way you don't and consequences follow. Not rocket science.
The first is because now I realize it is so amusing. Think of something you do that is so amusing that you can't stop doing it even though you feel some qualms of conscience about doing it but you can dismiss them for being possessed of liberty and independence in how you use your time and space and resources. James Randi is one guy who is into skepticism for a great time and makes good money from it, and I wished I could be like him in doing critical examination of Buddhism, making good money also.
Maybe this is where it sounds a little crazy. It is a little unfocused to expect to singlehandedly defeat a religion/philosophy that is several thousand years old. On your most effective day being anti Buddhist it would be like a wave washing against a rock.
But tell me, Kopji, as an adviser, should I stop doing critical examination of Buddhism, and at most take up another world-view to do critical examination of? Is doing critical examination of Buddhism instead of another world-view or not doing any critical examination of anything at all, is that what I should be doing or not doing with my free time and resources of space and interest? Otherwise I am not being what? possessed of a sound personality or mental health?
But what does it do to you? Some 'witnessing strategies' seem to result in a kind of blindness where we become ineffective or counterproductive to acheiving our goals.
About the second, dwelling on my unpleasant episodes in net forums. I should not be doing that because society does not look kindly on people who do bring up their unpleasant passages in life. What is that verity? "Laugh and the whole world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone"? Because veryone is supposed to not trouble others with their disagreeable trips, but must put up a stoic front, like the Buddhist who is supposed to be imperturbable until the apprentice is the one to throw hot tea into his face instead of the other way around.
It seems more like being in a poolhall with a bunch of beer drinking longshoremen and commenting on the boquet of the wine being served up on tap.
Think how much mankind has gained from whiners who do whine and do something about the object of their whining. Think Buddha(?), think Martin Luther King, think Mandela, think Moses, think Gandhi, think, yes, the unmentionable here, Jesus Christ, think the founding fathers of America, think the founders of modern Israel for the Jews; and if you are an immigrant or from immigrant parents to the US, they were whiners.
The whining they did would be far overrated compared to the actions they took. I would even propose that the time any of them spent whining detracted from the progress they made.
I know of people or at least one who whines about hate speech or extremely cruel content from yours truly, and he seems to be achieving some purpose of reward to himself.

So, the anonymity of the net forum is just the place for yours truly to dwell on self-commiseration as a luxury. That is the honest truth of the matter. However, I do exert some moderation in this luxury, just like every luxury in life, and there are few for people unlike Bill Gates with all his billions of dollars who much later in life realized that he could do some good for mankind by investing his cash in spreading computer technology and knowledge freely, aside of course from ensuring that he always comes out with more cash in his own computer enterprise.
The operative phrase in the definition of the word 'whining' is being tiresome

That is an example above of writing about myself, my feeling, etc.

Thanks, Kopji, for your interest in my inner psychology; there is a lot of truth or fact in it.
You seem a very capable writer and not really a troll in the classic sense. You have much to offer. There is much to be gained from approaching life in a positive sense, rather than living in opposition to things. I think that an oppositional viewpoint might contribute to the kind of blindness I mentioned earlier. 'What does our outlook do to us?' Even the Buddha said something like 'with our thoughts we make the world'. There's a lot of truth to that.

Suffering, isn't that what Buddhism is all about and how to liberate oneself from it. In my case I would rather keep it provided it is still manageable by myself. No, thank you but no thanks to any world-view whereby suffering is the only light at the end of the tunnel. The philosophy of life for me is that there is more to life, of pleasure, delight, and joy than there is of suffering, and no one who has a good head set on perfect balance upon his shoulders should make suffering as Buddhists pretend to do or alas really do so, make suffering the begin all and end all of life and existence.
You write that but don't act that way. you come across as someone who is suffering but claim you are having a good time.

I like to continue our dialog about your friend's fear that your disbelief or what I call for myself your postgraduation from your lifelong faith is a threat to his faith, if you will permit; and also your new found trove in art as a solution or compensation to your postgraduation from your lifelong faith, again if you will permit -- all of course in the context of whether Buddhism can be some nostrum to yourself as to your friend's kind of predicament if I may use the term.
Difficult to explain. He was wrong, but for him to understand how he was wrong he would need to step outside his own viewpoint. If he could do that, the misunderstanding would resolve itself. I find a paradox in that similar to the artistic idea of 'negative space'. How we view things can be a kind of prison.

*What about vindictive justice? Just keep the convict in detention but still useful to himself and to society by being an exemplar to others to not commit acts whereby they would also be detained even for life. And what do convicts do in prison? Teach them arts and the letters or some useful crafts whereby they can entertain themselves and among themselves, and also allow visits from family and friends. They can also join net forums, no prohibition there, yes? I had a thread in a now defunct but very good forum in the About.com website, where I talked about asking for residency in a prison so that I could continue to live and enjoy a life of thoughts and letters, i.e., writing for the web about, yes, myself. [Smile here.]
They want you, they need you, but there ain't no way they're ever gonna love you but don't be sad, cause two out of three ain't bad.
 
Last edited:
What I mean is that we can have amusement galore in the study of fossils which we cannot have as much in the un-knotting of Buddhist beliefs where there can be no consistency among beliefs themselves and with practical everyday life, like the favorite scenario I always take the risk of asking Buddhists who do adhere to the line that the self does not exist, namely, if such a Buddhist sees a stone in a trajectory with his head as the end destination of the stone's travel, would he duck or not duck?

If he were true to his belief in the non-self, he should not duck because it is not necessary for him to duck to escape injury or even death to his head or himself, anyway his self or he himself does not exist.

Now, is that Buddhist bashing or just critical examination of Buddhism and Buddhists?


Yrreg

For the umpteenth time, there is a body, one may act to preserve it. You may call that as the self if you wish.

But hey there is no soul, repeat there is no soul, there is no spirit, there is no soul, there is no spirit.

The body exists, the thoughts, perceptions, emotions and habits exist. One may act to care for them and treat them well.

But there is no soul, nothing to be reborn, nothing to live on after. (At least to the best available evidence, when evidence comes along then buddhism will face a real challenge).


(Written while onboard the Luxury Tour Ass as we gallop through Nebraska on the way to our next gig.)
 
About the second, dwelling on my unpleasant episodes in net forums. I should not be doing that because society does not look kindly on people who do bring up their unpleasant passages in life. What is that verity? "Laugh and the whole world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone"? Because veryone is supposed to not trouble others with their disagreeable trips, but must put up a stoic front, like the Buddhist who is supposed to be imperturbable until the apprentice is the one to throw hot tea into his face instead of the other way around.
I don't recall that story, could you enlighten us?
perhaps a quote and story from yourself?
And woe is the man who has nothing or dare not write about himself, but must always like a CD or DVD player repeat the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of others -- like many a Buddhist who can't say anything except to quote their Buddhist mentors, starting from the legendary Gautama who never wrote a word himself about himself but others some four hundred years later or more made up so many myths about the man if he did exist at all.
And many here have written about themselves.
Thanks, Kopji, for your interest in my inner psychology; there is a lot of truth or fact in it. Suffering, isn't that what Buddhism is all about and how to liberate oneself from it. In my case I would rather keep it provided it is still manageable by myself. No, thank you but no thanks to any world-view whereby suffering is the only light at the end of the tunnel. The philosophy of life for me is that there is more to life, of pleasure, delight, and joy than there is of suffering, and no one who has a good head set on perfect balance upon his shoulders should make suffering as Buddhists pretend to do or alas really do so, make suffering the begin all and end all of life and existence.
And that is the goal of budhhism, to be free of that suffering, it is not to dwell on the suffering, it is to reduce it. But I guess that doctors are not worth while because they focus on suffering.

The goal of buddhism is not to focus on suffering but to follow the eightfold path and to 'extinguish'(nibbanna' suffering. If you actualy read some teachings then you might understand that.

But again your sunday school class and coffee club wouldn't like that as much. You seem obsessed with your own vision of the negactives of buddhism. And as stated before, then fine. the path is not for you.

By all means continue your search to forment Christianity in the Confusian mode(pure speculation) and continue to write your tracts. I can't wait to read your book someday in the Xian book store under the section of "Confronting Other Religions".

But you are only interested in tearing something down, which is fine. But you haven't taken the time to learn the teachings of the buddha, you only fight what you think it is.

May Freya, RA, Isis, Thoth, Astarte, Pan, Nu and Aradia light your path and guide your footsteps, unless the would be offensive to you, in which case mey they steer a wide path away and just help the diety of your choice.

There is no soul, there is no purpose to life other than living. When we die we are dead.(At least from all available evidence.) No soul, no afterlife. None, nada, niente, zip, zilch.

I like to continue our dialog about your friend's fear that your disbelief or what I call for myself your postgraduation from your lifelong faith is a threat to his faith, if you will permit; and also your new found trove in art as a solution or compensation to your postgraduation from your lifelong faith, again if you will permit -- all of course in the context of whether Buddhism can be some nostrum to yourself as to your friend's kind of predicament if I may use the term.

Sorry for the long post, that is what I do best in my leisure hours, talking about myself and things I love to do for amusement.


Yrreg

*What about vindictive justice? Just keep the convict in detention but still useful to himself and to society by being an exemplar to others to not commit acts whereby they would also be detained even for life. And what do convicts do in prison? Teach them arts and the letters or some useful crafts whereby they can entertain themselves and among themselves, and also allow visits from family and friends. They can also join net forums, no prohibition there, yes? I had a thread in a now defunct but very good forum in the About.com website, where I talked about asking for residency in a prison so that I could continue to live and enjoy a life of thoughts and letters, i.e., writing for the web about, yes, myself. [Smile here.][/QUOTE]
 
Dancing David being on the road when he wrote that, not the best editing. I think it's clear that "Zilch" was his last word. Everything after that was the rest of Yrreg's post which he forgot to delete. (Or was he distracted by groupies? We may never know.)
 
I suppose it’s possible to broaden amusement, as a category, even further, by saying human life is a form of amusement as soon as we have the option to die at our own will. Moreover, when we’re prevented, against our will, from killing ourselves, then perhaps life as amusement ceases to exist (notwithstanding the possibility that the one preventing us finds it amusing).

“If one asks if one has attained nirvana then one has not” appears to me almost like another way of saying that “the map is not the territory”. Heck, Wittgenstein though he had it all figured until someone showed him the finger… just serves to show how language never encapsulates the whole experience.
 
Buddhism is a closed system for being an insecurable system.

The non-self exists but not permanently, that is the discovery of Buddhism, and what a discovery! In which case the person looking at me in the mirror (Yrreg2) as I look at myself in the mirror, he tells me to inform Buddhists that there is a better term for that, namely, the transient self, and not to use a negative prefix like no or non.


No, Kopji, I am not after bringing down Buddhism, because I have better things to do before my curtain closes down on me; I am doing criticism and critique of Buddhism for amusement; but as I said, if only I could earn some good money doing it like Randi does with his skepticism on a host of issues he debunks again and again and again; because he has such fun doing it and it is a very good living, better than if he had just stayed a stage magician only. Maybe I should contact the Dalai Lama and see whether they could use me as a part of his PR team.


I will bring you here a post I contributed to the Buddha chat forum, in a thread on Buddhism and Free Sex, but which they turned down upon pre-censoring. Here read it below, and it is a reply to a post from one of themselves who appears very critical yet still writes so as to get his less than somber messages accepted there.

Thread: Buddhism and Free Sex http://www.buddhachat.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2466

Title of my post: Nothing to give up for taking up Buddhism, except to do meditation for arriving at enlightenment and reach Nirvana.

By all the gods there are (or aren't) I can hear the late, inimitable Alan Watts responding to this question!

( . . . . )

" Hrrumph. Ahem----Today's topic is 'Zen and Sex'- in response from a question from markc, a Buddhist concerned about the 3rd precept. ...

Gassho.

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

" What do you mean you don't want trouble? What is life but to take off your belt and go looking for trouble?"---From 'Zorba the Greek', by Nikos Kazantsakis.

" Not so young as to love a woman for singing, nor so old as to dote on her for anything."---King Lear

Not so young as to love a woman for singing, nor so old as to dote on her for anything." -- King Lear

So far that is the first mention of love in this thread on Buddhism and Free Sex.

What is the third precept of Buddhism? Excuse me while I look it up.

Here, the five precepts of Buddhism among which the third:
These basic training rules are observed by all practicing lay Buddhists. The precepts are often recited after reciting the formula for taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.

The Five Precepts:
1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

2. Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

3. Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

5. Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.​
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html

So, the third precept is to refrain from sexual miscondcut.

What is the sexual conduct now in vogue among liberated peoples? Is it this statement: "Sex between consenting adults is all right"?

That takes care of the right or wrong aspect of the interaction. I will not go into solitary sex which I think goes without saying is definitely all right for liberated folks.

One caveat on bilateral sex between or among consenting adults however from the law, if you hurt anyone you might just get in trouble notwithstanding the mutual consent, at least for the medical expense of fixing the bodily injury; so get a waiver all around among the parties to the effect that each party will shoulder by himself the medical cost for any physical injuries he should suffer from mutually consented to sex.

Aside from the right or wrong aspect of mutally consented to sex, there is or should be the matter of how you feel about it, whether you feel some sense of unworthiness? What is that about feeling of unworthiness in sex?

The Romans have this saying: Omne animal triste post coitum: every animal is sad after coitus. Is that true of the dogs and cats? if not, what about the man animal, is he always sad after coitus? Correct me if I am mistaken here.

For those who don't experience any feeling of unworthiness, that is then no problem for them, whether Buddhists or not or of any label of any ethical or no ethical standards.

What then to do with the feeling of unworthiness for people who do feel a sense of unworthiness? Two requirements: one, love between the parties; and two, prevention of unwanted consequences like pregnancy in the woman and for both parties, diseases.

Incidentally, if you are into free sex, and you are doing it for love and you take the trouble to prevent unwanted consequences, very important also take the care to do it hygienically and aesthetically, that should contribute to your sense of worthiness.


All that said, I like to ask the knowledgeable people in Buddhism, what is the basis of right conduct as opposed to misconduct in Buddhism? I would imagine that before Gautama started teaching all the instructions about right thought, right act, right whatever, the people before him and his contemporaries already had standards of rightness and wrongness, even worthy deeds and unworthy ones.

How, if it be so, did Buddhism contribute to the further development of ethical precepts in the community where Buddha taught his world-view?

Or if Buddhism just appropriates what is already right and rejects what is already wrong in the society it comes unto, in which case as it comes to and has been accepted by peoples already sexually liberated, then the third precept would have to be revised drastically in the way of diminution.

In which case, it might be said that for sexually liberated people who are otherwise decent and law-abiding there is nothing to give up, except to do meditation for arriving at enlightenment and reach Nirvana.


Pachomius [aka Yrreg, Yrreg2]

And to my vanity I thought I was saying something substantial and useful to their people asking about the acceptability of free sex for Buddhists, whereas others in the thread even masters in Buddhism were heehawing without saying anything that could be a guideline to their fellow Buddhists seeking moralistic advice.

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

I have found a Singaporean website where there is a good discussion on the Buddhist non-self, with Buddhist doctrinaires giving their respective conceptions and explanations of the non-self -- see? they themselves can't agree on the what and how of the non-self, but admit that it is a paradox even to themselves. I will bring up that page later.


About the title of this post, "Buddhism being a closed system because it is an insecurable system," meaning one which cannot be secured by reason but only by exclusion of people and ideas appearing to the insiders to be unsettling to Buddhism and disorienting to Buddhists; hence they banned me in the E-Sangha, and while still a member in the Buddha Chat they pre-censored out my -- to my vanity -- substantially prescriptive post for them to decide even as Buddhists whether free sex is acceptable or not.


Yrreg
 
The non-self exists but not permanently, that is the discovery of Buddhism, and what a discovery! In which case the person looking at me in the mirror (Yrreg2) as I look at myself in the mirror, he tells me to inform Buddhists that there is a better term for that, namely, the transient self, and not to use a negative prefix like no or non.
That makes sense and would fit in with impermanence, the annatta debate, while it matches materialism very well is also framed in the tradition of karma and the varna(caste) system. So the non-self may very well be translated as the impermanent self.
The crucial point to the buddha (in my interpretation) is that there is the illusion of continuity from moment to moment. each moment is as it is, some things are carried from moment to moment, but most are not. The 'me' who wakes up in the morning is not the 'me' who went to sleep last night. Which may help some people and not others. To me it may be helpfukl to remember that 'I have always done it that way' may not have an 'I' to base the argument upon.
No, Kopji, I am not after bringing down Buddhism, because I have better things to do before my curtain closes down on me; I am doing criticism and critique of Buddhism for amusement; but as I said, if only I could earn some good money doing it like Randi does with his skepticism on a host of issues he debunks again and again and again; because he has such fun doing it and it is a very good living, better than if he had just stayed a stage magician only. Maybe I should contact the Dalai Lama and see whether they could use me as a part of his PR team.
Well negative publicity is publicity! ;)
I will bring you here a post I contributed to the Buddha chat forum, in a thread on Buddhism and Free Sex, but which they turned down upon pre-censoring. Here read it below, and it is a reply to a post from one of themselves who appears very critical yet still writes so as to get his less than somber messages accepted there.



And to my vanity I thought I was saying something substantial and useful to their people asking about the acceptability of free sex for Buddhists, whereas others in the thread even masters in Buddhism were heehawing without saying anything that could be a guideline to their fellow Buddhists seeking moralistic advice.

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

I have found a Singaporean website where there is a good discussion on the Buddhist non-self, with Buddhist doctrinaires giving their respective conceptions and explanations of the non-self -- see? they themselves can't agree on the what and how of the non-self, but admit that it is a paradox even to themselves. I will bring up that page later.


About the title of this post, "Buddhism being a closed system because it is an insecurable system," meaning one which cannot be secured by reason but only by exclusion of people and ideas appearing to the insiders to be unsettling to Buddhism and disorienting to Buddhists; hence they banned me in the E-Sangha, and while still a member in the Buddha Chat they pre-censored out my -- to my vanity -- substantially prescriptive post for them to decide even as Buddhists whether free sex is acceptable or not.


Yrreg

That is too bad Yrreg, it is a very interesting point, buddhism is a large collection of people. I would not hold all catholics responsible for the foibles of the Church. I personaly don't know why they would ban you or pre-censor you, it makes little sense to me from the buddhist perspective. There is the phrase that 'the lily rises above the water', which meams that the follwoer of the buddha if they follow the eightfold path is to be beauty above the turmoil of the emotions, while rooted in them. Although the 'above' word is very judgemental.

I think that in the past in the treatment of homosexuality in buddhism is another point of inconsistancy.

All that said, I like to ask the knowledgeable people in Buddhism, what is the basis of right conduct as opposed to misconduct in Buddhism? I would imagine that before Gautama started teaching all the instructions about right thought, right act, right whatever, the people before him and his contemporaries already had standards of rightness and wrongness, even worthy deeds and unworthy ones.
I think that along with jain, the buddha taught that the morals should come down to harm. therefore to imprison a poor man for stealing bread is not a good thing.

I too have gotten hung up on the 'right' thing, 'correct' or 'healthy' might be better.

The Romans have this saying: Omne animal triste post coitum: every animal is sad after coitus. Is that true of the dogs and cats? if not, what about the man animal, is he always sad after coitus? Correct me if I am mistaken here.
I think you may have offended thier social precepts about talking about sex.

I am never sad after sex, unless there is some sort of power and control issue on the part of the partner the partner. I would not flirt or have sex outside my marriage because that would be harful, nor would I wish to have sex that was harmful to me or my wife.
 
Last edited:
Buddhism as amusement, let's stick to that question.

I started this thread to investigate my own insight that Buddhism as with religion in general is amusement. Now, I understand by amusement any activity that man undertakes: firstly, that is not needed to keep oneself alive biologically; secondly, not needed to stay alive longer and better; and thirdly, that the activity need not be rational.

This is true with the kind of Buddhists which I might call elitist Buddhists, they are Buddhists who discuss Buddhist beliefs and observances among themselves, to all appearances endlessly unlike they don't discuss endlessly when they have to eat and to go to the bathroom, or run out the house where they are engaged in some endless discussion, on the first hint of a raging fire engulfing the house.

What about the non-elitist Buddhists like the ordinary simple lay Buddhist folks in Sri Lanka, China, Tibet, Nepal, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, who are just working out merits to get a better rebirth or to find a worthy life partner?

Their kind of Buddhism is not amusement for them, but they can find it amusing as often as when they see humor or laughable aspects into the beliefs and practices they were taught by the elitist Buddhists in charge of them. In time if they have arrived at a good living on the biological level, then they might come to the insight that their religion of Buddhism is all amusement.

What about non-Buddhists who also go into endless discussions with elitist Buddhists about the beliefs and practices of the latter. like for example one Yrreg, aka Pachomius, aka Yrreg2, aka et alii? It is amusement, at least for myself, for others they should also see it as amusement if they possess the habit of introspection and inspection. The same can be correctly said also for the elitist Buddhists themselves.


So, now we are now into the discussion of the Buddhist doctrine of the non-self. This discussion satisfies for myself the three criteria I stated above for judging an activity to be amusement; and I will continue to engage in it from that standpoint, namely, of amusement: I am convinced and I know even without the trouble of self-convincing oneself that it is amusement for myself; then also for being amusement it is nothing to be loathsome about provided keeping alive, staying alive longer than otherwise, and living better, have been achieved to a realistic measure in one's present circumstances.


At this point, I suggest that everyone engaged in this thread apply ourselves to arrive at points of concurrence and also admit to our points of impasse, and feel very satisfied thereby, that we have at least come to the clear determination of our points of concurrence and our points of impasse.


First point then of concurrence for the discussion of this topic on Buddhism as amusement, my proposal, that we take off from the standpoint that man is a biological entity like the dog and the cat we have all the familiarity of knowing first hand, for many at home even.

Do the dog and cat have amusement in their life and existence? And what do they think about on the self or the non-self if they do have the capacity to think of their self or their non-self?


Yrreg
 
yrreg said:
My main thesis in this thread is to obtain feedbacks from people about my insight that Buddhism as with religion in general is an amusement. Please read my first posts here.

Your main purpose is to get feedback from others on your view that Buddhism is an amusement?

I would need to know how you defined 'amusement'. Thankfully, you provide a working definition:

yrreg said:
So, for me amusement is anything I do which is enjoyable and makes me feel swell mentally, emotionally, and physically.

Well, in the sense that life involves suffering and Buddhism presents itself a means to ending that suffering, it would fit your definition of 'amusement'. To not suffer would be roughly equal to 'feel[ing] swell '.

In my own experience though, the practice of Buddhism (the nitty gritty, not the nitpicky, doctrinal|dogma stuff) doesn't lead directly to feeling swell emotionally because it reveals things that are not comfortable to deal with. And these uncomfortable realizations have to be dealt with in order to move forward.

As a concrete example, during a meditation I had an awareness that gossip caused pain. I realized I could not gossip, because I didn't wish to cause myself, or others pain. The next time I was standing around at work talking with coworkers it became apparent to me how often the conversation involved gossip. I became uncomfortable and left quietly. I then realized that if I was to avoid gossip I would have to avoid a behavior that often results in one person bonding with another or fitting in with a particular group. Some of my friends gossip about certain people regularly and if I couldn't at least listen to it, it would have an impact on my relationship with them.

This was a very painful realization. To follow my convictions I would have to endure significant change. A change I viewed as negative and painful, at least in the short term.

I would not describe this as having been 'fun', 'amusing' or bringing about a 'swell' mental state. I would describe it as producing a certain anguish.

An anguish over having recognized an obstacle to nirvana for me. An obstacle I wasn't (and am not) certain I am willing to overcome. A change I resist allowing to happen while knowing it must happen eventually.

The end goal may be a 'swell' mental state, but quite often the sincere practictioner will endure much 'non swell' mental states on the path.
 

Back
Top Bottom