Why

[JetLeg]

He's not saying thinking in general. He's talking about philosophical thought--critical thinking.

We should all be molochs, basically; engineers in the dark, as our superior thinkers tell us about the wonderful nirvana ahead of us, if we'd just learn to get over our arrogant questioning of authority.

But I think he's actually joking, or most seems to be. It's the exclamation mark.

You are right - I am talking about philosophical thought in particular.

(And I did not say that it is arrogant - only that it is too hard. )

A problem with philosophical thinking is that people can come to really wrong conclusions if they think by themselves. So, if they just pick the Right individual whom to follow, all will be ok.

 

[JetLeg]

I'm thinking that our new friend Jetleg actually means it. There really are people who are that far gone. Sadly. Not sure how they figure out how to use a computer and what they're doing here on the JREF, though...

You don't need too much critical thinking for that.

 

[jond]

You don't need too much critical thinking for that.

True. Unfortunately.

So, what would you do if you found out that the one "enlightened" person you were following turned out to be a fraud?

 

[JetLeg]

True. Unfortunately.

So, what would you do if you found out that the one "enlightened" person you were following turned out to be a fraud?

I would be ****ed. Totally.

However he isn't. I know. I feel.

Honestly, does anyone think that the Dalai Lama is a fraud?

 

[l0rca]

You are right - I am talking about philosophical thought in particular.

(And I did not say that it is arrogant - only that it is too hard. )

A problem with philosophical thinking is that people can come to really wrong conclusions if they think by themselves. So, if they just pick the Right individual whom to follow, all will be ok.

I think the opposite. If everyone questioned and philosophized on their own, there would be no large-scale evil movements. Dogmatism breeds evil more than critical thinking does. Can you name any society where being too reasonable destroyed them or caused great evil? I can name you a handful of ones where following the wrong leader has destroyed them or caused evil to others.

 

[seanmcg]

Honestly, does anyone think that the Dalai Lama is a fraud?

In what sense? He seems like a very nice man, with some good ideas about how to be happy in your own life, and how to treat others with kindness. I read one of his books, and it gave me warm fuzzies.

Do I think he has transcended human consciousness and has ultimate knowledge of the "true nature" of the universe? Not really.

 

[Tricky]

You are right - I am talking about philosophical thought in particular.

(And I did not say that it is arrogant - only that it is too hard. )

A problem with philosophical thinking is that people can come to really wrong conclusions if they think by themselves. So, if they just pick the Right individual whom to follow, all will be ok.

LOL. Yeah, that's what people need is for someone to do their thinking for them. Gosh, you don't even really need a brain at all!

 

[JetLeg]

I think the opposite. If everyone questioned and philosophized on their own, there would be no large-scale evil movements. Dogmatism breeds evil more than critical thinking does. Can you name any society where being too reasonable destroyed them or caused great evil? I can name you a handful of ones where following the wrong leader has destroyed them or caused evil to others.

You said it yourself - following the wrong leader. The problem is that they have not found the right one, not that the follow a leader.


Mao Ze Dong was quite a thinking person. However, he thought too much - and came to wrong, dangerous conclusions. If he wouldn't think too much but would follow the advice of someone really really good and compassionate like the Dalai Lama, it wouldn't happen.

 

[Loss Leader]

So, if they just pick the Right individual whom to follow, all will be ok.

The real question is: What criteria are you using to determine that the Dalai Lama is the "right" individual to follow?

What criteria would a Chinese person have used at the time to know that Chairman Mao was the "wrong" individual to follow?

And, for the $64,000.00 grand prize, how is the process of determining which individual is "right" different from the process of philosophical thinking in general?

 

[boojum]

From one of my swamis (Greg Brown -- the song is called "Dream On"):

Well, jus' luckily for me, the great Swami, Prisnidadirapi was comin'
through town....... (I think he was on his way up to Boulder, Colorado, or
somewhere.) He was givin' a li'l advice as he went by 'n' I went to see
the guy.......... 'n' in so many words I said to him: "I'm in bad shape
here.......... An' I heard you got the true knowledge, which you c'ld give
to me, which w'ld clear up all my doubts and difficulties, 'n' git me back
on the track, back in the swing, fully adjusted to life in the 20th
century....... An' the only trouble I heard about, Swami, is you charge
about eight hundred dollars fer the true knowledge............. That's all
right, I mean........ I never expected there to be a blue light special on
enlightenment or anythin' like that, but I..... I'm just a guitar player,
your holy Swaminess, an' I was hopin' we could make a deal where...... I
would give you, like, maybe, four hundred dollars........an' I was hopin'
maybe you would give me, like, jus' maybe half of the true
knowledge?........Jus' enough to git me by for a month or six weeks at the
most, 'n' I'll give you the rest of the cash......... you give me the rest
of the knowledge, I'll be enlightened, your pockets'll be a little heavy,
we both be doing awright, whaddaya say?"

Well, the Swami, he looked at me from under his heavy-lidded eyes,...his
mysterious eyes...... He smiled at me......... That was nuthin' new, you
know, the Swami was always kinda smiling......... Like he knew sumpin'
that you didn't know...... Like those people that............ they jus'
levitate jus' a lit'l bit, you know, 'n' they git a little smile on their
face.......

He smiled......... He looked at me 'n' he said:

"Dream on, little dreamer
Dream on.
This world ain't what you think it is
it's jus' what it is."

 

[slingblade]

You are right - I am talking about philosophical thought in particular.

(And I did not say that it is arrogant - only that it is too hard. )

A problem with philosophical thinking is that people can come to really wrong conclusions if they think by themselves. So, if they just pick the Right individual whom to follow, all will be ok.

So, do you gag, spit, or swallow? Just curious.

 

[Mercutio]

Reminds me of the "Animorphs" books I used to read to my kids, and which they then read for themselves. These slug-like aliens, "Yeerks", would ooze in through your ear and insinuate themselves into the inculcations of your brain, where they would completely take over your voluntary behavior (your thinking, though was yours, which left "you" trapped in a body that was controlled by another). Basically "the puppet masters" redone for middle school.

The beauty of the series, though, was the exploration of the philosophy of these aliens. In one book, it was revealed that it was much easier to control a body if the person had voluntarily let you in (rather than, as the majority, someone was held down and the yeerk forcibly entered). The Yeerks were not optimistic that such a free-thinking species as humans would be controllable--especially voluntarily--until one happened to go to a church revival meeting.

"Let yourself be God's tool. Let God into your life, and do His will, for the greater good. Put aside your earthly troubles and ask God to rule your heart for you. What a privilege to carry everything to God in prayer..." And the Yeerks knew that by asking people to be part of something greater than themselves, by asking them to let another do their thinking for them, they would be able to take over the species...

 

[JetLeg]

In what sense? He seems like a very nice man, with some good ideas about how to be happy in your own life, and how to treat others with kindness. I read one of his books, and it gave me warm fuzzies.

Do I think he has transcended human consciousness and has ultimate knowledge of the "true nature" of the universe? Not really.

His ability to forgive the chinese is above human abilities, so he is enlightened. I am too new a user to post a URL, but if you google "dalai lama victor chan", you will see the book in which he says he has absolutely no hatred for the chinese. The chinese have ruined his country and murdered his people. And still he doesn't hate them and preaches for compassion! That's beyond human abilities.

I know that he is omniscient because in tibetan buddhism, a buddha is said to be omniscient (he cannot say that he is a buddha if he is a one, you judge one by his qualities ). I proved that he is a buddha, so he must be omniscient. So everything he says must be right.

Thank you for the dialogue.

 

[jond]

I would be ****ed. Totally.

However he isn't. I know. I feel.

Honestly, does anyone think that the Dalai Lama is a fraud?

Well, I don't know whether or not he's a fraud. He seems like an ok guy. Enlightened? I'll pass. And after watching Penn & Teller's bit about him, I certainly don't feel any compulsion to follow his words as gospel. (Not that I would have anyway.) But the problem is that by simply "knowing" and "feeling" instead of thinking and analyzing, you've opened yourself up to be "****ed. Totally."

 

[JetLeg]

So, do you gag, spit, or swallow? Just curious.

??

 

[seanmcg]

His ability to forgive the chinese is above human abilities, so he is enlightened. I am too new a user to post a URL, but if you google "dalai lama victor chan", you will see the book in which he says he has absolutely no hatred for the chinese. The chinese have ruined his country and murdered his people. And still he doesn't hate them and preaches for compassion! That's beyond human abilities.

Well, not really; there are numerous historical instances of the victims of atrocities feeling compassion for their tormentors. I wouldn't call it "super-human", so much as "really very impressive".

Now, if he could fly by flapping his arms...that's super-human.

I know that he is omniscient because in tibetan buddhism, a buddha is said to be omniscient (he cannot say that he is a buddha if he is a one, you judge one by his qualities ). I proved that he is a buddha, so he must be omniscient. So everything he says must be right.

How does one prove buddha-hood? Is there a test? Do we need the Dalai Lama to pee on a stick? Plus if you're enlightened, minus if you're not.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

No, of course not the autobiography of everyone is accurate, only of enlightened people.

What evidence do you have that he is indeed enlightened?

 

[JetLeg]

Well, I don't know whether or not he's a fraud. He seems like an ok guy. Enlightened? I'll pass. And after watching Penn & Teller's bit about him, I certainly don't feel any compulsion to follow his words as gospel. (Not that I would have anyway.) But the problem is that by simply "knowing" and "feeling" instead of thinking and analyzing, you've opened yourself up to be "****ed. Totally."

He is rather rational, open, curious, skeptical, inquisitive. So why do I need to do it if he does it for me?


And evenmore, he is compassionate, so I can be sure this way that my intellect won't drive me into immoral views. If I use my intellect, immoral views can be the conclusion. So it's best not to use it, but to follow a compassionate person who does.

 

[JetLeg]

Well, not really; there are numerous historical instances of the victims of atrocities feeling compassion for their tormentors. I wouldn't call it "super-human", so much as "really very impressive".

Now, if he could fly by flapping his arms...that's super-human.



How does one prove buddha-hood? Is there a test? Do we need the Dalai Lama to pee on a stick? Plus if you're enlightened, minus if you're not.

I don't know of any supernatural evidence. But you can see (for example watch his videos on YouTube) that he is not feeling compassion in such a way that he supresses, in a sick way. No, there is something strong, noble in that compassion. And that seems beyond ordinary human abilities, so he is enlightened. And, as tibetan buddhism tells us, enlightened beings are omniscient, he is also omniscient.

 

[Loss Leader]

He is rather rational, open, curious, skeptical, inquisitive. So why do I need to do it if he does it for me?

This poses something of a free rider problem. If every single person in the world were to adopt your strategy, there would be nobody left to be "rational, open, curious, skeptical, inquisitive." Everyone would just be wandering around, looking for someone to follow. In order for your advice to work, it is necessary that some people disregard your advice completely.

This raises the question: How should we determine which people should follow your advice and which should not?

After all, you run the risk of having an individual who could be the greatest, most compassionate, most original, most groundbreaking and most revolutionary thinker in the history of the world accidentally take your advice, do no free thinking and contribute nothing to society.

And evenmore, he is compassionate, so I can be sure this way that my intellect won't drive me into immoral views. If I use my intellect, immoral views can be the conclusion. So it's best not to use it, but to follow a compassionate person who does.

Once again, I repeat myself from before: How do you know that he is compassionate and moral? It would seem that the only way for you to "know" it is for you to have done some philosophical thought of your own. If philosophical thought is required to know whom to follow, then how does your advice that we not do philosophical thinking at all make sense?