Features

Vibecrewangel · #51

Kahl - your inital post left out the "chronological order". And because of that the caps did not come of as sarcasm.
In your second post you put in the order, but did not clairfy that what you meant about the lanterns was sarcasm.
But if you notice, after your second post I understood the sutra just not you.

Quote:

The eyes show you things. The lantern shows you things. The mind can still perceive without the eyes or the lanterns. Thus, it is the mind that truly "sees" or understands.

and

Um...the point is eyes don't see. Neither do lanterns. Only the mind sees.

Quote:

The sentences have nothing to do with eachother, they are random spurts of thought directed towards confusing and confusing people more.

Well, seeing as how your sentences were random, with missing context and chronological order, you succeeded in your goal.

kahljorn · #52

"QUANTITY INTO QUALITY"
My understand would be as, a smillion pounds of crappy ass rocks sits under ground for a long time. A smillion years later it compresses and becomes gold or diamonds.
A bunch of useless molecules and atoms floating around space gather together to create a star. Same with a planet.

"NEGATION OF THE NEGATION"
That one has really easy examples, the life and birth of every single thing in this universe(including thoughts and ideas). Stars and all. Stars turn to nebulas, which someday get turned into stars again. the cycle of birth and rebirth and squeezed somewhere between the death part.

"INTERPENETRATION OF OPPOSITE"
Yea, another easy one. Evolution is exactly that, evolution occurs in a few ways, by adjusting to the enviroment, or by killing off any rivals. As seen in the Neandrothal(sp?) and Homosapien pasts.
Static electricity may be another? Friction of two objects. Gravity. Especially in the case of the moon, which isn't necessarily so decisive as some of the others in matters of co-existence, but without the moon there would be no tide (and the axis would be all fucked up, which correlates again to change the seasons, which fucks us over) and without that there'd be bad things.
The ECOSYSTEM is a more complicated thing, that also involves the second law thingi you stated. In fact it even has the first squeezed in there. Now that I think about it all of the things are all three, if you twist it enough. Twisty twist.
I'm pretty fucked up right now, sorry if I don't make sense or I missed details.

Vibecrewangel · #53

Kahl -

Regardless, we clearly came to the same conclusion about the sutra.

What I find supremely interesting is that that sutra is very close to scientific truth.
The eyes actually do not see. They transmit data to the brain. The brain then interprets the data as images. In essence, it is the brain that "sees". So close it is scary.
The buddhist view of energy and the universe is also very similar to math/physics.

I find it fascinating.

kahljorn · #54

Vibe, again, I will post the first statement ever made.

"Jesus Christ reanactment there. It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE."

Then you got the sutta real good, so good I got gooded by your goodness, remember when you were all:

"A bit out of your realm I guess. If eyes can see lanterns can see is about energy being energy. You seem to be either a literalist or you have tried to read the suttras without any base knowledge."

THAT WAS GOOD, E=mc2 Fantastic laura davis. Tastic.

Immediatly after this post, I responded. How great for you.

"He was talking about perceptions as far as I know"

Good ol perceptions.

"When you close your eyes do you still see? You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind. In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?"

Good ol Buddhist style scripture.

"The eyes show you things. The lantern shows you things. The mind can still perceive without the eyes or the lanterns. Thus, it is the mind that truly "sees" or understands."

OMG, THE MIND TRULY SEES? WHAT THE FUCK, I DIDN"T SAY THAT A POST BEFORE YOU AT ALL. FOR REALS. I NEVER DID. I SWEAR I DIDNT.

"per·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-spshn)
n.
The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
The effect or product of perceiving.
Psychology.
Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.

Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
The capacity for such insight. "

As seen in dictionary.com

I also find it sadly ironic:

"Not only did you leave out critical parts of the language that makes up the sutra"
"Seeing as how I haven't gotten into the sutras yet "
And you say it's out of my realm?

that's great vibe, really. Not only do you know the Critical parts of the Suttas but you know them without even reading them.

Read it, seriously. Guess what I was doing just there, I was practically quoting the buddha himself(notice the part where I said AND HE SAID, indicating the buddha. Isn't language great. We have pronouns), just in a slightly shorter fashion. Do you think in the suttas he comes out and says, "The mind sees".
Fuck no. What the hell, go read it. He questions them, baits them, to see if they can figure it out themselves, to try to inspire and teach, that's how the buddha worked, he was almost a prankster. I even gave you a shortcut with the mind part, he didn't even mention that till A-grown-man-crying later.

I won't respond to you anymore on this topic unless you talk remotely intelligently

I promise t his time

I feel like a calander/preschool teacher today.

Vibecrewangel · #55

LMAO

Get over yourself.

Quote:

"Jesus Christ reanactment there. It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE."

Looks like a bunch of random sentences to me. This is where you left out critical parts. And I took it out of context because well.....there is no context. After you added the rest of the text I could see what you meant. But at the start it wasn't clear.

Vibecrewangel · #56

Besides, as I said a couple of posts ago, we clearly came to the same conclusion on the sutra.

Personally I like koans better than sutras. More thought provoking.

fin

Anyhoo, like I said in the beginning......if you are interested in the theory and the philosophy behind the universe it's out there.

kahljorn · #57

http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/su...ond-Sutra.html
I found you this. It's not so bad. It leaves out alot of the stuff out of the one I read, of course the posibilities are there for the one I read to be embelished a bit. Im gonna try to find the lantern one though. It's so irritating. You can at least see the guy cry in that one.

Vibecrewangel · #58

LMAO yet again......

and I found this is the The Surangama Sutra. Both more convoluted and more direct.

Quote:

The Buddha said: Ananda, when a blind man who used to see only darkness suddenly recovers his sight and sees everything clearly, if you say that it is his eyes which see, then when a man who saw darkness in a dark room suddenly lights a lamp which enables him to see what is there, you should say that it is the lamp that sees. If a lamp can see things, it should have the faculty of seeing and should not be called a lamp; if it really sees, it has no relation to you. Therefore, you should know that while the lamp can reveal form, seeing comes from the eyes but not from the lamp. Likewise, while your eyes can reveal form, the nature of seeing comes from the mind but not from the eyes."

I'll try to read the one you posted after lunch.

Oh - and I want to see a grown monk cry!

kahljorn · #59

yea that's the one. i think they are like mini-sutras as part of a big sutra called the Lotus Sutra. The Sidhuti guy cries in the Diamond one.
Is the one you found the one where he has Ruby rings on too? and they shine with a great light, and people are blinded?

The_Rorschach · #60

"Thank you for the baseless and completely worthless assumption."

Quite welcome.

"I believe I remember you saying that you once believed in evolution, but after a long and arduous process of reason you switched to Creationism."

No, I was a staunch Irish Protestant the first day I came to the Mock, and have never ceased to embrace my sola scriptorum-based belief system.

As both you and Kahl seemed to have both misinterpreted what I have said, allow me to reiterate: I was clarifying someone else's statement, not offering a value judgement. I see no profit in such debates, and do not participate in them any longer. Creationists put their faith in God, Evolutionists believe in Science - Faith and belief would have no value if their proponants could be so easily swayed, therefore debate over the issue is ineffectual at best.

Vibecrewangel · #61

Not sure. I just did a search for the lantern text. I'll probably start reading them soon.......beginning with that one

I'm still more into the philosophy, but the sutras seem interesting. A good argument will always pique my interest. So um thanks. Thanks a lot for adding to my load of stuff to read.

Preechr · #62

...and was he a furry little midget? The One Ring, right?

GEEZ!!! You are both very smart, educated people! Neither of you is an actual Buddhist, yet you've argued the finer points of a relatively insignificant Buddhist subscript for days now!!! If there were ever a more picture perfect example of brain-abuse I've yet to see it...........................................

garflinagkle

kahljorn · #63

Yea, I love doing this thing. Where I go, *learning*. *learning*. *learning* it's great. *learning* Wow I just read something hindu, some zen now? Some tao? OMG I COULD LIKE LEARN JUDISM, WHY WOULD I WANT TO DO THAT? SOCRATES,Plato, I must be insane

I'm an unclassified poser :O
hehe, I said in the begining I've only read it a few times, and I wasn't sure which sutra it was.

And that's ok because you repeated your alien crap quite a few times, and nobody laughed or cared. Not even God(or in your case the aliens).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/lotus/lot27.htm
I found that one. THat's the most irritating buddhist thing I've ever read. it's all repetitive. I hate that. I'm trying to find the version of that thing siginota sutra that i used to have right now, it's on a website somewhere, a nice site that has Taoism Zen Buddhism and Tibetan, and I think some other crap too.

And the Script was about perceptions

and i think it includes other things. Which if irrelevant would do a wonderful thing to your opinion.

I mixed those paragraphs up so bad, everyone will be confused.

Sethomas · #64

I'd just say that their little flame war has convoluted metaphysical philosophy into such an abstraction that it's pointless and stupid. And Kahl, you can't compress stones into gold. Gold was formed by fusion under high pressure in the stellar core of early star systems. It was left behind when the early stars became nubulae, thus eventually was picked up in the gas clouds that were to become the planets.

Ror, I could have sworn I remember you arguing on the old boards something about how the nature of amino acids makes it highly unlikely that proteins could arise in nature. Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else. I could have a dandy time arguing how sola scriptura is asinine, but even if one embraces such a belief system there's nothing preventing one from adapting his interpretation of scripture, namely the Hexameron, by understanding the WHY and FOR WHOM-type questions that may be posed on the bible. I'm versed well enough in Christian faith to know that it can accomodate scientific reason perfectly well, and I fail to understand the appeal of any tennent of faith that stands in stark contrast to the obvious truth. And don't tell me that the fossil record was planted by God or Satan to test our faith.

kahljorn · #65

Roach:
"I see no profit in such debates, and do not participate in them any longer. Creationists put their faith in God, Evolutionists believe in Science - Faith and belief would have no value if their proponants could be so easily swayed, therefore debate over the issue is ineffectual at best"

Yea, that's actually what i was trying to say.

"well, quite frankly the CREATIONISM VERSUS EVOLUTION debate gets tiring. I wanted specific theories and philosophies I was attempting to learn. I did not want Christians and Catholics filling my attempt at learning with, GOD CREATED MAN IN SEVEN DAYS AND SO IT WAS."

kahljorn · #66

"And Kahl, you can't compress stones into gold. Gold was formed by fusion under high pressure in the stellar core of early star systems."

high pressure doesn't equal compression? Diamonds are made under compression, right? And other factors, like water and volcanic activity, but I don't study Geology.

Preechr · #67

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

And that's ok because you repeated your alien crap quite a few times, and nobody laughed or cared. Not even God(or in your case the aliens).

I mixed those paragraphs up so bad, everyone will be confused.

.........Nobody gets me.

*gets over it*

I'm actually only confused by the fact that ya'll's tedious argument never answered the only question it produced:

Who says the mind is seeing anything? Are your eyes and lanterns the tools of your mind, or could it be reversed? Is the object of your sight a tool as well, or is the reason for your sight the object of the excercise, forcing all things involved, eyes, minds, lanterns and apples into slavery?

yes, that was three questions. I'm lazy, and I have a history here of being misunderstood.

In conclusion: What? NO appreciation for the alien angle? At All? I mean, it had EVERYTHING! Babra Streisand, even!

kahljorn · #68

Personally I think it's interchangable, Preechr. In some odd fucking way, an apple and a lantern have a "form of perception".

Other than that, being a greedy self-righteous human I'd have to say it's our minds, cause we're great and so enlightened. But then you have the idea that even if you had no mind(were dead, or insane, or in candyland) the lantern would still be there. Still lighting the room. So i dont know what that means, other then it's underlying purpose is it's form of perception, and that by using the lantern to light the room the lantern is achieving it's purpose, thusly using the user by implementaion factors.
Maybe it's a combination of Perceptions, a melding of sorts, CO OPERATION, it's a love-hate relationship.

Which do you think is more better-er.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, if you were dead or in Candyland your perception would be changed to a so called "Dilusion" or whatever else may be. So seeing as a changed perception occured, it's kind of difficult to argue the relevancy of the teapot still steaming.

It's great to talk about stupid shit

Preechr · #69

I tend to be pragmatic, which means now I'm sleepy.

Take one item from the equation, and you have nothing left. This would indicate they (eyes, mind, lantern and lobster) all have the same value, or are all the same thing in a practical sense. That's why it's so shameful to spend hours looking at the underwear models in the JC Penny catalog.

I would say they have a "place in" perception, rather than a "form of" perception.

So, is having one's eyes closed the same as looking at porn or the face of God?

kahljorn · #70

If you have a mind like mine, you can always see porn on your eyelids. MY PERCEPTIONS ARE THAT GRAND, SIR.

I like the equality thing. Dirt=people=shinyfacesintheair=literacy=otherthing sthatgo wipwambleeem

Vibecrewangel · #71

Actually Preecher - I do consider myself a Buddhist. Well, a Buddhist/agnostic. I'm still coming to terms with the second part. I haven't read the sutras yet because I believe that much like the bible, the stories are not as important as the concept.
I've only just started to study Buddhism, however the view I have had of life and the universe since I was a child very closely matches Buddhist philosophy.

Seth - I don't think either of us argued it on a metaphysical level at all. We were arguing the way the wording was in the posts. Think of it like this. If I said and HE said eat my BODY and drink my BLOOD. And they ate His BODY and drank His BLOOD. ATE HIS BODY AND DRANK HIS BLOOD.

Does this come off as the way the story actually goes or does it come off as a strange canablistic concept? From the tone of Kahls first post I thought (s)he was laughing at the sutra because (s)he thought that lanterns can see. I didn't get the sarcasm.

Quote:

And the Script was about perceptions and i think it includes other things. Which if irrelevant would do a wonderful thing to your opinion.

I think it is more about understanding. But that is on the next tier. I'll have to read the sutra to see if it is a step or if it ends there.

Quote:

Who says the mind is seeing anything? Are your eyes and lanterns the tools of your mind, or could it be reversed? Is the object of your sight a tool as well, or is the reason for your sight the object of the excercise, forcing all things involved, eyes, minds, lanterns and apples into slavery?

Not tools, constructs.