AUT: Re: Re: response to tahir Re: Re: Re: Star Wars andArchetypes

["commie00" <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>]

as per requested by a few people, i'm going to lay off of this conversation.

however, i can't pass this up:

> what the hell does this have to do with the "conservation of energy?" this
> was refering to death... that is: since energy can not be created or
> destroyed (only transformed) according to physics, what happens to all the
> physical energy in our bodies when we die? according to buddhism it simply
> disperses into everything else. and that "it" is not "you", since there is
> no consciousness, no affectations of being a living being left there. its
> just electricity, etc. transforming and moving on.
>
> Tahir: This IS conservation of energy. It is neither created or destroyed.
It just reappears somewhere else in some other form. And as I've pointed out
to you, this doctrine does appear in other religions and philosophies, for
example in Ibn Rushd. What on earth do you understand the word
'conservation. to mean then?

merriam webster's college dictionary (10th edition, 1993):

conservation: 1: a carful preservation and protectiojn of something, esp.
planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation,
destruction or neglect; 2: the preservation of a physical quantity during
transformations or reactions

now, how the hell does the dispersal of physical energy at death have
anything to do with "conservation"?

okay, i apologize everyone, and this post will be my last on this thread...
but this idiocy is too good to pass up:

> Tahir: "Purportedly" and "arguments" sounds like some of your projections
onto Buddhism are also contested in Buddhist circles too.

then clearly they can not be projections... for me to be projecting would
have to mean that i am placing something there that is not there already. do
you even own a dictionary?

> Tahir: "prejudices"? Me? When you have the gall to denigrate the
philosophies and traditions of millions of people and ages of history around
the world in favour of the chosen, true, pure and unique one? Give me a
break.

how about actually reading my posts instead of just reacting to half baked
delusions in your own head:

i stated from the begining that there are debates within buddhism around
specific aspects... the theories i have given are those that are supposedly
general to all buddhisms... however, certain buddhisms (particularly some
that stem from the mahayana school, such as tibetan buddhism and pure land
[amida] buddhism) actually seem to project some kind of afterlife. now, even
within these schools there are those who say all the afterlife talk is just
symbols, and those who seem to actually believe it. yet, all still somehow
lay claim to the basic ideas i have reported... this creates an obvious
contradiction.

have i stated my opinions thru this? of course. but you, apparently, can not
tell an opinion from a report. (just like you can't define conservation,
projection...)

my point?: i am not the one trying to reduce buddhism to some kind of
hippy-dippy, brainless, hipster, cult thing. i have, from the begining,
stated the differences and contradictions... allowing for all the
variations, etc. in fact, the bulk of my argument with you has been trying
to get it thru your impossibly thick skull that there is a fuck of a lot
more to buddhism than you are prepared to grant, given your obvious
prejudices based on some unfortunate experiences with a small number of
people claiming to be buddhists. thus you have condimed the ideas of
millions of people, while never once bothering to try to understand a bit of
it... and thus your attitudes on buddhism are intensely reactionary, and
counter to the effort i would think a marxist would put into understanding
such things in a materialist sense.

> let alone the fact that 90%+ of bar activity is centered around alcohol,
>
> Tahir: Ooh shocking!

and apparently you've injested enough, killing enough braincells, to where
you can no longer read or think clearly.

or maybe perpetual drunkeness explains the ineptitude you've demonstrated
thruout this exchange...

> you know, you make a lot of fucking leaps of logic... how the hell did you
> come to "any school of thought is more or less as good as another" from
> "this kind of thinking is possible anywhere [etc.]"?
>
> Tahir: It follows logically from what you said.

damn, son. go buy a book on elementary logic or something... cause what you
said no way "follows logically" from what i said.

that fact that you think so is kinda pathetic, really.

> i wasn't saying that all schools are equal, but that no schools are above
> criticism and reproach.
>
> Tahir: I look forward to your learned critique of Buddhism, which I will
certainly engage with.

what's the point. i used to have quite a lot of respect for you. now i have
none.

at any rate... if you really want to continue this, just email me off the
list. i won't respond to you here, on this thread, again.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---