Buddha and his teachings

[oat_soda]

No we are talking about more than just the pertubation by measurement. Electrons (and all matter) has a wavelike property to it. When you say it is “here” you are oversimplifying the situation. It is really most probably, but not entirely “there.”

if you are a physicist, you should read dr. rizzi’s book “the science before science”. i just started to read it. the guy graduated from mit with a phd from princeton in physics and worked on the mars rover. he’s trying to bring science back home to the church where it belongs so people don’t draw the wrong conclusion out of science. iapweb.org/directors_bio.html the guy is brilliant.

 

[dennisknapp]

Tlaloc:

No but God is likely a little more complicated than just moving fingers.

in the same sense? No, but that gets to the heart of the matter, there are many different ways a person can exist just as there may be many different faces to God.

Sure, why not? Why assume our limited notions of morality apply to a being entirely different than we are? Even amongst our limited perceptions there are philosophies that perceive unities between kindness and cruelty, thing normally thought to be opposites.

“Sure, why not?” Because it is totally irrational. To say that God can be all good and all evil at the same time and in the same sense strips the concept of God of all its meaning.

I mean, according to your view why saying anything at all about God? It makes no sense.

“in the same sense? No, but that gets to the heart of the matter, there are many different ways a person can exist just as there may be many different faces to God” Uh, I don’t get this one. We essentially exist or we don’t. The “different ways a person can exist” is dependant upon the fact that there is existence happening.

You say God can be and is a contradition and when I ask you to show this by use of reason you punt to the “God is more complex that we finite humans (who can’t exist as contradiction), therefore what I say is true.”

All I am saying is that at the very LEAST God is a rational being. If you want to think that God’s essential nature is irrational, you are free to do this, but you are only defeating yourself and your assertions are dead as soon as they are proclaimed.

But if you value reason and meaningfulness I hope you will at least give God the benefit of the doubt to at least be reasonable and meaningful as well.

Peace

 

[Tlaloc]

“Sure, why not?” Because it is totally irrational. To say that God can be all good and all evil at the same time and in the same sense strips the concept of God of all its meaning.

No, it just may just allow for multiple meanings which are opposites for us.

I mean, according to your view why saying anything at all about God? It makes no sense.

Well indeed I think making almost any kind of definitive statement about God to really only be speculation.

Uh, I don’t get this one. We essentially exist or we don’t. The “different ways a person can exist” is dependant upon the fact that there is existence happening.

Do you exist as a human being? Before you answer realize there are a million different criteria that that can be judged by. Some will say yes, others no. The question itself is not objective.

You say God can be and is a contradition and when I ask you to show this by use of reason you punt to the “God is more complex that we finite humans (who can’t exist as contradiction), therefore what I say is true.”

Correction: what I say may be true. You keep claiming I make definite claims when I only suggest possibilities. Can you prove that god must behave according to your sense of reason? Of course not, so why do you assume he does? Because everything else does? But it doesn’t. Both in philosophy and in physics there are things you find completely irrational. Our sense of “reason” is really highly selective for the environement we live in.

But if you value reason and meaningfulness I hope you will at least give God the benefit of the doubt to at least be reasonable and meaningful as well.

I very much value reason, I just understand it isn’t as universal as you seem to think.

 

[dennisknapp]

Tlaloc:

No, it just may just allow for multiple meanings which are opposites for us.

Well indeed I think making almost any kind of definitive statement about God to really only be speculation.

Do you exist as a human being? Before you answer realize there are a million different criteria that that can be judged by. Some will say yes, others no. The question itself is not objective.

Correction: what I say may be true. You keep claiming I make definite claims when I only suggest possibilities. Can you prove that god must behave according to your sense of reason? Of course not, so why do you assume he does? Because everything else does? But it doesn’t. Both in philosophy and in physics there are things you find completely irrational. Our sense of “reason” is really highly selective for the environement we live in.

I very much value reason, I just understand it isn’t as universal as you seem to think.

So, the only universal is that there are no universals?

You claim that you are only suggesting possiblities but in your suggestions are assertions like, “it doesn’t” and “in philosophy and in physics there are things you find completely irrational. Our sense of “reason” is really highly selective for the environement we live in.” Do you not see that you are using the law of non-contradiction when you use terms such as “does not” for you are saying that its opposite “does” does not happen. Or that in saying the our reason is highly subjective you are saying to it is not highly objective.

Why do you seek to deny that which you use all the time. Highly irrational–or rational, or both rational and irrational at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace

 

[MARIA_METKO]

I inadvertently left out a key part of the practices : ANY practice must be preceeded with a specific prayer offering which is designed to foster one to develope ligitimate self less concern ( compassion ) for all ‘sentient’ beings before the practice as a whole offered can be considered spiritually and morally meritous. One of the most basic of these practices is everyday contemplation called Tonglin where one takes any suffering of theirs and contemplates how others human or animal also suffer from its effects as a means to offer it as a means of enlightenment prayer.

ahimsaman72:

Hello Maria -

The same is true in Theravada Buddhism. One obtains merit by practicing moral discipline, offerings, chanting, etc. The purpose is to dispel bad karma and create good karma and thus even if one does not reach enlightenment in this life, they will not have to suffer in a lower realm of existence.

Sin doesn’t truly exist in Buddhism. Actions are either wholesome and skillful or unwholesome and unskillful. Samsara is the vicious cycle of life and death in which one is born again and again without achieving nirvana. One is born again and again without rest or peace. For some this is a physical reality and for some this is only a mental reality. Sin implies guilt and punishment by a divine being which Buddhism declines to take a stand on.

Have a cup of java on me!!

Peace…

 

[Tlaloc]

dennisknapp:

So, the only universal is that there are no universals?
You claim that you are only suggesting possiblities but in your suggestions are assertions like, “it doesn’t” and “in philosophy and in physics there are things you find completely irrational. Our sense of “reason” is really highly selective for the environement we live in.” Do you not see that you are using the law of non-contradiction when you use terms such as “does not” for you are saying that its opposite “does” does not happen. Or that in saying the our reason is highly subjective you are saying to it is not highly objective.

Again no. You claim non-contradiction always holds true, I give you examples of cases where it doesn’t hold ture, we agree on cases where it does hold true. Conclusion? That it is not an ironclad rule but is violated in at least some circumstances. I suggest you consider the possibility that God is one of those cases.

Why do you seek to deny that which you use all the time. Highly irrational–or rational, or both rational and irrational at the same time and in the same sense.

Peace

I certainly use logical rules in reasoning when I believe they apply. You keep claiming though that they are universal which is empirically not true.

 

[dennisknapp]

Tlaloc:

Again no. You claim non-contradiction always holds true, I give you examples of cases where it doesn’t hold ture, we agree on cases where it does hold true. Conclusion? That it is not an ironclad rule but is violated in at least some circumstances. I suggest you consider the possibility that God is one of those cases.

I certainly use logical rules in reasoning when I believe they apply. You keep claiming though that they are universal which is empirically not true.

Where exactly is the law violated in some cases? My universal comment was in response to your comment, “I very much value reason, I just understand it isn’t as universal as you seem to think.” If there are not universals then we cannot say anything meaningful at all, except for what is personally meaningful, which is your position.

This has some major problems because who is to say what is ultimately meaningful? What if you live in a world where it is meaningful for those in power to kill all relativist. Not only would they be consistant in killing themselves, but also in killing you. And the interesting thing is, you can’t say they are wrong in doing so. It is right for them, therefore it is right. They just don’t define you as a human being with any rights whatsoever and eliminate you. All relativist rely on objective morality in order to be able to have relativist beliefs. If it were not for objective morality and universals, relativists would have no context in which to operate in.

Peace

 

[StubbleSpark]

Calm down people! StubbleSpark is here. It took me a while to wade through the posts, but I think I have the gist of what is going on and unfortunately for Ahimsaman, I got here a little too late. But this can only be God’s will…

About QM. You assert that because a particle is PERCEIVED to simultaneously exist in two places at one time, that it actually is doing so.

This is impossible. We know it is impossible because nothing in the universe can be in two places at the same time. In other words, this law is ONTOLOGICAL. We do science because we want to understand the world AS IT IS and not how we perceive it. Any science that does not describe the world as it is, is, by definition, NOT SCIENCE. It is something else: conjecture, hypothesis, or outright lie, false truth, or specious noodling.

If, for example, I used results from QM experiments to prove that the universe does not exist (and people are saying just that now), these experiments would fly in the face of common sense. Even Einstein at this illogical leap when he said “Do you really believe that the world is not there when you are not looking at it?” (p.233)

There are simple explanations for the perceived anomaly of the particle existing in different places at the same time. Like a double-slit experiment. This an experiment where a man-made instrument (a sheet with two slits) is put in water. Ripples from a single splash on one side will emanate outward past the other side of the two slits, creating a smaller, double-ripple pattern. Light does the same thing when a single source passes through a double-slit, creating the same pattern. This may lead you to think that light travels in waves but this is erroneous, and unscientific.

Because WAVES (or ripples) are a phenomenon traveling on the surface of water but there is nothing analogous for light to travel on, though it works in a wave-like manner. We know that light is pervasive, it fills up a room, but not in the same way water waves do. When light hits an object, certain shades are reflected all over the place (up, down, left, right) in wave-like patterns but in a manner completely different from how water waves react when they hit an object.

So, the wave-theory is only useful in as much as it can describe something REAL. It is USELESS for explaining the nature of light when light is not measured for its wave-like qualities. But we still do not completely understand what light is, what it does, how exactly it travels, etc. To say otherwise would be to say “our limited understanding cannot possibly be corrected.”

Yet this is exactly what you are doing when you say the laws of truth and reality “break down” at the quantum level. If, by experimentation, I “discovered” that the Earth was flat and not round then I think it is safe to say that somewhere along the way, I made a boo boo because we believe otherwise.

What is math? Math is a system whereby we take reality and pair it down into just quantities. We use math because it is powerful. Math is powerful because it gets its usefulness and significance THROUGH its relation to the REAL. (Catholics, note the parallel between this relation and, say the Blessed Virgin to God – she is revered because of her relation to Him). If the quantities symbolized by math did not exist in reality, then we have no need for the numbers. Might as well just eat pi, because the ratio does not exist.

But this level of absurdity is exactly where you are when you say QM defies reality. Why? Because when you use EMPIRIOMETRIC tools to undercut the ONOTOLOGICAL, you are undercutting the foundation of the EMPIRIOLOGICAL. You just defeated the whole idea of doing science in the first place. Not only is the idea false on its face, but it is destructively anti-progressive and nihilistic.

(page number is from The Science Before Science by Anthony Rizzi buy it or else!)

 

[Tlaloc]

This is impossible. We know it is impossible because nothing in the universe can be in two places at the same time. In other words, this law is ONTOLOGICAL. We do science because we want to understand the world AS IT IS and not how we perceive it. Any science that does not describe the world as it is, is, by definition, NOT SCIENCE. It is something else: conjecture, hypothesis, or outright lie, false truth, or specious noodling.

You are misunderstanding particle-wave duality. It is quite real I assure you, even though it is non-intuitive.

If, for example, I used results from QM experiments to prove that the universe does not exist (and people are saying just that now), these experiments would fly in the face of common sense. Even Einstein at this illogical leap when he said “Do you really believe that the world is not there when you are not looking at it?” (p.233)

As before common sense doesn’t always work. Common sense told people they couldn’t live on a ball and yet they did. Science and math showed how the could and found the evidence, leaving common sense to catch up.

There are simple explanations for the perceived anomaly of the particle existing in different places at the same time. Like a double-slit experiment. This an experiment where a man-made instrument (a sheet with two slits) is put in water. Ripples from a single splash on one side will emanate outward past the other side of the two slits, creating a smaller, double-ripple pattern. Light does the same thing when a single source passes through a double-slit, creating the same pattern. This may lead you to think that light travels in waves but this is erroneous, and unscientific.

Riiiight. And where did you learn physics?

What is math? Math is a system whereby we take reality and pair it down into just quantities. We use math because it is powerful. Math is powerful because it gets its usefulness and significance THROUGH its relation to the REAL. (Catholics, note the parallel between this relation and, say the Blessed Virgin to God – she is revered because of her relation to Him). If the quantities symbolized by math did not exist in reality, then we have no need for the numbers. Might as well just eat pi, because the ratio does not exist.

Riiiight. And where did you learn math?

But this level of absurdity is exactly where you are when you say QM defies reality.

No one would say something so stupid. QM describes reality but it happens to be counter intuitive.

Seriously you have no understanding of the topics you are talking about. For one thing you completely messed up the double slit experiment which has to do with electrons and not light or water. For another thing the Pi number most certainly exists. Measure the circumfrence of a circle and divide that by the circle’s radius. Looks pretty real to me. Please don’t confuse people by pretending to know these subjects.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Oh no! I ain’t done yet!

Let’s swing this whole thing back to the realm of religion because I want to reiterate a couple of good ideas Rizzi brings up in his wonderful book.

Notice in the above post, I said we “believe” the Earth is round. I deliberately used that word. Know why? We cannot say we “know” the Earth is round (in the sense that we “know” how many phones we have in our house). This is because none of you has proven for yourself that the Earth is round. Have you gone into space and seen it with your own two eyes? Have you gotten on a jet and plotted a straight, non-stop course around the world, double-checking your course, distance traveled, time differences and stopped at the same point you started? No? Didn’t think so.

You THINK (or believe) the Earth is round because someone in your life TOLD you and you TRUSTED that person. Maybe it was news reporter, or your elementary school teacher, or the astronaut who took the video footage or snapped the camera shutter. You don’t know from round Earth – you just think you do. Because that is how much faith you have in your fellow human beings. (Beautiful, eh?)

Why bring this up? Because a couple of y’all have been saying or hinting or not attacking strongly enough the idea that FAITH and SCIENCE are opposites. In fact, they are one and the same.

Think about it. If we believed, as others (including Mr.-QM-breaks-down-reality up there) have that the universe is not ordered, but random and unpredictable – then science is both pointless and impossible. Science then, rests on the assumption that the universe is ORDERED to a specific end. But historically, only certain peoples have ASSUMED this was true. All those people believed in God (or gods) because a universal logic demands a universal intellect.

No God. No science. This is not a choice. Cultures that did not believe did not do it. God, the Master Intellect, the eternal Causeless Effect, is the starting point for science. (Did you know that the Big Bang theory was conceived by Fr. LeMaitre?)

There are, of course, other elements necessary. For one, your belief system must tolerate dirt. This eliminates all the Eastern religions, as all of them, to some degree or other, believe mud, blood, excrement, some animals, to be not only dirty but by NATURAL EXTENSION bad as well. Wear your outside shoes inside someone’s home sometime while you are in Japan and you will see this mentality still at work – it is evil to do so.

(Oh, by the way, some Eastern religions were automatically excluded by the first necessity (no God, no science) because, as posted on this forum, Buddhism does not bother with such distractions as the existence of God.)

So, now we are left with the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three believe an all-good God created the universe and therefore the universe itself is an all-good product of His unchanging will (we do not believe God can be good today and evil tomorrow as that which is true is ALWAYS true and therefore unchangeable and eternal. Changeability denies an eternal God. And is also very unscientific). Because of this, the world studied by scientists is HOLY and very approachable.

But, because Muslims believe in a harsh, unforgiving God, they deliberately shut the door on scientific progress because attempting to understand an Him was deemed an offense to His Eternal, Divine nature and to this day, modern sciences are forbidden in many Islamic schools. (p188)

But Catholic culture was dedicated to the fearless pursuit of Truth with the understanding that Truth loves us and wants us to come closer to Him (to us, God=Truth, in other words, God is united to His creation through His life-sustaining love for you and me as individuals. If this seems hard to understand, meditate on it.) It is through this unique understanding of creation being holy (like water in our fonts are holy, something Protestants emphatically deny) because of the existence of a consistent, life-giving universe held together by a Loving Intellect – that science sprung from our culture and no other.

So when it comes to modern scientists smugly saying their is no proof, they are right. There is no proof in the non-existence of God. Look all around you: every atom, every force, every essence is being governed by the same First Cause that inspired and cultivated science in the first place.

(page numbers are from Rizzi’s The Science Before Science. You still haven’t bought it?!)

 

[Tlaloc]

StubbleSpark:

Notice in the above post, I said we “believe” the Earth is round. I deliberately used that word. Know why? We cannot say we “know” the Earth is round (in the sense that we “know” how many phones we have in our house). This is because none of you has proven for yourself that the Earth is round. Have you gone into space and seen it with your own two eyes? Have you gotten on a jet and plotted a straight, non-stop course around the world, double-checking your course, distance traveled, time differences and stopped at the same point you started? No? Didn’t think so.

The Greeks proved it was round with two sticks in the ground. Or you can just go out an look at the horizon. A flat earth wouldn’t have one. But thanks for playing.

Why bring this up? Because a couple of y’all have been saying or hinting or not attacking strongly enough the idea that FAITH and SCIENCE are opposites. In fact, they are one and the same.

What a shock, you got that one wrong too.

Think about it. If we believed, as others (including Mr.-QM-breaks-down-reality up there) have that the universe is not ordered, but random and unpredictable – then science is both pointless and impossible. Science then, rests on the assumption that the universe is ORDERED to a specific end. But historically, only certain peoples have ASSUMED this was true. All those people believed in God (or gods) because a universal logic demands a universal intellect.

Okay I’ve moved beyond mocking your ignorance to pleading with you: Please learn something about science, you are getting everything wrong.

No God. No science. This is not a choice. Cultures that did not believe did not do it. God, the Master Intellect, the eternal Causeless Effect, is the starting point for science. (Did you know that the Big Bang theory was conceived by Fr. LeMaitre?)

Yeah that whole enlightenment thing was just a red herring! The Renaissance? Hoax! Yep. Yep.

There are, of course, other elements necessary. For one, your belief system must tolerate dirt. This eliminates all the Eastern religions, as all of them, to some degree or other, believe mud, blood, excrement, some animals, to be not only dirty but by NATURAL EXTENSION bad as well. Wear your outside shoes inside someone’s home sometime while you are in Japan and you will see this mentality still at work – it is evil to do so.

Oh.
My.
God.

I’ve read many histories of science but none touched on the fundamental importance of dirt.

Okay I can’t even read the rest. Go actually study…well… anything because so far you’ve shown total ignorance of not just science but math, theology, philosophy, and anthropology.

Please…Please…Stop. It’s literally painful to watch you mangle these subjects so badly.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Tlaloc:

You are misunderstanding particle-wave duality. It is quite real I assure you, even though it is non-intuitive.

That was not my point. My point was that the wave theory is not entirely sufficient. We recognize this because we changed it to a “particle-wave duality.” The construct of wave alone does not adequately represent reality and common sense. That is why it was “tweaked.”

Tlaloc:

As before common sense doesn’t always work. Common sense told people they couldn’t live on a ball and yet they did. Science and math showed how the could and found the evidence, leaving common sense to catch up.

People do not live on balls. So common sense was right. We base our concepts on our perceptions but our perceptions are not CREATING reality. We live on a planet which holds itself and us because of its mass. Common sense also told us that if you climb up the mast to the crow’s nest, you see further – the first hint that the world is in fact round. It was not a belief in an inconsistent or “counter-intuitive” reality that brought man to this understanding. It was common sense. Belief in the counter-intuitive would force everyone to question the veracity of even the simplest ideas. No progress can be made in such an environment.

Tlaloc:

Riiiight. And where did you learn physics?

It is against the policy of this forum to ask personal questions about someone’s background. I will reveal to you what you have a need to know. My apologies.

Tlaloc:

No one would say something so stupid. QM describes reality but it happens to be counter intuitive.

Actually, Einstein’s colleagues thought so. So do you and so does most of the world of “hard” sciences (biologists, for example, cannot afford to be so cavalier about the non-existence of the universe as it would mean their science is pointless) You just have not thought out your logic to its conclusion.

Tlaloc:

Seriously you have no understanding of the topics you are talking about. For one thing you completely messed up the double slit experiment which has to do with electrons and not light or water. For another thing the Pi number most certainly exists. Measure the circumfrence of a circle and divide that by the circle’s radius. Looks pretty real to me. Please don’t confuse people by pretending to know these subjects.

The double slit experiment I was talking about does in fact use water as a thought-construct for light. That is why I talked about water and light. I am sorry if this seemed too rudimentary for you. The exposition was meant more for those who do not understand where science gets ideas like “light sometimes acts like a wave” – it is through inference and observation of the real world. My point is that a theory or mental construct that does not make sense (“counter-intuitive”) has limited value as an explanation because it flies in the face of reality. I think I charitably explained this.

I never said pi does not exist, so I am not sure why you said that. My point, which you beautifully elucidated in your explanation, is that this mental construct is based on mathematical principles which are in turned based on the real world. If this were not the case, we would not use pi because it would not have any real world application.

 

[Ahimsa]

StubbleSpark:

There are, of course, other elements necessary. For one, your belief system must tolerate dirt. This eliminates all the Eastern religions, as all of them, to some degree or other, believe mud, blood, excrement, some animals, to be not only dirty but by NATURAL EXTENSION bad as well. Wear your outside shoes inside someone’s home sometime while you are in Japan and you will see this mentality still at work – it is evil to do so.

I guess that’s why those Hindu yogis live in the forests among all that mud and dirt and excrement. Well, then again, maybe that’s a Japanese concern.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Tlaloc:

The Greeks proved it was round with two sticks in the ground. Or you can just go out an look at the horizon. A flat earth wouldn’t have one. But thanks for playing.

Roundness does not immediately imply perfect sphere and the Greeks still believed in the concept of “the ends of the earth.” So, it gives common sense clues but it does not conclusively conclude that the Earth is a sphere. Also, accurate results required greater distance between the sticks – so it was handy to have something as large as an empire to coordinate the measurements. I must confess that neither I nor any person I know has ever done the stick experiment – we read about it in a textbook and just believed it to be true. You?

Tlaloc:

What a shock, you got that one wrong too.

Where is your proof?

Tlaloc:

Okay I’ve moved beyond mocking your ignorance to pleading with you: Please learn something about science, you are getting everything wrong.

Anthony Rizzi solved an 80 year old problem in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. I am using his book. I think he would agree with me. One of the points of his book is that the pervasive anti-Catholicism in our Northern European culture has contributed to the present disastrous state of science today.

Tlaloc:

Yeah that whole enlightenment thing was just a red herring! The Renaissance? Hoax! Yep. Yep.

The enlightenment would make an excellent thread in and of itself. As far as the renaissance is concerned, it is a high point in the history of Catholicism.

Tlaloc:

I’ve read many histories of science but none touched on the fundamental importance of dirt.

This is actually a very good point. I will quote historian Lynn White’s words on Christian monks (as quoted in Rizzi’s TSBS):
“for the first time the practical and the theoretical were embodied in the same individuals. In Antiquity learned men did not work and the workers were not learned … the monk was the first intellectual to get dirt under his fingernails … in his very person he destroyed the old artificial barrier between the empirical and the speculative … and thus helped create a social atmosphere favorable to scientific and technological development. It was no accident therefore that … the friar were eminent and ardent in experiment.”

My point about dirt was that learned people were previously shut off from the natural world and that this division (based on cultural views which are heavily informed by religion) was inimical to science.

Tlaloc:

Okay I can’t even read the rest. Go actually study…well… anything because so far you’ve shown total ignorance of not just science but math, theology, philosophy, and anthropology.

Please…Please…Stop. It’s literally painful to watch you mangle these subjects so badly.

In every other culture on this planet and at all other times in history, science was “still born.” The cultural atmosphere that would cultivate it was particular. One culture did it and that culture was informed by the One True Church of God. This is no coincidence. We even started behind. When the library at Alexandria was torched, we lost all but a fraction of the revolutionary science and knowledge that they developed. This is why the post Roman Empire world was called the “Dark Ages.” By this time, societies elsewhere in world (like in China and Japan) were already enjoying many centuries of continuing cultural development.

The had math, they had philosophy, and yet they had no science.

I have gone through some length to do as you advise and learn about these topics. This is why I quote them when I write – to help reinforce the veracity of my arguments. As a physicist, you have tried to rely on your title as your main tool for refuting arguments (ones that you barely take the time to read, I might add). But you burned any clout your educational background could afford you when you demonstrated your ignorance by asserting that an insufficient theory explaining QM is not insufficient, but just “counter-intuitive” (ie illogical). This is unscientific. Using different words to describe the MANNER in which it is insufficient does not in any way change the fact that our present understanding of QM is in fact, insufficient. You have nothing left but your wit and your elitism/anti-Catholicism/pride to defend your arguments.

You were very quick to sing the praises of Buddhism when it suited you, but blow off the idea of science and religion being a unified study of God and his creation because the person making this point is Catholic and the culture in question is Catholic. I will gladly rescind my points if you can find proof otherwise.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Ahimsa:

I guess that’s why those Hindu yogis live in the forests among all that mud and dirt and excrement. Well, then again, maybe that’s a Japanese concern.

A yogi is “one who practices yoga” and yes, Hindus in India are very much afraid of dirt. Hence the caste system with the “untouchables.” Why are they untouchable? Because they do the dirty work. This is very similar to the Burakumin of Japan – a historical group of people who in ancient times did the dirty work, like killing animals and working leather (blood, feces, and animal parts). To this day, their progeny receive discriminatory treatment for their PAST involvement in this dirty work.

I think your depiction of a yogi meditating in excrement would be offensive to a yogi. None of the yogi (foreign loan words in English typically are not pluralized) I know enjoy sitting in excrement. But farmers live the type of life where they must STEP in it and monks tended to be self-sufficient in terms of food supply. So yes, they were learned AND they were farmers.

And no, they did NOT sit in it.

 

[silverbullet]

cainem:

no disrespect but who gives a fig for buddhism, this is supposed to be a catholic/christian forum, if you want truth read the bible if you want to meditate meditate on the rosary

What most eastern writers call meditation is called contemplation by most christians who have discovered that such as monks. Just sitting is listenin and bein with Christ, being able to hear that still small voice. It is a valuable practice after reading the Bible. Read, meditate on what you read, then just sit quietly. Most christian monks call that contemplation.

Laura

 

[StubbleSpark]

Actually, if you Google “burakumin” you will get a lot of hits in English. This is the first on the list. Interestingly enough, it concerns Buddhism:

jbe.gold.ac.uk/7/alldritt001.html

It’s a long one, though.

 

[Exporter]

Tlaloc, wrote this with emphasis."

Originally Posted by Tlaloc
"Seriously you have no understanding of the topics you are talking about. For one thing you completely messed up the double slit experiment which has to do with electrons and not light or water.* For another thing the Pi number most certainly exists. Measure the circumfrence of a circle and divide that by the circle’s*** radius. Looks pretty real to me. Please don’t confuse people by pretending to know these subjects."
It seems that Thlaloc is capable of an error. This stuff is 9th grade level.
Tlaloc said to divide the circumference of a circle by it’s RADIUS. RADIUS IS WRONG! It hurts me to seee an error about such an elementary function. He should have said,pi can be found if a circle’s circumference is divided by it’s diameter.
**
Oh that hurt.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Exporter:

Tlaloc, wrote this with emphasis."

Originally Posted by Tlaloc
"Seriously you have no understanding of the topics you are talking about. For one thing you completely messed up the double slit experiment which has to do with electrons and not light or water.* For another thing the Pi number most certainly exists. Measure the circumfrence of a circle and divide that by the circle’s*** radius. Looks pretty real to me. Please don’t confuse people by pretending to know these subjects."
It seems that Thlaloc is capable of an error. This stuff is 9th grade level.
Tlaloc said to divide the circumference of a circle by it’s RADIUS. RADIUS IS WRONG! It hurts me to seee an error about such an elementary function. He should have said,pi can be found if a circle’s circumference is divided by it’s diameter.
**
Oh that hurt.

HOW DARE YOU!
EXPOOOOORTEEEER!!
MY MORTAL ENEMY!!!

I mean … GOOD FRIEND WHO ALWAYS HAS MY BACK!!!

Thanks.

 

[BlueTuna]

StubbleSpark:

A yogi is “one who practices yoga” and yes, Hindus in India are very much afraid of dirt.

Afraid of dirt? Where did you get that from?

StubbleSpark:

Hence the caste system with the “untouchables.” Why are they untouchable? Because they do the dirty work.

Yeah, their work makes them impure.

StubbleSpark:

I think your depiction of a yogi meditating in excrement would be offensive to a yogi. None of the yogi (foreign loan words in English typically are not pluralized) I know enjoy sitting in excrement.

Maybe some do. I guess it depends on the kind of yogi. For example lets look at the Aghoris, one group of followers of Lord Shiva:

The Aghoris are ascetics living in cremation grounds, smearing themselves with the ashes of corpses and eating from a cranial begging bowl. They are attributed with eating corpse flesh, which may be a once in a lifetime ritual act, and meditating seated upon a corpse and thereby gaining control over the corpse’s spirit. They have also been accused of practising human sacrifice. The Aghoris claim to perform a secret Tantric ritual involving sex with a lower caste, menstruating woman during which the Aghori becomes Shiva and his partner Shiva’s female energy or shakti (see Tantrism).The purpose of embracing pollution in these practices is realisation of non-duality through transcending social taboos and seeing the illusory nature of all conventional categories.

philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/aghoris.html
adolphus.nl/sadhus/shiva.html

For a follower of Lord Shiva only He exists - nothing and nobody else. So it makes no difference if you sleep in a bed or on a grave.