The Danes really have it going for them

[Blake]

I was saying you may confuse people about what you are actually saying (they will probably think you sound stupid), and you make yourself look inane to those who see through what you are saying, as all you are doing is trying to twist truths to deny them and sound enlightened. "A problem is not a problem".

Do you HONESTLY believe that is "all I am trying to do"?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Do you HONESTLY believe that is "all I am trying to do"?

When you say, "a problem is not a problem", "rape is not rape", "not rape is rape", and other similarly inane things... as was the context of the quote... yes.

I believe you are intelligent enough to understand that such wording is obtuse. You later admit you expect people not to understand what you are saying. (And to me it sounds like you delight in that. You've made it a point of emphasis several times.)

Your noted acceptance of the results, and your statements that one should be efficient, denote that your intentions are to achieve those results. I think that qualifies as "trying".

Just to be absolutely clear, you obviously are trying other things in other regards though. Just in those specific cases, I don't think you are unaware of what you are doing or the consequences thereof.

[Blake]

Okay I've taken a few hours to contemplate, before responding to the rest of your post. I do respectfully ask that you actually contemplate the questions I ask you in this post, take them more seriously than you'd like to... Occam's Razor is always a good tool to apply.


I actually went for a long walk, and I tried putting some of what I said into practise. That is, what I said about PROBLEMS. As I often do, I try to practise what I preach as I preach what I practise.

As I walked, I decided that my only problems should be:
Where I put my feet.
And when I stopped walking and started walking.

With other things, for example, this conversation on the internet, NOT being my problem. Because it was way back at my house.

Interestingly, as I strived to make those my only problems, I realized I was right. The distractions around me were not my problem. The cars with funny sounding exhaust, the barking dogs, the yelling kids - NONE of those things were worthy of my attention, none of them were my problems. Even the ambulance which pulled up right beside me, with a crowd of people on the other side of the road - not my problem, there was clearly nothing for me to do there, it was under control. I actually resisted the desire to rubber-neck . All of these things WANTED my attention, but applying my attention to those things, would not do me any good.

On the other hand, where I put my feet was definitely worthy of my attention. Also, it was absolutely critical that I applied attention to stopping and starting. I had to stop when I encountered a kerb and apply my awareness to looking both ways. When there was no danger from cars, then I started walking and crossed the road.

If I was to fail make stopping and starting at the side roads my problem, I could walk obliviously into the path of a car and get seriously injured. So stopping and starting clearly was my problem.

Now the interesting part, is in Buddhist Walking meditation, the things to be aware of are:
The soles of your feet.
And stopping and starting.

As long as I successfully made my only problems, where I put my feet, and stopping and starting, my gait automatically became perfect for walking meditation (slow and even) and my awareness good. As soon as other problems entered my mind, irrelevant problems, I would speed up and hurry, I would lose the even gait and peace of mind...

THAT was interesting (though you may not really understand the significance, but independent verification of the advice given by the Ajahn's is always nice!).

The way someone looks is a factor in attraction, but attraction is not rape. Attraction is not a problem. The rapist takes something benign, and through a fault within themselves, chooses to rape.

Is that REALLY what you think? That he just chooses to rape? Just like that? Nothing compelling about his attraction, he just strokes his chin, and thoughtfully thinks, in complete control "I wonder what I could do to pass the time this evening. Hmmm, I could argue on the internet... I could play video games.... hmmmm. OH I KNOW! I'll go rape some girl"
Don't you think there might be some more COMPULSION at work than that?

Psychology. a strong, usually irresistible impulse to perform an act, esp. one that is irrational or contrary to one's will

I like telling stories from my experience, and I do also like harmless stories, ones which aren't heavy but do explore a concept. This is about "choice".

When I visited Bodhinyanarama Monastery for the first time, I stayed in a guest's hut, with a locked door, and I had the key for the hut, of course.

On my last day, I had to catch a bus in the middle of the afternoon... now at the monastery everyone basically just disappears during the afternoon, the monks go to their huts (which are private), the guests sneak off to meditate or go for long walks... so I'd already said my goodbyes at lunch time.

Come 3:00pm, I looked for someone to give the key to, looked for about 10 minutes... but I couldn't find anyone. So I went to the kitchen and very deliberately, put the key on the bench in the kitchen, thinking it would be a good place to leave the key. I double and triple checked that it wasn't in my pocket anymore, then left the kitchen.

I went to catch the bus, got on the bus down the valley, got off at the bus stop at the bottom of the valley to catch the next bus...
And I was horrified to discover the key in my pocket!

Do you think it's even possible that I CHOSE to rob Bodhinyanarama monastery of the key to the guest's hut? . I LOVED that monastery and couldn't DREAM of inconveniencing the monks who I absolutely adored! I was horrified to realize that I'd done just that - the monks would wonder where the key had got to! They'd assume I left it someplace odd and that they were the ones who couldn't find it... Or they'd not think much of me for mindlessly forgetting to leave it somewhere!
Somehow, that key was in my pocket, undeniably against my will! But I couldn't deny, that either I'd never left the key on the bench and my mind had fabricated that memory, or that I'd absentmindedly picked the key back up and put it in my pocket... with my mind reassuring me that I didn't need to check for it... that everything was definitely under control.

In short, my mind had unquestionably played a trick on me, it had lied to me, it had distorted reality...
Why did it do that? I had been conditioned, for four days, to carry around that key, to keep that key safe, to be aware of that key, I was not about to lose the key to Bodhinyanarama monastery... .

I mailed the key back to the monastery from the airport, with a note saying "sorry!!!"

That is one of my favorite personal stories of how the mind UNQUESTIONABLY tricks people into doing things which are very much against their will. And if it can do that for little things, it can do that for big things. Because for craps sake, it can distort reality and fabricate memory itself!

The only moral to that story is, the Mind IS a liar and conman.

Some are born (or develope very early in life perhaps) a complete disregard for the rights of others. Others will adopt those views later. (As some can overcome it.)

That is your belief, but I ask you, have you ever actually met or even heard of such a person with an actual complete disregard for the rights of others?

There are actually people who do not have sexual impulses (or negative ones)

Have you ever met a person* who genuinely does not have sexual impulses? Are you certain they exist?


* defining person as someone who isn't clinically braindead.

(That is not to say punishment is a good conditioning, as I don't think it is either. I am just pointing out a flaw in what you are supporting it with. And as I have already stated my stance on this issue, and forgiveness in general, I have no idea what your purpose is trying to convince me of the truth of what I've already stated I think. Are you still trying to teach me what I already know?)

Do you think it is possible that you are actually completely correct in what you already know.

But that I know something additional, which you don't? Just like you know things which I don't? Because we have had different experiences and have different perspectives?

For example, I call them conditions, but you call them faults. But I think we can agree they are the same thing.

But the point of disagreement is, I say there is a way, a procedure, through which these faults can be repaired, or as I say it, conditions can be weakened (there are many metaphors to describe these mental formations, walls which must be smashed, mountains which must be eroded, truckloads of dung which must be wheelbarrowed to the garden, mental formations which must be dismantled bit by bit)

You however, do not seem to believe that it is possible to perform such repairs or weakening, that the faults are there "by nature of the self" and unchangeable. Is it possible that you have simply never encountered the evidence that such a procedure for weakening conditions exists and actually works?

"Bah, we are slaves to conditioning anyway."

How enlightened

Do you understand what a slave is?
A slave, is someone who has a master.

A slave does not have to do what his master says, it's just easiest for him to do what his master says, doing what master wants is ALWAYS the path of least resistance for the slave.

What makes a good slave?
A good slave, is one who always does what his master says. A master would be a fool to ever set such a slave free, in fact the master will probably add even more burdens to the slave, make him work even harder, since the slave always does what he's told... so the good slave, has the least freedom of action of any slave, and the most to do on behalf of his master.

A slave however, is ALWAYS free to defy his master, he is always free to sit on his but and not work. The master will try harder and harder to make him work.

Eventually the master will give up trying to make the slave do what he wants. Whether or not the slave is dead at that point, depends on the nature of the master, and how much of the master's power over the slave is merely psychological.

I said, "We are slaves to our conditions"

Now that I have explained what I think a slave is, what might I have been trying to communicate by saying "We are slaves to our conditions"?

You claim that you are trying to learn, but you ignore every opportunity. You apologize for what it sounded like, and then go on to sound exactly the same.

What is more likely:
1) I was insincere in what I said about striving to learn.
2) I was entirely sincere in what I said, but I'm a slow learner and achieve results in a very, very incremental way?

I am a Buddhist

We know that. It's like you won some medal for enlightenment and can't help yourself from brandishing it about regardless of the issue at hand. The majority of your posts read as, "Look at me! I'm Buddhist and you should try to be enlightened too! Oh, did I mention that I'm Buddhist?"

What is more likely?
1) I wish to be praised for taking such a morally upstanding and commendable position as being a buddhist!
2) The four words "I am a Buddhist" delight me, in exactly the same way I find it hilarious when Batman says "I'm Batman" .

I do not need a teacher, thanks. When you come here and address me (and I would assume others have a reaction) with the intent to teach, you are going to come off as pretentious. That is because you are starting from a pretentious position that I need your teaching, and that you are capable of teaching me. I neither want nor need your teaching about how rape is not a problem, problems are not problems, rape is not rape, and other inane things you are trying to pass off as enlightenment.

Why not? Do you not wish to understand the nature of desire? Do you not wish to actually understand WHY a man resorts to something like rape? Is your understanding of these things already entirely satisfactory? Or are you just happier without that understanding?
But as I say; you may take it or leave it.

This goes back to refute your whole train of thought about how someone should be efficient with their efforts. You are intentionally being ineffective at your "teaching" methods.

What do you think is more likely:
1) I am intentionally ineffective.
2) I have not yet developed a great amount of skill since I'm only a few months into the path of being a serious Buddhist, while it takes 10 years to attain "Ajahn" (teacher) status?

It is pretentious and showing off to point out your qualities that you hope will inspire others. As is refering to what you are doing as "inspiring" others.

A person who lives their life in such a manner that they inspire others without having to draw attention to what it is that inspires... that is inspiring.

*shrug*. Maybe I misunderstand the buddhist fourth precept against incorrect speech, but it's pretty clear that "Right speech" is to just be honest and say what you think, without warping it.

I mean what I think might be stupid, but I do say it. Is there something wrong with that? I mean the saying it, not the being stupid?

That you insinuate that your actions here equate with her's (which I can't comment on since I am not familiar with her, but that you call inspiring)

Sadly she removed her presence from the Internet because she was embarrassed.

That is a common theme with discussing anything with you these days. Instead of just dealing with the issue you start talking about how what you are saying "just makes sense to people" and that's why it's true, ignoring that it doesn't make sense to most anyone you are talking to.

I think that actually, SOME of what I say actually makes sense. Would you agree with that?

The truth, or lack thereof, of what you say will be apparent enough. If the message isn't getting through, perhaps you should re-evaluate the message and/or it's delivery, because it clearly isn't achieving your stated purposes.

I constantly do just that! Why do you think I change what I say? Do you think it is because I am highly inconsistent and don't know what I believe, or do you think I am trying new angles, new tacts, new ways to communicate something which is not easily translated into words, in a way which is similar to it being difficult to translate the flavor of orange juice into words?

[Wezil]

We aren't being baffled by BS.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'll pander to your fetish.

She's too fat

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
I actually went for a long walk, and I tried putting some of what I said into practise. That is, what I said about PROBLEMS. As I often do, I try to practise what I preach as I preach what I practise.

Interestingly, as I strived to make those my only problems, I realized I was right.

Wow... I never would have suspected that you'd end up confirming what you thought was right as right. Blows my mind man... thanks for sharing.

Is that REALLY what you think? That he just chooses to rape?

He chooses to rape, yes. As I've stated before, I don't believe in free will. Choice is not free will. You are confusing the two, which is why you don't understand that it is a choice. A compelled choice, like every other choice.

I do not think that "conditioning" makes a person any less responsible for the act. Otherwise there is no responsibility, at which point everything becomes futile.

Somehow, that key was in my pocket, undeniably against my will!

You are confusing "will" with "competence". We are not omniscient, omnipotent beings. Our "will" is often not carried out simply due to "incompetence". Neither are we focused solely on one objective, but often have competing objectives. Our "will" is often not carried out because a competing "will" which we consciously don't identify with (but is still ours) overpowers it. You also are ignoring the subconscious, which is still your self.

You chose to pick up the key. You chose to leave the key and failed. It was incompetence on your part. Which is still a failing within you. (Not a very big deal, as we all make that type of mistake often enough.) But you, what comprises you, was responsible for taking the key. You know this. It is why you took responsibility for the act and said you were sorry. If it truly was no fault of your own, you would not have needed to apologize.

If you had similarly raped someone "against your will"... say in a psychotic state... you would still be responsible for that act. To deny this is to deny all responsibility whatsoever. Because nothing that ever happens is truly our will, whether we consciously identify with the act or not.

We don't choose how we are. We are all born in a specific state not of our choosing, and then through our lives each and every "choice" is based on how the state we are in interacts with the environment we are in. That functionality is recursive, and so massive and intertwined that it's impossible to keep track of each influence, each choice, and how they affect our state.

That is your belief, but I ask you, have you ever actually met or even heard of such a person with an actual complete disregard for the rights of others?

You are trying to be pedantic.

I have met several who when treated kindly only took advantage of that kindness. I have met several who ignore the rights of others, clearly and consistently.

Murdering someone is a complete disregard for the rights of the person murdered. We have all heard about murderers.

Have you ever met a person* who genuinely does not have sexual impulses? Are you certain they exist?

I have met people who are disgusted by sex. (Generally, they were molested as children.) I can't say they didn't have sexual impulses for certain, but they have told me so.

I have heard of people who do not have sexual impulses. All sexual impulses are, is chemical reactions in the body. Sometimes the ability to produce specific chemicals in the body is hindered by a disease or condition. We all differ to some extent in the levels of chemicals we produce. (Myself, I don't produce normal levels of serotonin and dopamine. It affects my life, and in some ways I do not respond "normally" to certain input.) I do not see why it is so unbelievable that someone may suffer from a condition which impacts the production of chemicals involved in sexual attraction.

* defining person as someone who isn't clinically braindead.

This really isn't a necessary definition. It just clearly shows you aren't after the truth, you want to make a point irregardless of whether there are actual cases which obviously refute you. The state a person is in can differs from the norm to various extents.

Do you think it is possible that you are actually completely correct in what you already know.

I have already stated to the contrary.

That you may have something to add to my knowledge is obvious. Everyone does (often unintentionally or contrary to what they are saying). But I do not need you as a teacher. I do not want you as a teacher.

I clearly said that if you want to discuss an issue on it's merits, rather than try to teach me some truth you have been predisposed to accept, learning is better suited on all sides.

For example, I call them conditions, but you call them faults. But I think we can agree they are the same thing.

I have said as much.

But the point of disagreement is, I say there is a way, a procedure, through which these faults can be repaired, or as I say it, conditions can be weakened (there are many metaphors to describe these mental formations, walls which must be smashed, mountains which must be eroded, truckloads of dung which must be wheelbarrowed to the garden, mental formations which must be dismantled bit by bit)

You however, do not seem to believe that it is possible to perform such repairs or weakening, that the faults are there "by nature of the self" and unchangeable. Is it possible that you have simply never encountered the evidence that such a procedure for weakening conditions exists and actually works?

That is not the point of the disagreement. You continue to deny they are faults. You are arguing a strawman that you have created. I have not said anything (confirmatory or negative) about the possibility of rehabilitation. Yet you are here pretending that I have taken a negative stance on rehabilitation.

And then you go and try to pretend that by directly quoting you I am putting words in your mouth. You are intellectually dishonest.

I said, "We are slaves to our conditions"

Now that I have explained what I think a slave is, what might I have been trying to communicate by saying "We are slaves to our conditions"?

You said more than that though.

"being able to choose where you go and what you do is a basic and fundamental right that all people have to have protected. Otherwise we all become slaves." - Aeson

"Bah, we are slaves to conditioning anyway." - Blake

You responded to my statement that without laws to protect our rights, we all become slaves. You dismissed that argument with "Bah, we are all slaves to conditioning anyways" which is your attempt to obfuscate the issue and not address the points made.

We are "slaves" to conditioning. That does not mean we shouldn't have laws to protect people's rights. It does not make actual slavery acceptable. Sorry.

What is more likely:
1) I was insincere in what I said about striving to learn.
2) I was entirely sincere in what I said, but I'm a slow learner and achieve results in a very, very incremental way?

It is irrellevent to me why you did so. All I said is you apologized for talking in a certain manner, and in the next sentence (and for most of the rest of your post) resumed talking in that manner.

Whether that was willful or incompetence, I can't say. You know. I will leave you to deal with that internally. (Same deal for the next question. I can tell you what it sounds like to me. It is up to you to decide if that is your intention, and what, if anything, to do about it.)

Why not? Do you not wish to understand the nature of desire? Do you not wish to actually understand WHY a man resorts to something like rape? Is your understanding of these things already entirely satisfactory? Or are you just happier without that understanding?

In all honesty, what you are saying is what I have said myself (without the glaring idiocies like "a problem is not a problem") before, even on these message boards. You are explaining concepts that I came to realize in my late teens, struggling with religion and my own psychological problems.

When I have in my sig, "Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner", and have explained my stance on causality and forgiveness on these very boards, and you come and try to teach me about conditioning and forgiveness, saying the same things I have already said you just come off as inane and pretentious. It would be like if you started trying to teach me about multiplication tables. It's even more ludicrous when you start saying that I am denying these concepts when I have either not addressed them, or stated my affirmative position on them.

You certainly can say whatever you want, but realize that the person you are addressing is perhaps not your preconception. I welcome any and all discussion, even when the person is being derogatory of me. I learn from everything. That is why I don't need a teacher. I need discussion, that is all. My "teacher" is the ability within myself to analyze data and come to my own conclusions.

What do you think is more likely:
1) I am intentionally ineffective.
2) I have not yet developed a great amount of skill since I'm only a few months into the path of being a serious Buddhist, while it takes 10 years to attain "Ajahn" (teacher) status?

When you state your intentions, and then accept that your method is going to not achieve your intention, all I can assume is you realize you are being ineffective and yet persisting to be so. I can't say for sure why you choose to do so, but in some cases it seems from my perspective you wish to be ineffective.

I mean what I think might be stupid, but I do say it. Is there something wrong with that? I mean the saying it, not the being stupid?

If what you say is "look at me, I'm enlightened", then yes, there is something wrong with that. It is called pride. I don't know if Buddhism teaches about pride, but I would assume it's one of those delusions that one should avoid. (If not it should be.)

I think that actually, SOME of what I say actually makes sense. Would you agree with that?

Of course. But if I tell you something doesn't make sense, like say, "a problem is not a problem", it is inane to pretend like it makes sense to me. Which is what you imply when you make those type of "If only you'd listen to that voice telling you it makes sense" type of gibberish does.

I grew up with enough of that. Religions are stupid that way. "Oh, but you know it's true, the voice inside you says so, you just won't admit it." Thanks Miss Cleo for giving me a free reading. But I didn't call your 900 number for reasons other than the cost.

I constantly do just that! Why do you think I change what I say? Do you think it is because I am highly inconsistent and don't know what I believe, or do you think I am trying new angles, new tacts, new ways to communicate something which is not easily translated into words, in a way which is similar to it being difficult to translate the flavor of orange juice into words?

Your "new angles, new tacts, new ways to communicate" have so far all been eerily similar in this discussion and other "Buddhist" discussions we've had. You state some obtuse thing like, "rape is not rape", or "a problem is not a problem", ect... then go off into a long story about a personal experience and finally make your statement.

The patently absurd initial statements can be dropped with no loss, and much gain. The personal experiences, well, they tend to just lose readers I'd suspect. I can speed read through them in about 15-20 seconds with good comprehension, so that's not much of an issue to me, but not everyone has the ability, time, and/or patience to do so. The important thing is the final statement.

So a tact you might want to try is to just be upfront and clear about what you are saying. Here is how I would sum up everything (valid) that you've said so far:

"We are conditioned beings. It is important to understand the factors that go into that conditioning so as to be able to address issues that arise from it. Both in ourselves, and in others.

When something bad happens, we can't go back in time and change it. We have to move forward and address the issues that it presents us as best we can. One of the ways to accomplish this is to find forgiveness for the transgression, and accept any part we may have played in bringing about this transgression. Not only does this help us move on, but allows us to improve ourselves and better understand how to avoid such problems from arising in the future."

That's pretty much it. Maybe a few ancillary points left out (I don't have time to go over the whole thread again and glean every bit of information, this is just off the top of my head), but at least it's devoid of the absurdities "rape is not rape", "a problem is not problem" or the accusatory statements like, "X is only a problem if you make it one" that can only serve to distract from the underlying message.

I'll leave with addressing this gem:

Okay I've taken a few hours to contemplate, before responding to the rest of your post. I do respectfully ask that you actually contemplate the questions I ask you in this post, take them more seriously than you'd like to... Occam's Razor is always a good tool to apply.

This is what gets you in trouble. You presume I am not putting thought or contemplation into my posts, or that I don't like to. (The truth is I generally extend the conversations I have throughout the day in my head as I perform other tasks, and often even dream about them at night. I am almost always contemplating some form of internal debate.)

I am sure your bald friend wouldn't want you to make such derogatory presumptions about those you are tying to impart your wisdom upon. Watch the last video you posted again. Pay attention to what he says about the young monks who make mistakes.

Even if you disagree with me about what I have said, it's inherently dishonest, and detrimental to your purpose, to take a presumptive derogatory viewpoint about the intentions of those you are addressing.

[Blake]

I can speed read through them in about 15-20 seconds with good comprehension

Thankyou!

End of conversation.

[Aeson]

Are you trying to insinuate that my reading speed somehow affects whether my comprehension is right or wrong?

[Winston]

I wish Buddhists would just lay off us Danes altogether.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Aeson
Are you trying to insinuate that my reading speed somehow affects whether my comprehension is right or wrong?

Does it seem a little pretentious to you to believe you can skim read something and actually comprehend it well?


I could never claim such a thing myself (it sounds as impossible as doing a quality rush job), but maybe you just have a far sharper and faster mind than me.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Winston
I wish Buddhists would just lay off us Danes altogether.

I LOVE DANES!

When I was like 11 or something, I won a trip to Legoland in Denmark and it was AWESOME! The Danes were really nice to me and left a great impression!

So I'm not leaving Danes alone! Because I'm CONDITIONED to like them! So there!

[Winston]

Yes, I remember your telling that story (great one too).

My question is, why did you have to let this Buddhism thing take over everything in your life, including conversations on absolutely any topic, when you could've stuck with the nice Legos no problem.

[Winston]

This was supposed to be about titties, for crying out loud!

[Monk]

Originally posted by Winston
I wish Buddhists would just lay off us Danes altogether.

Well, surely there must be some sound reason if Buddhists keep coming to your door. Did you ever assault a nun, by any chance? They may just be trying to offer up apologies on her behalf.

[Winston]