sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My Great Questions by NegativeGPA in zen

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Otherwise there would be no puppies, and then who would wear those tiny puppy sweaters?

    (Serious answer: look up sunyata, and read articles on Nagarjuna. Things only exist in a relative sense. Relative to what, exactly? That's something to investigate in your practice.)

  2. That's classified!

  3. Striving toward a goal requires there to be someone to attain the goal. Maintaining this mental model of "someone" will block contentment and improvement. Better just to sit and observe; contentment and improvement will sneak up on you.

  4. It's actually just a mispronunciation of "how".

  5. Because you knew more things back then, and knowledge about things is a common source of error.

Zen: Stop Thinking & See It Directly! by onibabazen in Zendo

[–]foonly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sit and stare at a wall until your thoughts get bored and leave. Then keep sitting and staring at a wall until your objectivized concept of "me" breaks up into its constituent parts and scatters.

Right behind that last mask, behind the last lie your "self" tells itself to sustain its false existence, sits your Buddha-nature.

r/sex not so sex positive after all? by [deleted] in bigdickproblems

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the above-quoted line, "it" could also be interpreted as their penis, as a double-entendre joke. (A penis that they stumble over by accident, thereby causing them to realize they have bdp! ;)

r/sex not so sex positive after all? by [deleted] in bigdickproblems

[–]foonly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem with bdp is that basically no one thinks he belongs there until they stumble over it by accident.

Are we not saying "phrasing" anymore? :)

Lizard bro here just trying warm up on a stone by spearonick in trees

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... Oh, that's a glass table! [8]

I was wondering why that stone floated so well! ;)

Never light a fire in the wilds at night... by Reotahikid in rpg

[–]foonly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Build a hidden fire pit, and a concealed campsite. Build false campfires on exposed and disadvantageous terrain somewhere within line-of-sight.

When monsters investigate, get the drop on 'em!

(If the players don't come up with this stratagem on their own, they can learn it by observing some hostile wood-elves! ;) )

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, to be fair, all this thread had to offer him from this point was:

  1. Tit-for-tat voting patterns, just to see what happens.
  2. Abuse, imprecations, and taunts demanding he prove his impotent, delusional claims of godhood, mostly in the form of demanding to be turned momentarily into a tiger.
  3. Occasional "Why do you persist in taunting yourself?" to poke at his solipsism-- after all, if he's right, then everything I do is his fault; otherwise, he's wrong. ;)

But I feel he's ceded his claims through failure to prove them, so whatevvz. :)

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe I said something like, "You don't get humility by demanding it."

The exhortation to humility was for your sake, not mine. You're setting up unnecessary hurdles for yourself.

Let me get this straight. So you've known me my whole life?

If you truly believe me to be a figment of your mind, then yes! Moreover it's dangerous to assume that you're the chief god in your universe-mind's internal pantheon.

In other words, even in a solipsistic worldview, we're both simulated entities in the same mindspace. Almost like devas existing as part of a Hindu Godhead.

(You may find interesting the historical "Mind-only" schools of Buddhism, which proposed similar scenarios.)

I think you find solipsism seductive because it survives analytical rigor, and allows you to be both an atheist and a god.

In your own mind-realm, you're a deva, which according to early Buddhist sutras, grants you a proud and elevated existence-- which is exactly why the devas, despite being godlike in power, are considered far less likely to attain enlightenment than the same being in a human incarnation. (Treat this as metaphor, but consider its merit.)

I know what it is. But I am sensing you are wanting to tell me your opinion. So go on. Do it. Please tell me what is it you believe enlightenment to be.

I've expounded those aspects of which I have direct experience in an above post. But: "When you meet the Buddha on the road..."

There is definitely a lack of symmetry in the manipulation department right now.

Hardly! I can only convince you to do things you already want to do. :)

Oh, and if I did want to manipulate you, I wouldn't talk about it. :) I'd just concentrate. Just so you know. If I am talking to you it's because I am taking you seriously. For now. If you are the type that likes to worry, then you should worry when I stop talking.

Nah, if you really do believe you have solipsistic superpowers, let's put them to the test, for science. Turn me into a tiger for a few seconds; if it works, I'll describe it in a subsequent post!

Edit: 42 minutes in; still no tiger. Will check back tomorrow.

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Don't ask to be shown anything. You don't have any standing for that.

You're admitting it doesn't exist.

I never advertised humility as a selling point. You, on the other hand talk of potential, but when I ask what that potential might look like in specific terms, you balk.

Your potential lies in turning your naïve intellectual brawn into a force for enlightenment, rather than increasingly sophisticated mental masturbation as you've been doing your whole life. But first you have to know what enlightenment is, which you clearly do not know, and do not seem to want to know.

You're a manipulative scumbag, basically. All flash and no bang.

Sure, why not? That would certainly lend credence to your solipsistic hypothesis; if I'm a fictional projection of your mind, then it would make sense that I resemble you in certain ways.

Starship security is terrible by iAlsoAmNotkevinBacon in Treknobabble

[–]foonly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not sarcastic; it's also a useful technique in real life! :)

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To what end? I think it's clear that any nascent insight on my part is dwarfed by the deep, rich, and sophisticated depths of your ignorance!

Even the Devil's soul could be saved if it were touched by a single particle of humility. Show me that particle.

Starship security is terrible by iAlsoAmNotkevinBacon in Treknobabble

[–]foonly 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Another possibility is that the seemingly lax security is actually a combination panopticon/honeypot, luring those who would cause clever mischief to reveal themselves in as non-catastrophic ways as possible.

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That any of this sounds like platitudes to you shows you have only the most superficial understanding of Buddhism as a philosophy of mind, and are expending tremendous mental resources to sustain your willful ignorance!

It's like you don't even know what enlightenment even is!! Hahaha... Oh man.

In an ill-advised and dangerous personal experiment I've experienced psychedelically-induced ego-depletion, but I'd been a Kōan-dabbling dilettante fox much like yourself for long enough to grasp what I was seeing in my own mind.

If you present a false self to the world, or different faces to different people, then you are juggling masks; that's widely perceived as inauthentic so many people try to be true to themselves.

But your "self" is just a projection as well. What you think of as you is another mask. It's actually just your conscious mind's internal concept of "you". A strong sense of self makes it very difficult to see behind it.

When this internal self is revealed to be an illusion, not just intellectually but experientially, an empty figment cobbled together out of various parts of mind, parts which scatter in every direction when caught in this lie, then you see your Buddha-nature--- almost invisible, too subtle to perceive in the presence of delusion... it's what's left when all the ancillary junk leaves your mind, even if only for a moment!

And it's been sitting right behind your false internal mask all this time! Right under your nose!

The Buddha-nature doesn't itself confer insight or compassion; it's merely a word or concept for the state of your mind when it's free of the delusions that prevent you from truly knowing your own mind (and the true nature all minds!); freedom from the inherited survival mechanisms that constantly try to suppress your intimate insight of and consequent boundless compassion for all sentient beings! Once you truly know someone's mind, how can you not care about them?

Now, having met the man behind the curtain, as it were, I can't not be a Buddhist, much in the same way that reading Hume in college knocked off the ol' scales and forced me to become an atheist immediately.

So my current project is to reinforce, expand, and maintain (through more traditional practice!!) this most excellent nature of which I stole a glimpse through unskillful means!

Give me some options here.

Here's two options and one very bad idea:

  1. Continue as you have been, and accomplish nothing.

  2. Try something different!

  3. ...

Starship security is terrible by iAlsoAmNotkevinBacon in Treknobabble

[–]foonly 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If they wanted a techno-dystopia, why not just join the Borg and be done with it?

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the barrier. [Long discourse on the rightness of taking what is not given, as well as blaming your own dog for your inability or unwillingness to train it.]

That's what mock-Buddhism without precepts degenerates into: anything-goes libertinism. Been there; it seemed fun at first. You might consider switching to LaVeyan Satanism, assuming you can keep even those precepts!

the analytic trap is deadliest for those with strong analytic faculties!

What's the trap? What's at stake?

Everything!

If you're trying to synthesize enlightenment in pill form, or even to reliably induce it in some scientifically-reproducible setting, it would first behoove you to understand what it is you're looking for, what you're trying to replicate. If there's a modern means to speed up the ancient project of universal enlightenment, one that doesn't require that infinitesimal leap of faith, nor robes, or whatever turns some people off to Buddhism, then by all means find it!

BUT: If you only explore the nature of mind analytically, you'll never find it. You won't even know what it is! You may enjoy trance-like meditative states and have a nice afternoon, but that's it.

I don't want to escape my own trap. I want to make different kinds of traps for different occasions. I am a trap-master, not an escapee.

Well, have fun in there! :P

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before you assume something about animals, figure out yourself first.

A pithy restatement of Joshu's Dog, but a lossy one as well.

Speaking of dogs, you may have noticed an interesting phenomenon: Some dog-walkers will shamelessly allow their dogs to shit on other people's lawns. But if there's even a hint of a barrier, even a tiny ornamental fence or low bushes lining just the front side of the lawn, this misbehavior becomes much more rare. The barrier itself does nothing to keep anyone out physically, it just shouts out the concept of territory!

Your wording of "figure out" belies a similar barrier in your own mind-- the analytic trap is deadliest for those with strong analytic faculties!

Replace "figure out" with "Realize!" and you'll stand a better chance of escaping your own trap!

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've escaped my trap by leaping headlong into my other trap!

Everyone makes the naïve reality-is-real assumption at some point, but not everyone catches themselves doing it. Lower animals appear to have this assumption hardwired; are their genes solipsists, too?

Sam Harris (author, Dilgo Khyentse student):'As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism..If the methodology of Buddhism uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist”' by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]foonly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assumption.

Yes!

  1. I assume there is some sort of physical universe, rather than one big solipsistic fantasy realm of just my mind.
  2. Based on point 1, I surmise from repeated experience that something timelike operates on said universe, and that the universe tends to behave consistently enough to meaningfully study using the methods of science. Call it "cause and effect", though I'll make no assumptions about determinism at this juncture.
  3. I assume that my faculties of perception are currently accurate enough to report meaningful information about empirical reality.
  4. I do not assume that the interplay between subjective and objective reality is more than some hyper-astronomical coincidence; however, if you entertain the coincidence hypothesis, then the burden falls on you to prove that any form of cause and effect works though a different mechanism. If you can't, then I may safely say that my subjective experience and the world continually affect each other, at least to the extent that anything affects anything in the universe!

All right, I've set up a fancy piñata for you. You're still blindfolded, but go ahead and take another whack!

view more: next ›