talk.religion.buddhism
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
talk.religion.buddhism only
 
Advanced search
January 2008
motuwethfrsasuw
 123456 1
78910111213 2
14151617181920 3
21222324252627 4
28293031    5
2008
 Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr 
 May   Jun   Jul   Aug 
 Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec 
2008 2007 2006  
total
talk.religion.buddhism Profile…
RELATED GROUPS

POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
  Re: right-jettisoning         


Author:
Date: Feb 3, 2008 07:57

jfezl07@googlemail.com wrote:
> "Allen L. Barker":
>
>> Right-jettisoning: jettison the things which should
>> be jettisoned and not the things which shouldn't
>> be.
>>
>> This is a special case of the general rightsize
>> operator. The problem has been solved in
>> theory; the rest is an implementation detail.
>
> Do you have a list for us?

It has been jettisoned.

Tang Huyen
no comments
  Re: right-jettisoning         


Author:
Date: Feb 2, 2008 15:15

"Allen L. Barker" wrote:
> Right-jettisoning: jettison the things which should
> be jettisoned and not the things which shouldn't
> be.
>
> This is a special case of the general rightsize
> operator. The problem has been solved in
> theory; the rest is an implementation detail.

Keep mindfulness, drop everything else,
if possible. Implementation may require
modulation.

Tang Huyen
9 Comments
  Re: belief bomb [ was Re: * Christ and the Resurrection of the Flesh *         


Author:
Date: Feb 2, 2008 15:08

"^@%%>---*=#" wrote:
> of course they believe it but the
> true hilarity arises when they feel
> that just because they believe
> something then that necessarily
> makes it so.

This situation with belief is poignant
when it involves oneself dealing with
oneself, in closed circle. One invests
oneself in making oneself believe
something about oneself, and one's
entire existence hangs on the balance.
Once one can't convince oneself about
the issue any longer, one collapses and
implodes, all from one's own energy.
One forgets that wishing doesn't make
it so.

Tang Huyen
2 Comments
  Untitled         


Author:
Date: Feb 1, 2008 21:30

no comments
  Can anyone actually *clearly* define "The Ego" ?!?!         


Author: NoVA101
Date: Feb 1, 2008 07:14

What *exactly* is The Ego?

[In most of my reading, it seems like everyone just knows that I know
what The Ego is... I do NOT! Do you?]

Does anyone have a real definition? I mean, that is absolutely clear
and comprehensive!

Have you ever read a clear and exhaustive definition in any book?
Online? Can you point us to it??

Is The Ego simply the "sense-of-self" that we humans have? Is it NOT
simple??

Do Apes have An Ego?
How about my Cat?
Does an Amoeba?
What about a Rock?
The vacuum of space??

How is The Ego related to the fact that we humans are Conscious? Are
Consciousness and Awareness identical?

What is the difference between Awareness and Self-Awareness?

Does a creature have to have Self-Awareness (whatever that is) to have
an Ego?
Show full article (3.92Kb)
273 Comments
  Unbound (was Re: * Christ and the Resurrection of the Flesh *)         


Author:
Date: Feb 1, 2008 03:51

Déjà Fu wrote:
> small tortoiseshell:
>
>> I am not sure what you are having in mind, but the conversion by the
>> Holy Spirit to a new life in Christ is a distinct experience that sets
>> you apart from your former...
Show full article (1.89Kb)
2 Comments
  Is "Techno" right or wong and why?         


Author: BUDDHASEED
Date: Feb 1, 2008 01:03

"Techno thought that religions and spiritual belief systems were
carefully woven psychological constructs that offered individual and
group survival, reproduction, adaptation, and proliferation value to
their members. Religions and spirituality satisfied many human
needs,
including ones for group bonding, and for a sense of belonging to
something much more powerful than the weak, sometimes lost self. That
viewpoint really wouldn't make much of a sermon, he thought.

It didn't matter if there was really a God or not, religions and
spiritual systems worked to help propagate genes and the associated
beliefs, and, after all, the brain was pre-wired for spiritual and
religious experience, showing how important and strong the whole
thing
was for humans. Religions may have been in the forefront for
stimulating the imaginative powers of the frontal cortex. Techo
couldn't help but wonder how a mature God Machine would answer the
same question."

From GodSeed, due to be out this summer by Scott Richard Campbell
no comments
  Is "Techno" right or wong and why?         


Author: BUDDHASEED
Date: Feb 1, 2008 00:36

"Techno thought that religions and spirituality belief systems were
carefully woven psychological constructs that offered individual and
group survival, reproduction, adaptation, and proliferation value to
their members. Religions and spiritual satisfied many human needs,
including ones for group bonding, and for a sense of belonging to
something much more powerful than your weak, sometimes lost self. That
viewpoint really wouldn't make much of a sermon, he thought.

It didn't matter if there was really a God or not, religions and
spiritual systems worked to help propagate genes and the associated
beliefs, and, after all, the brain was pre-wired for spiritual and
religious experience, showing how important and strong the whole thing
was for humans. Religions may have been in the forefront for
stimulating the imaginative powers of the frontal cortex. Techo
couldn't help but wonder how a mature God Machine would answere the
same question."

From GodSeed, due to be out this summer by Scott Richard Campbell
no comments
  Buddhist bibliography February update         


Author: roger
Date: Jan 31, 2008 19:49

The February update to the Buddhist bibliography of more than 6,000
books is now online at :
http://www.golden-wheel.net/buddbib.html
while the Buddhist directory is still at :
http://www.golden-wheel.net/buddlinks.html
and the Buddhist pictures at :
http://www.golden-wheel.net/buddpic.html
while the Buddhist history chronology is still at :
http://www.golden-wheel.net/buddates.html

Enjoy your reading !
no comments
  Saved? (was Re: No, no)         


Author:
Date: Jan 31, 2008 16:14

Lifeform wrote:
> Anyways, religion has a way of setting standards
> that only some have the ability to meet. This
> self-empowers the egos for those who are capable
> of meeting the standards and subsequently results
> in individuals feeling, "I must be right". Whether
> they are "right" or not is irrelevant: they could
> be right or wrong. The important thing is that they
> have a sense of "being right" and as a result lose
> humility. "No humility" leaves little or no room for
> grace.

You have summarily imposed your criterion
on others, in that to you, grace seems to be
the saving factor, and absence of humility
conflicts with it.
Show full article (2.70Kb)
41 Comments
 
1 2 3