Governments pose greatest threat to internet, says Google's Eric Schmidt

rwal · 2012-05-25T11:36:13.734552+00:00

No shit Sherlock?...

bobbaphet · 2012-05-24T16:27:15.729438+00:00

Personally, I did not see her personal interpretation of metaphorical rebirth in there, all I saw in the article was a denial of reincarnation. But anyway. :)

bobbaphet · 2012-05-24T16:11:34.016331+00:00

Ok, just to clarify! Some people seem to believe that reincarnation and rebirth are the same thing. They are not the same thing! Buddhism teaches rebirth, not reincarnation!

In this connection let us come back to the second noble truth, the origin of suffering, rooted in selfish craving and ignorance (tanha and avijja). In order to understand this truth better, it will be necessary to speak of a doctrine which so often is wrongly interpreted and misunderstood. It is the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth (see Chapter II). With regard to this teaching, Buddhism is often accused of self-contradiction. Thus it is said that Buddhism on the one hand denies the existence of the soul, while on the other hand it teaches the transmigration of the soul. Nothing could be more mistaken than this. For Buddhism teaches no transmigration at all. The Buddhist doctrine of rebirth — which is really the same as the law of causality extended to the mental and moral domain — has nothing whatever to do with the brahman doctrine of reincarnation, or transmigration. There exists a fundamental difference between these two doctrines.

According to the brahmanical teaching, there exists a soul independently of the body which, after death, leaves its physical envelope and passes over into a new body, exactly as one might throw off an old garment and put on a new one. Quite otherwise, however, is it with the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth. Buddhism does not recognize in this world any existence of mind apart from matter. All mental phenomena are conditioned through the six organs of sense, and without these they cannot exist. According to Buddhism, mind without matter is an impossibility. And, as we have seen, the mental phenomena, just as all bodily phenomena, are subject to change, and no persisting element, no ego-entity, no soul, is there to be found. But where there is no real unchanging entity, no soul, there one cannot speak of the transmigration of such a thing.

But, as there is nothing that persists from one moment of consciousness to the next, so also no abiding element exists in this ever changing life-process that can pass over from one life to another. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#ch1

Reincarnation is not something the Buddha taught! :)

bobbaphet · 2012-05-24T16:08:42.811228+00:00

Ok, now I see the problem. The article is saying that the Buddha taught rebirth, not reincarnation as most people think of reincarnation. Rebirth and reincarnation are quite different. When the person says "what they Buddha didn't teach" they are referring to reincarnation, not rebirth.

bobbaphet · 2012-05-24T16:04:43.139558+00:00

The Buddha taught rebirth, not reincarnation. I don't see the issue. The canonical texts specifically deny "transmigration of a soul" AKA reincarnation and they specifically teach "rebirth". There is a problem with that? What exactly is the discrepancy?

mepper · 2012-05-24T15:50:38.109577+00:00

Which can't be recycled and sometimes have a higher environmental cost through the life of the product depending on how you use it and how it's produced.

mepper · 2012-05-24T15:47:04.871944+00:00

Alternative views:

Proponents give three reasons for the bag ban. They claim it will reduce the amount of waste entering landfills, reduce litter on streets, and “help protect the environment.”

But banning free grocery bags will not achieve those lofty goals.

First, banning free plastic grocery bags won’t reduce waste. California’s Statewide Waste Characterization Study [pdf] shows that “Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags” consistently make up just 0.3 percent of the waste stream in the state. That’s three-tenths of 1 percent. In comparison, organic waste such as food and yard clippings makes up 32 percent while construction debris comprises about 30 percent. The effect of eliminating free grocery bags on the amount of waste generated in the city would be insignificant.

Second, despite misleading claims from environmental groups and the L.A. Bureau of Sanitation, banning free plastic grocery bags won’t do much to reduce litter in the public commons. Litter studies from across the country demonstrate that, on average, plastic retail bags make up about 1 percent to 2 percent of all litter.

Even that small amount of litter doesn’t decline when bans are enacted. In San Francisco, plastic bags comprised 0.6 percent of litter before the city banned plastic bags and 0.64 percent a year after the ban took effect [pdf, pg. 35]. Since plastic grocery bags make up less than 2 percent of roadside trash, banning them will affect neither the total amount of litter nor the cost of cleaning it up.

Third, banning free plastic grocery bags won’t reduce our consumption of foreign (or domestic) oil. L.A.’s Bureau of Sanitation claims [pdf] that “approximately 12 million barrels of oil go into the US supply of plastic bags.” But plastic bags made in the U.S. are not derived from oil; they’re made from a byproduct of domestic natural gas refinement. Manufacturing plastic grocery bags does not increase our need to import oil, and banning them in Los Angeles or anywhere else will not reduce US oil consumption.

Despite claims that plastics threaten our oceans and sea life, there is no evidence that free plastic grocery bags make up any significant portion of the plastic waste found on beaches or in the ocean. In fact, reports from environmental groups doing beach and ocean clean-ups show that plastic bags make up only about 2 percent of the debris.

Furthermore, reusable bags being touted as a “green” alternative carry their own environmental costs. Unlike locally manufactured plastic bags, reusable woven bags are primarily produced in China and imported to the U.S. on cargo ships which burn millions of gallons of dirty low-grade fuel oil. Because they’re made of mixed materials, these reusable bags can’t be recycled and will eventually end up in landfills, unlike plastic grocery bags which are fully recyclable.

Bags made of canvas have an even greater impact on the environment due to the natural resources required to grow cotton and manufacture bags. Frequently, reusable bags often carry more than just groceries. In a recent study by the University of Arizona, almost every bag sampled contained large amounts of bacteria including coliform, E. coli, and other opportunistic pathogens. The public is being instructed to wash these bags after each use, which, over time, will require huge amounts of energy and waste precious water.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/23/plastic-bag-ban-will-put-los-angeles-in

horribleboss · 2012-05-24T15:36:36.624727+00:00

It depends on the state as laws like this are generally state laws.

Fuzzball74 · 2012-05-24T14:10:32.219361+00:00

It's only a "WILD" if you enter a dream and know it's a dream. I would say almost.

LizardsRmeiLyfe · 2012-05-24T14:02:29.406169+00:00

That says nothing (except for the shipping) regarding existing transactions. Sellers can increase their prices and that has been allowed for years.

He's talking about one specific transaction and increasing the price for that one transaction, after the purchase. If you have say 5 items up for sale and 1 sells, yes you can change the price for the remaining 4 left, but not for the 1 that already sold.

Aniallator · 2012-05-24T12:36:45.142732+00:00

Is it ignorant of me to have a lack of tolerance for the blissfully ignorant?

Yes, because all wise men have compassion and pity for the ignorant and they also understand there is no such thing as "blissful ignorance". However, I think it is a mistake to think you are also not one of those ignorant people. Only a person could be called "a Buddha" has no ignorance. It is better to put your attention on your own ignorance rather than the ignorance of others. One could say ignorance in yourself is the reason why this "irks" you to begin with.

p.s. Also Buddhism doesn't and never did teach reincarnation, it teaches "rebirth". There is a significant difference.

ashgromnies · 2012-05-24T12:25:43.803382+00:00

Correct me if I am wrong, but bodhisattvas put off enlightenment until they can achieve buddhahood

Not exactly as far as I know. They don't put off enlightenment or Buddhahood as they are seen as the same thing. What they put off is, as it's referred to in Theravada, is "Parinibbana" because doing that is beneficial for others, not because they can't. They can enter Parinibbana, but they choose not to.

"Bodhisattva" generally has 2 different meanings in Mahayana depending on the context. The first is a being who has attained buddhhood who comes back to this world to help others. The second is anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a spontaneous wish to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings

minivan97 · 2012-05-24T12:17:35.880878+00:00

"Now what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming... And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving." — DN 22

So an enlightened person lets go of this "craving" and no longer experiences suffering, stress, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness, sorrow, lamentation, grief, despair, etc. or "dukkha". So basically, all suffering stops.

neovulcan · 2012-05-24T12:09:18.654210+00:00

I'm having a hard time thinking of any movement I would term "political" that I would also term "good".

The anti-war movement, peace activists, etc.

RodrigoDiaz · 2012-05-24T12:05:51.729815+00:00

Corpse meditation is considered one of these. You could end up with distorted one sided hatred for a "body"

HonestyTimeThrowaway · 2012-05-24T11:59:29.446516+00:00

Hating your parents is never "mature".

about_a_horse · 1 day

I find that these are generally people who don't actually know what is involved with modern day dairy farming, etc. Many of these people are future vegans.

anelida · 1 day

Apparently he is a pescatarian. http://www.vegansoapbox.com/brad-pitt-is-vegan/

bobbaphet · 1 day

Yep, I made a similar one a couple weeks ago and apparently a lot of people disagreed...I don't get it!!...ಠ_ಠ

killyridols12 · 1 day

Technically, you could say that is what the Buddha taught if you go deep into it. It depends on the semantics of the word "view".

The second aspect of supramundane right view is indicated by the closing words of each section, from "he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust" to "he here and now makes an end of suffering." This description is fully applicable only to the arahant, the liberated one, and thus indicates that the right view conceptually grasped by the wise worldling, and transformed into direct perception with the attainment of stream-entry, reaches its consummation with the arrival at the teaching's final goal, the attainment of complete emancipation from suffering.

So upon arhatship, there is no more "views", because "views" have been replaced with direct perceptions of truth and this direct perception of truth is what puts an end to suffering. This is what people mean when they say "right view is no view".

bobbaphet · 1 day

I was about to fly off the handle into space

I tried that, literally, it's pretty fun! hehe. :) Watch out for asteroids, they can hurt. :)

bobbaphet · 1 day

Not really. You can be aware your dreaming and not be able to influence it.

I would change that to "yes really". Yes, that is correct you can be aware of it and not be able to control it. However, even if you have no control whatsoever, it's still "lucid dreaming".

1.2 IS LUCID DREAMING THE SAME AS DREAM CONTROL?

Lucidity is not synonymous with dream control. It is possible to be lucid and have little control over dream content. http://www.lucidity.com/LucidDreamingFAQ2.html#LD

Yes, that is a trick of lucid dreaming. However, even if you have yet to learn any of the tricks, it's still correctly called "lucid dreaming".

SoundSalad · 1 day

No, I'm vegan. I only cook plants. I was just curious if your statement was being hypocritical because it would be, if you did eat lobster or crab.

bouncing_bear89 · 1 day

Drinking anything totally ruins my round. I just stop caring where I hit the ball. You are supposed to care when you hit the ball in the water for the 3rd time!

bobbaphet

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login