Buddha Vs Thedope

Who venerates the tree?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi_Tree

My asking does not excuse the errant statement that you never think. I am not the cause of your contemplative mood or what thoughts you entertain. It only shows perhaps you are confusing who you claim to be which is my hucklebuddha, with who I called upon which is buddha in his own right.

 

I never think about sunscreen. And I have told you as much. I thought about how to answer your question.

Why are you attaching a tree to Buddha? What does that have to do with me. What does it have to do with you. Would you like some help getting out of that tree?

I believe Buddha has passed from this world. So, perhaps you might what to think about changing the title of your thread here to: A Ghost versus Thedope.

When I think of biting into a lemon, my mouth fills with saliva though there are no lemons in my house. When you think of Buddha, what fills your mouth though it is not in your house?

 

You continue to think on sunscreen as you claim you never do.

So you speak for your belief and not for buddha and suck lemons in the process.

I think on the vacuity of buddhism or any ism really and call for presence of the one illumined mind. I speak for myself through my various iterations and of myself through your transliterations. Identity is shared or someone is being misidentified. Self can only be known by self otherwise we call them other.

I don't think I need to change the title as it is meant to be instructive.

 

I think in order to answer your question. You see sunscreen where there is only an answer to your question.

I suspect that my lemon analogy has left a bad taste in your mouth. I completely understand. Buddha has left the building, but your mouth is still reacting.

You do not seem to be thinking when you say that you think on the vacuity of buddhism. You do, however, seem to be judging the path of others. And that is your prerogative . . . until it ceases to serve your purpose.

The title of the thread is, as you say, instructive, in that it informs me that you are seeking a confrontation. What does that have to do with anyone other than your self?
____________________________________________

Unlike you, I understand that Buddha was just a guy. You, on the other hand, appear to see more than that.

 

You think because that is the activity you put your mind to. I see sunscreen when you write the word sunscreen, you also said you bought the shit and ate it and recounted all sorts of perceptions about it. Why are you being now disingenuous about your own emerging contributions.

Your lemon analogy didn't make me salivate.

When I say thinking on the vacuity of buddhism I am not judging the path of others but i refer to this,
In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the perception of "not-self", recommended as one of the seven beneficial perceptions,
Well fuck all, it wasn't me. Or in your case the dope made you do it.

I am not seeking a confrontation but comparing/taking notes. A love letter if you will. I notice that the self is never absent or not at all discrete.

Regardless what you think you understand about me I don't think anybody is just a body or a guy in terms of an isolated or separate event.

 

I did not eat sunscreen. I cannot believe that you took that seriously. I don't think there is anyone who has read that who did not know that it was intended as humor. Did you also believe that I tried washing the taste out of my mouth with gasoline? And did you really think that I rubbed Pepto Bismol on my abdomen to relieve the pain caused by my ingestion of sunscreen?

The lemon analogy was designed to show you a parallel between a physical response to an imagined act and your reaction to the idea of Buddha/buddhism.

As far as seeking confrontation, your lips say no, but your thread title says yes. And of course you're not judging the path of others. You simply refer to their choice/path as one that lacks thought or intelligence. In what world is that not a judgement?


I said that Buddah was just a guy. I didn't say that he is just a body--an isolated and separate event.

 

You don't recognize the straight man in this humorous affair? He is the one with the deadpan face. You think me dimmer or with less joy than the rest? What I am inclined to think is that you bit off more than you intended as in actually chewing the fat coming from your own head you discover it less than tasteful and you find yourself wondering where my sense of humor is... tehe.

Yes versus can mean against or it can mean in contrast to. To contrast is to compare in order to show unlikeness or difference. In the same turn it can equally show where there are none. As far as seeking confrontation by definition as per thread title this in an example of the double slit experiment hucklebuddha. Is it confrontation I seek in terms of adversary or the association of contrast in terms appearing in a common venue? The result depends on how much of a fronting poser you are. I speak for myself, not for buddha.

I have not claimed anything better or worse or suggested any remedies. I ask who can explain why the perception of not self is one of the seven beneficial perceptions as I gave voice to my own perceptions of self. No buddha, no buddhism.

You say buddha was just a guy. I say these are the attributes of the conception, a guy, he was just a body representing an isolated event of being an individual person. Certainly in your estimation "he," is not available to us you being so confined to your estimation.

 

No Buddha, no Buddhism,
No choice, no things.

No separation between events,
No space between cause and effect.

Is it the trees that hide the forest,
Or is it the concept of tree?

Is it with "I" that I hide reality?


"The Buddha vs Thedope"...who will be the one to declare the winner, BTW?

 

Versus means in contrast to in this instance, not in competition with. Not a matter of winning but winnowing on a philosophical basis. What can be said of their encounter? What can be said or understood of what is said? What is said that you find virtuous? What is the same and what is different? What purpose do you have for it?

 

The meaning of the word “versus” depends on the context in which it is used. You are attempting to equate it to a comparison of ideas. But based on your thread title, versus does not denote the pursuit of an exercise in note-comparing. If “comparing notes” is what you had in mind, you would have titled it “ Buddhism Versus Thedope’s Ideas.” Confrontation is denoted when the subjects within the title are individuals and not doctrines or theories; for example, Buddha Versus Thedope. So, unless you care to identify yourself as a doctrine or a theory, the context of your title remains as it appears?

Furthermore, you know that Buddha is gone from your presence and will not be posting anything in this thread. If you wish to compare notes, you need only google the teachings of Buddha. Asking others to speak for him is a game. But in the process of the game, you managed to point out the vacuity of all “isms,” and then try to maintain that you used the word “versus” in the context of a simple comparing of notes. You need to check yourself. Isms are only pathways constructed by travelers like yourself. Spewing your judgment concerning your perceived notion of the vacuity of all isms does nothing to foster communication; it is counterproductive to that purpose. However, I would allow for the possibility that you are ignorant of the meaning of vacuity. So, for your edification . . .

Vacuity:

1. the state of being vacuous or without contents.
2. absence of thought or intelligence.
3. something inane, senseless, or stupid.
4. an empty space; void.

"Who will speak for buddha?

No buddha no buddhism

Just a struggling mind

juggling his time

till it runs

out."

Confrontation effected by way of taunting. Poser.

 

Certainly I proffer thedope. There is no one named thedope nor anyone named buddha. Buddha, 1. One who has achieved a state of perfect spiritual enlightenment, thereby attaining nirvana.
2. A representation or likeness of a Buddha.

You could be far more familiar with what I know if you listened to me tell it instead of telling what it must be. I know enlightened being resides with us all and it is such that I call upon.

Check myself for what? A pathway constructed for travelers containing no travelers is vacuous in being absent of thought or intelligence, without senses. A picture frame with no picture. You hope to increase my knowing, say something of yourself and don't try to teach me about vacuity by saying this is what is substantial about vacuity. Keep that up and the label would be apt to your effort. Knowledge is being shared. My statement is not counterproductive to communication as we see the post count is mounting, but your accusations certainly obliterate your understanding of anything I might say having once called me a liar.

Thoughts given contrast in the light as you cast your selfish shadow that says you have something I do not, that says i have claimed something I claim not as you try to speak for me. thedope is represented, knowledge is being shared, who will speak for buddha?

Storch says google after having said hucklebuddha. I wonder what his next posture will be?

 

If someone opens, or enters, a thread with an obvious chip on their shoulder while swinging the Christian sword, then they’re basically asking you to take their milk from them if you think you can. They’re spoiling for a fight, and then someone accommodates them, and rightly so. But what is your rationale for opening a thread for the purpose of taking milk from children? You are using a thread as a means by which to take out a rung of a ladder that people are presently standing on. And in your arrogance, you believe that by removing the rung they are standing on, they will jump up a rung. That is a self-serving notion. The truth is that they will fall to the lower rung. You are doing nothing but offering to judge their path, and to show it for the illusion that you believe it to be; and you do so unbidden. You are a thief disguised as a servant.

When I attended AA meetings some thirty years ago, some woman dragged her husband to the meeting. When we saw the situation, we informed her of the fact that, unless, or until, someone asks for assistance, they’re bound to interpret anything contrary to their path of choice as an uncalled for intrusion into their private affairs and a judgment against them. And what else can come from such a thing but fear, anger, or resentment?

"Thoughts given contrast in the light as you cast your selfish shadow that says you have something I do not . . ." No. You cast your selfish shadow that says others have something that lacks reality. You say you want to compare notes. So, let's hear the contents of your notebook.

Everyone begins their search somewhere. The search for more meaning is an evolution of sorts which happens without effort really, like physical hunger. You get hungry, you look for food, finding more satisfying food as time goes by. Hopefully, no one will attempt to knock your milk from your hands and shove a steak into your mouth before you develop teeth. Spirituality is nothing but the search for deeper and more meaningful relationship with that which extends out from our center.

 

This is a postulate that sets you on your own personal vendetta against an imagined foe. You will excuse me that I find the rest singularly irrelevant. I got my sword swinging every which way buddy. I eat chips and chip wood whilst living among the chipmonks.

 

You haven't answered my question.

 

"You say you want to compare notes. So, let's hear the contents of your notebook."

Would you have me then retype what I have written? Where have you been, making an irrelevant case to the subject perhaps, talking about chips on shoulders and christian what ever's and thieves and the like.

I am writing now I thought I would point out lest you miss the note in absence of a heads up,

we teach what we know and learn what we want to learn. The only destruction associated with mind is the end of delusion. Minds cannot attack other minds but we can be wholly confused in what we have determined.

 

You are pretending ignorance of my meaning.

You are the only poster here who cannot see that your intention was to confront one who would speak for Buddha (yes, that has been established; see thread title), and now you complain about the results. You are like a gambler who is disappointed with the return on his dubious investment. But it was you who initiated the transaction. And my guess is that, in the tradition of any politician, you will continue on with your campaign to appear as you will.

 

I pretend ignorance of no sort. Do you even get my meaning? What would be my complaint? Name one. As to what has been established I presented an alternate interpretation as to the word versus and what it might pertain. I encounter no disappointment or misappropriation save for you laying claim to what I know or what I intend with my speech. If I am a gambler what be my wager? What is my disappointment? To share a thought multiplies thought, it does not diminish it. No potential loss or danger of defeat is evident in doing so. Nor is a guess on your part indicative of any certainty. Am I then a politician? Are you then speaking for buddha? So far you have spoken only to characterize my position through your own obviously combative character on this point. That is with the exception of positing that we are spirit reaching toward spirit in all things. You are the only poster here that insists what you are insisting. The poster expanse took my meaning adequately in rebuttal to the statement, that "I am the only one in this thread who cannot see." I show up to you as you would have me be regardless what my genuine contribution may be. That is because you have a bone to pick whereas I am concerned for the health of the whole body. Where the bones are picked over, there the vultures are gathered.

 

So how could the perception of no self be a beneficial perception. For one it could be we find without self there is no self to accuse. Without self no personal affront can be taken. Self is everywhere evident, separate self is imagined.

 

I like turtles