The religious right or left?

[Timber Loftis]

Chewie, as I'm sure you've realized from the other related thread, the "universe having a wank" has a deeper meaning than is what is obvious up front. So, I reference the parallel thread.

Besides, what's wrong with masturbating? I do it with APLOMB, myself. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Chewie, as I'm sure you've realized from the other related thread, the "universe having a wank" has a deeper meaning than is what is obvious up front. So, I reference the parallel thread. Besides, what's wrong with masturbating? I do it with APLOMB, myself. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh, I'm well aware of deeper implications with regards to the metaphor. With regards to the beliefs thread it is more intellectual stimulating and deserving to have to look up a word in the dictionary *and* ask what it means with regards to my beleifs, than to have them regulated to the "what to do while watching porn" bin.

It boils down to the accuracy and context of the metaphor, who is making it and why, that is what I weighed it's worth on.

Read my previous post in this thread on the gender aspect of pantheistic philosophy for a glimpse of thinking that would lead to explaining how the pantheistic creative process would be more accurately described in metaphor as the constant movement and interaction of percieved/actual opposites (sex- with both a penetrative aspect as well as a receptive) rather than "having a wank with itself".

Oh and I find nothing wrong with masturbation, its a fairly basic act I do with APLOMB as well (LOL). It is (IMO) merely well below the level of a thoughtful and passionate spiritual/philosophical stance to make an adequate and accurate metaphor.

[ 11-07-2003, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Chewie, as I'm sure you've realized from the other related thread, the "universe having a wank" has a deeper meaning than is what is obvious up front. So, I reference the parallel thread. Besides, what's wrong with masturbating? I do it with APLOMB, myself. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Though not offended myself and practicing it myself I was the one who actually criticized this metaphor the hardest.
Just because "having a wank" commonly is a peiorative term. For me this is about mere choice of words, words I (and I guess many others) deem inappropriate for describing any religion.
If I described monotheistic religions as "f***ing god" there would surely be an outcry by some people (including my schizophrenic self )

[ 11-07-2003, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Yorick, you know Chewie isn't going to convert to your way of thinking/seeing things by reading this thread and Chewie, you also know that Yorick isn't changing his beliefs or his stand.

It is worth noting I am not trying to change other peoples beleif's, especially Yorick's. Thats typically not why I participate in these discussions. My beleifs were debased by being described as "the universe masturbating." [/QUOTE]Yeah but Chewie, I also debased mine into merely "having sex". It's an analogy for my personal COMPARISON between the two, not indicative of the merits of either.

[Chewbacca]

For anyone interested who doesn't want to take either an American Witch's or an Australian Christian's word about Buddhism I offer a genuine Buddhist perspective from this site:

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell.htm

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell10.htm It should not be understood that Nibbana is a state of nothingness or annihilation owing to the fact that we cannot perceive it with our worldly knowledge. One cannot say that there exists no light just because the blind man does not see it. In that well known story, too, the fish arguing with his friend, the turtle, triumphantly concluded that there exists no land. Nibbana of the Buddhists is neither a mere nothingness nor a state of annihilation, but what it is no words can adequately express. Nibbana is a Dhamma which is "unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed." Hence, it is eternal (dhuva), desirable (subha), and happy (sukha). In Nibbana nothing is "eternalized," nor is anything "annihilated," besides suffering.

also

From a metaphysical standpoint Nibbana is deliverance from suffering. From a psychological standpoint Nibbana is the eradication of egoism. From an ethical standpoint Nibbana is the destruction of lust, hatred and ignorance.

Just above is quite similiar to what I have frequently advocated as an accurate Buddhist perspective. As just about anyone can plainly see, the annihalation of the self, or any negative for that matter, is not an accurate description. To advocate otherwise does nothing more than prop up mis-conceptions and lies.

To say the goal of Buddhism is to annihalate the self is like saying the goal of Christianity is to control people through guilt.

One last quote from the site:

In the words of Sir Edwin Arnold:

"If any teach Nirvana is to cease
Say unto such they lie.
If any teach Nirvana is to live
Say unto such they err."

[ 11-08-2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]