Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Philosophical debate
Is there a designated debate area?
0
Comments
Why, do you want to pick a fight?
I'm kidding!!
Hello and welcome to our forum!
Please feel free to open any topic you may wish to discuss, or join in any discussion already there!
Wrestle.
Me like to see Fede and Kowtaaia wrassle!
-bf
Sounds good.
Why don't you pick a subject?
Can't wait.
ONLY bf can call you, "YodaMama," I presume, YogaMama?
She is the ying to my yang (that sounded kind of odd - but wasn't meant too)
The salt to my pepper (that one sounded odd too - I might have to delete this thread)
The pruner of my humor.
The hali of my tosis.
The deviled of my eggs.
The beather of my cloud.
It's kind of weird, huh?
-bf
The crowd is getting restless for a philosophical wrestle.
I kinda thought you were the only one to use that special term of endearment for YogaMama.
Very Respectfully,
Nirvana
P.S. We Love You, Too. :bigclap:
Lord Buddha discouraged speculation about what happens to an enlightened person after death. He said that such lines of thinking were not useful for pursuing enlightenment; thus definitions of nirvana are of no intrinsic importance. Therefore, why have a philosophical debate on this?
P.S. THIS IS A SITE DISCUSSION PAGE. WHAT RULES, XRAYMAN???
He was being "rude" !:nonono:
So, in your opinion Nirvana is something that happens after death, huh?
I think you should have deleted this post a long time ago!!!
Since it's taken so long, so far, that's debatable, YoDaMama!
Oh, and you are going to be in T-R-O-U-B-L-E!!!! bf - he called me Yodamama!
I told him that was "my" endearment, not his.
Am I my brothers keeper?
-bf
Has everyone heard or read about this story yet:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_go_ot/us_al_qaida_tape;_ylt=AufAaluXyCxFHACQc8c.Z4Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
Is Dick Cheney's comment "The only way to deal with terrorists is to destroy them" the right approach? Does everyone agree with that? Would it simply be better to just apologize, get out of Iraq, and focus on protecting our own country, or is it more important to protect every other country that can't fight for themselves? We saw what happened with the people in New Orleans...it seems the US finds that it is more important to go to war, than to help its own citizens.
That's the last time.
You're ugly and your mom dresses you funny.
There's no way that you could know that! You're just a good guesser.
This means: no standing in lines, no removing your shoes/pants/undies to go through a line, easy travel while navigating airports, etc.
Now, is this a good thing? Allowing citizens to be checked in this much detail for something as simple as travel within our own country? I can bet you that Senators don't have to go through this.
And, what about the people that elect to do this - will less care be given to the lines of people that DON'T volunteer to do this? Will there become classes of "travellers" within our nation? And if it's gets to the point of thinking, "Hmmm... do I want to stand in lines for hours or should I just go ahead and do this because I keep missing flights or am late for connections and such" - does it really become voluntary anymore? Or does this turn into a passive-aggressive stance on forcing citizens to do what the government wants?
-bf
My mate had some issues though. He'd been to Vegas for a week 2 years before and for some reason they had no notice of him leaving the country. He was on the system as being a fugitive for the last 2 years !! Oh how we laughed !
There, there now.:-/
I'm glad it was a good laugh.
I'm also glad that it didn't turn out to be 4 hours of body cavity searches, 4 hours of interrogation and an overnight stay in a cell.
-bf
France and Italy have had them a long time... And the plain fact of the matter is, it's a bit like vehicle documents.. If you get caught without them, you got ten days to produce tham at your local police station....
I personally believe that you only need to fear this procedure if you got something to hide...
That said, any system is open to abuse, both by the Civilian and the administrator....
I'd want to see all the guidelines regulations and administration procedures first.....
Just a stupid question, this?
LOL, ok well if Sid "achieved Nirvana at 35" then the "thus" would have to be considered non-sequitur. I think Mr. Taaia just defined nirvana or at least pointed to what it means.
As for this suchness and tathagata stuff, sounds kinda Buddhist to me.
What would you think of someone like me who's COMPLETELY LOST?
Vent your frustration on IBM
I was being ironic! :winkc:
It was a right pain in the arse (not literally :eekblue: ) as he ended up being questioned for about an hour while the rest of us had to loiter around the baggage reclaim.
As you pointed out though, it could have been far worse......:eek:
Trying not to think about that honestly. :scratch:
My greatest wish in life is to be liberated
from all my opinions.
I think debate should be over things we've been touched by, or have seen, felt, or held in our hands. Forgive me my opinion, here. I don't like to argue with someone who, as Solomon says, has never done me any wrong.
Kind and Warm Wishes,
Nirvana
Edit: font for the termitenator. This'll take some getting used to.
Debating, the formal arguing or discussion of a thesis before an audience, has a long and distinguished history in Buddhism beginning with the Buddha himself. In text like the Sutta Nipata of the Pali Tipitaka, the Buddha says that the true monk argues with no one and keeps away from public debates. But in many other works in the Tipitaka he is portrayed as a vigorous and successful debater. It would seem therefore that at the beginning of his career the Buddha simply taught those who were interested in what he had to say, but later as his teachings came to be criticised or misinterpreted, he felt the need to explain, clarify and defend them. And this he did with remarkable virtuosity. So successful was he that he was accused of using magic to convert his opponents. In later centuries, Buddhist scholars success in debating played an important part in the winning of intellectuals to Buddhism. Sometimes the stakes were high. During certain periods those defeated in debate had to either become the victor's disciple or commit suicide. Different Buddhist schools also debated with each other. The Chinese Mahayana monk Hsuan Tsang debated with the Savakayana monk Pragnadea in front of a huge audience and won. However it is specifically mentioned that after it was all over the two men remained good friends.
The great Samye debate in Tibet in 792-4AD between the Chinese monk Hva-san and the Indian monk Kamalasida, which the latter finally won, meant that Tibet was to rely more on India than China for its Buddhism. Perhaps the most crucial modern debate took place in Panadura in Sri Lanka in 1873. Venerable M.Gunaranda took on the Reverend David de Silva in a two day debate and to everyone's astonishment, thoroughly defeated his opponent. The victory marked the halt in Buddhism's decline in the face of Christian evangelism and the beginning of a major revival.
J.N. Jayatilleke, The Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, London, 1963.