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.
how much negative kamma has matt stone and trey parker created
ThailandTom
Veteran
discuss..
If you do not know who these two are, they are the geniuses behind the cartoon series south park
If you do not know who these two are, they are the geniuses behind the cartoon series south park
0
Comments
You create your own.
What they've done to their own kamma is their business.
If you watch South park, that's your problem/kamma, not theirs.
[I've been trying to think of a funny line but nothing has come, so: Over to you]
("Dad, can I borrow the Karma?"
"Why son? where are you going, and how far is it?")
Does this come under serious collective instructive and constructive discussion... or does it break the 4th precept?
I am merely of the opinion that theorising, speculating and wondering about the kamma of others, distracts us form observing the kamma we generate for ourselves.
goodness knows we have plenty enough on our own plates without casually wondering how others doing!
Should we speculate on the kind of kamma The Dalai Lama is creating for himself?
Or what Joseph Mengele's kamma must have looked like?
Two extremes, but they fall under the same umbrella nevertheless....
I'm all for a little idle banter, but let's make it go somewhere.....
What do you think?
On this forum, I am ALWAYS correct.
(That was a joke.
I dont think there is any chance of negative karma based upon the show.
I agree with the other responses that it's impossible to know what kind of karma (positive, neutral, or negative) they create for themselves.
It's called a karmad. One megakarmad (Mk) is equal to the sums of all your previous karmads (sigma k) over the niceness constant (N) times the number of good deeds you've done this lifetime (G sub l).
Mtns (I gotta get out more)
Yes - you have!
So the OP says what do they accumulate and i agree, who cares.If they ask for my help i will help them or anyone for that matter. But it seems like its you that has either a positive , negative , or neutral feeling. If this is the case then i would seriously look at the reality.
A TV show (this is a dependent origination of director, producer, writers,that written about , payed for , etc. ) is giving you ( self as an inherent existent principle) the feeling( one of the 5 aggregates) of positive , neutral , or negative . This in turn makes you ask questions ( already shows the fallacy behind your post) about the effects of the show.
If you have the question "is this ok" its probably not. I don't ask if its ok to watch rain, or smell flowers. but i do in relation to other objects of the eye conciousness such as : South Park, Internet pics ( that is obvious), Violent Movies with Guns, etc.
So ....
This is only from a sane mind. Thats the thing about comedy it has a hint of realism ( suffering acording to our view ) in it. For instance one of the funniest comedians in the 80's was Eddie Murphy he talked about relationships ( attachment and aversion) dysfunctional families ( aversion , wrong view) and having more than someone else ( finding happiness in samsara) this goes for most comedians they hit these psychological places that most of us don't know exist, i learned that NLP a form of programming only works so long as the person uses a ego. because NLP is about Ego Psychology, the same with hypnotism. Stand up comedy is the same because of a grasping to self . to hide its reality we go into laughter . Ever hear that comedy is pain plus time. This is the suffering of pervasive conditioning yet we are so unskilled to know it. So sad
Mtns
Impossible to know.
I am very sorry if you find it erie, I obviously do not hold such a profound understanding of buddhism as you do. We are all at different locations down the dharma path and I am clearly not very far from where I first trod.
most stereotypes do have a hint of realism. i'm thinking about what you said, and it seems to me that you are implying that if you take sarah silverman for example, and she makes an extreme prejudice joke, then we laugh to hide the fact that deep down we really believe it? it's a "psychological place that we don't know exists"?
hm. could be. but that doesn't really explain why my favorite episode is the one where she becomes a lesbian. by the end she's wearing a mullet, plaid, and playing a guitar in a coffee shop singing a song about scissoring and whatever else lesbian. being a lesbian myself, while i admit that all of these things are stereotypical, the joke to me seems more in the absurdity of it. she just plays a ridiculous idiot of a character. i like absurd characters where you never know what's going to happen next.
So which episodes did you not like mr mugzy??
Stereotypes wouldn't exist if they weren't rooted in reality, just like caricature: we have to recognise both the exaggeration and the reality. Nothing is more fun than a well-crafted use of stereotype. One of my favourite films is La Cage Aux Folles and I rarely laughed so much as seeing it on the stage at an AIDS benefit.
i loved that movie too. i didn't feel like the american remake, The Birdcage, quite lived up to it somehow though.
and Tom,
i also tend to have a dark sense of humor. everything from Arsenic and Old Lace to Fargo to Drop Dead Gorgeous. there's just something funny about the unfunny.
What im trying to convey is there isn't categories that are "just funny" something makes them funny. When they are focused on the belittling or embarasment of a particular personality type and dynamic then you are attacking , poking fun, or humiliating the type in a way. each individual grasps to a self concept and this self concept is different per person who grasps it. There is not an inherent principal in the self therefore making it adaptable to each individual. The reason that comedy is structured to make us laugh is to at the same time making in fun of one concept , reify the other. The more i laugh at the hillarious Zoolander, the more "I" identify with its antihesis. But as far as buddhism is concerned it doesn't mean some self concepts are good and others are bad, they are all detrimental to our growth.
Im done.
Are you suggesting that laughter at jokes is 'unskillful', what Ignatius calls a 'desolation' which leads us away from the goal?
No argument that deconstruction can reveal the mechanics of humour; the question is whether this invalidates humour or simply underlines that even a joke has anatta.
As you mention NLP, you may recall that Virginia Satir was one of the observation subjects described by Bandler and Grinder. They deconstructed her technique as part of elaborating NLP, back in the 1970s. For those who don't know the story, at that time and until her death in 1988, Virginia was a highly qualified and successful psychotherapist. Her work was pioneering and her influence and reputation continue. When however, Mssrs. Bandler and Grinder offered to share their analysis of her physiological and verbal techniques, she is said to have refused the offer on the grounds that it was necessary for much that she did to arise spontaneously.
This is why the same joke is funny when told by, say, Woody Allen but dreadful when my son tells it. The techniques can be learned but only work when they are effortless.
Of course, Treederwright, you may argue that the Buddhist way is the way of deconstruction, that mindfulness implies that we are aware of the contingent origination of every phenomenon as it detaches from the background. I often wondered about this because I realised that spontaneous laughter arises exactly thus: spontaneously. Did this mean that Buddhism rejects spontaneity as a healthy response to stimulus? I thought not and still do.
Post-hilarity deconstruction can, of course, be consciousness-raising. If we laugh at some well-crafted and well-timed joke or situation that we subsequently recognise to be racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise objectionable, we may want to examine the presuppositions that underlay our laughter and, perhaps, decide that avoidance is the better course. Thus, for example (UK examples, I fear), I avoid watching Bernard Manning or Roy "Chubby" Brown.
One of my Dominican friends once said that the real problem with the Gospel writers is that they left out all the jokes and the same could be said about the sutras.
Before I became a buddhist, well I really would not classify myself as one to be honest, but before I was aware of buddhism, I was always mocked for laughing too much, I use to laugh a lot and at many things people would not find funny
I actually think a lot of what they do on South Park is pretty clever and puts things into different perspectives for people.
And it's how you help bring about change, Tom. It's why 'edgy' comedy is so important as a small counter to the efforts of the rich and powerful to control the message.
I have never looked at comedy in such depth before, it is quite interesting when you examine it a little more closely
on the aids topic, there was an episode of sarah silverman where she thought she had aids.
nurse: have you ever had unprotected sex?
sarah: um, is there any other kind..?
you could say that perhaps she is spreading safe sex awareness through this episode... but then i just feel like i'm trying to justify too much here haha.
one episode of south park i felt particularly offended by was the one where mr. garrison becomes a woman. some of the episode was quite funny, but there were a few comments i felt it could have done without. i couldn't even laugh at them because all i could think of is how a transgendered person might feel watching that episode.
But yea, I sure they offend many people. One of the maina nd obvious jokes is towards jews, and trey is jewis himself so i guess it is just ...
Really? I am so wondering how this is even ok. The last thing i want to do is intentionally hurt someone to teach them a lesson. It's not my job to make they see things differently. In fact the only way someone can see things differently is if they have accumulated enough merit to see it. I remember reading something about HH the Dalai Lama saying in the proton isolation chamber that his karma wasn't right to see the atom in the way it was described. I think that is a great statement. I love the honesty of HH . The previous poster said that HH the Dalai Lama laughed spontaneously. But the reason why his laughter is funny is because its tasteful and full of joy. He reflects to us happiness and the posibility to let go. Not because he finds amusement in ego-clinging and satire at a lower caste or disability of others. Other wise HH would really lay into us and make fun of our suffering. But he doesn't he simply gives instruction and love. I doubt if he even has to try , his bodhichitta is also spontaneous and this is very good.