Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Zen Master: you must forego attachment to all things, even your attachment to personal modesty. Zen student: Is that some kind of metaphonical koan? Zen Master: No, seriously, whip out 'dem boobies   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, patriarchy, female students  
•       •       •

13313 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2013 at 12:52 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-12 12:03:06 PM  

liam76: Bad_Seed: I don't see why not, if, at the moment that you 'grasped' them, you have necessarily entered into a state of consciousness that's different from the one we call normal.

If something can only be grasped in an altered state of mind it isn't compatable with the scientific method.


Yes!  Thank you Sir Iiam76,
If the people involved in this article had followed the scientific method of asking basic questions they would have come to the conclusion of "Hey, this Japanese perv is groping his subjects!" instead of sweeping this under the rug for decades.  There was a very telling quote:

FTY: "Because of their long history with Zen practice, people in Japan have some skepticism about priests," Ms. Schireson said. But in the United States many proponents have a "devotion to the guru or the teacher in a way that could repress our common sense and emotional intelligence."

The scientific method is what works!  Skepticism works!  Blind devotion that can only be grasped by the enlightened leads to abuse by the have's over the have-not's (in this perverse case, enlightenment being the 'have').
 
2013-02-12 12:32:29 PM  

SkunkWerks: Brainsick: Notabunny: fta a "career of misconduct,"

See, mom? I wasn't a smartass delinquent. I just started on my career path in grade school.

Couldn't commit to a career of evil?

[burnsburdick11.wikis.birmingham.k12.mi.us image 155x151]

Something wrong with Astronomy?


Yeah, something wrong?  At least it's not Subhuman.
 
2013-02-12 12:55:18 PM  

liam76: BarkingUnicorn: While Buddhism is a religion, it is practiced scientifically

If it was practiced scientificially they would only teach or advocate things they know will help you escape from the cycle of rebirth.  Since the cycle itself is impossible to prove, and escaping it is impossibl;e to prove you can't say it is practiced scientificially.


Buddhism's goal is to end suffering.  It teaches what has been proven to do that.  Is it possible to prove that cancer can be eliminated?  If not, then cancer research is unscientific by your reasoning.


BarkingUnicorn: Buddhism is not concerned with the existence of God, or the origin of the universe. It is concerned with the cessation of suffering

Buddhism has a pretty in depth cosmology.  Not sure hwo you can say theya ren't concerend with the originof the universe. Depending on the flavor there are gods.


Many scientists tell their children about Santa Claus, but he is not science's concern.  He is a tool for teaching certain moral values.
 
2013-02-12 12:57:58 PM  

dready zim: liam76: hwo you

liam76: theya ren't concerend

liam76: originof

I`ve started typing in this way lately. I`m worried I might have early symptoms of parkinsons.


Or a clogged keyboard.
 
2013-02-12 01:21:57 PM  

liam76: I am not arguing that the brain isn't going to experience different thing while meditating, sleeping, on drugs etc.

I am pointing out that if you can only 'grasp' things in that state it isn't scientific.


But that is not what Buddhism teaches.  Enlightenment can come under any circumstances, not just while one is meditating.  One of the Buddha's disciples "got it" when the Buddha simply held up a flower without saying a word.

Some people smoke and drink but live to be a vigorous 100+.  Most people find that certain regimens are necessary to maintain health. Science teaches people to play the odds, and so does Buddhism.
 
2013-02-12 01:25:55 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: liam76: BarkingUnicorn: While Buddhism is a religion, it is practiced scientifically

If it was practiced scientificially they would only teach or advocate things they know will help you escape from the cycle of rebirth. Since the cycle itself is impossible to prove, and escaping it is impossibl;e to prove you can't say it is practiced scientificially.

Buddhism's goal is to end suffering. It teaches what has been proven to do that. Is it possible to prove that cancer can be eliminated? If not, then cancer research is unscientific by your reasoning.


Buddhism has been "proven" to end suffering as much as any religion has.

Yes it is possible to prove that cancer has been eliminated, not so with "ending suffering".


BarkingUnicorn: BarkingUnicorn: Buddhism is not concerned with the existence of God, or the origin of the universe. It is concerned with the cessation of suffering

Buddhism has a pretty in depth cosmology. Not sure hwo you can say theya ren't concerend with the originof the universe. Depending on the flavor there are gods.

Many scientists tell their children about Santa Claus, but he is not science's concern. He is a tool for teaching certain moral values


A scientist is a person, he has concerns outside of science.  Not really coomprable to the teachings of a faith.

The fact is has teachings for the origin of the universe.  If it wasn't concerend with them it wouldn't be teaching them.
 
2013-02-12 01:28:29 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: liam76: I am not arguing that the brain isn't going to experience different thing while meditating, sleeping, on drugs etc.

I am pointing out that if you can only 'grasp' things in that state it isn't scientific.

But that is not what Buddhism teaches.


Take that up with the guy that said it.


BarkingUnicorn: Enlightenment can come under any circumstances, not just while one is meditating. One of the Buddha's disciples "got it" when the Buddha simply held up a flower without saying a word.


My point in thw whoel thing is that the stage of "enlightenment" isn't compatable with the scientific method as it can't be proven.
 
2013-02-12 01:39:40 PM  
th06.deviantart.net
gis for "monk tittys"  Looks like Camron Diaz has gotten some work done.
 
2013-02-12 02:06:24 PM  

liam76: BarkingUnicorn: liam76: BarkingUnicorn: While Buddhism is a religion, it is practiced scientifically

If it was practiced scientificially they would only teach or advocate things they know will help you escape from the cycle of rebirth. Since the cycle itself is impossible to prove, and escaping it is impossibl;e to prove you can't say it is practiced scientificially.

Buddhism's goal is to end suffering. It teaches what has been proven to do that. Is it possible to prove that cancer can be eliminated? If not, then cancer research is unscientific by your reasoning.

Buddhism has been "proven" to end suffering as much as any religion has.

Yes it is possible to prove that cancer has been eliminated, not so with "ending suffering".


BarkingUnicorn: BarkingUnicorn: Buddhism is not concerned with the existence of God, or the origin of the universe. It is concerned with the cessation of suffering

Buddhism has a pretty in depth cosmology. Not sure hwo you can say theya ren't concerend with the originof the universe. Depending on the flavor there are gods.

Many scientists tell their children about Santa Claus, but he is not science's concern. He is a tool for teaching certain moral values

A scientist is a person, he has concerns outside of science.  Not really coomprable to the teachings of a faith.

The fact is has teachings for the origin of the universe.  If it wasn't concerend with them it wouldn't be teaching them.


One can prove that cancer or suffering has been eliminated in specific individuals.  But you cannot prove that no one (including the "cured') will ever again suffer  or come down with cancer.  Yet science pursues the elimination of all cancer forever, and Buddhism does likewise for suffering.  They do it in the same way:  with faith and scientific method.

Cosmology is not a defining characteristic of Buddhism any more than Santa Claus is  a defining characteristic of science.  One can practice Buddhism without cosmology, and many do; particularly, Zen practitioners.
 
2013-02-12 02:23:26 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: One can prove that cancer or suffering has been eliminated in specific individuals. But you cannot prove that no one (including the "cured') will ever again suffer or come down with cancer. Yet science pursues the elimination of all cancer forever, and Buddhism does likewise for suffering.



Nope.

YOu can't prove that suffering has been eliminated in an individual.

BarkingUnicorn: They do it in the same way: with faith and scientific method.


Buddhism does it with fait.

Faithe that the person has escaped the cycle of re-birth.  Faioth that the path they are on will end their suffereing, faith that their teacher has reached enlightenment, etc.

BarkingUnicorn: Cosmology is not a defining characteristic of Buddhism any more than Santa Claus is a defining characteristic of science. One can practice Buddhism without cosmology, and many do; particularly, Zen practitioners


There is absolutely no science that supports Santa.  You can't say that about Buddhism and cosmology.

Your argement here is bordering on troll level of stupid.
 
2013-02-12 02:32:18 PM  

liam76: My point in thw whoel thing is that the stage of "enlightenment" isn't compatable with the scientific method as it can't be proven.


Enlightenment is not the end of suffering;  it is the understanding that produces the effect of suffering's ending.  The mechanism of action of many drugs is not proven, yet  their effects are. Is the method by which such drugs are  developed unscientific?

If you insist that the mechanism of a drug's action can be proven but simply hasn't been yet, then you are making a statement of faith.
 
2013-02-12 02:41:48 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: liam76: My point in thw whoel thing is that the stage of "enlightenment" isn't compatable with the scientific method as it can't be proven.

Enlightenment is not the end of suffering; it is the understanding that produces the effect of suffering's ending. The mechanism of action of many drugs is not proven, yet their effects are. Is the method by which such drugs are developed unscientific?


First off you have been conflating "enlightenment" and "end of suffering."

That has nothing to do with my point.

Neither one (enlightenment, or end fo suffering) can be proven.

The effects of the drug can be proven. The effects of enlightenment can't.


BarkingUnicorn: If you insist that the mechanism of a drug's action can be proven but simply hasn't been yet, then you are making a statement of faith


I am not making that statement. The effects of drugs have real measurable results. Not so with enlightenment, end of suffering or whatever you want to move the goal posts to.
 
2013-02-12 02:47:12 PM  

liam76: YOu can't prove that suffering has been eliminated in an individual.


One can observe changes in neurochemistry or electrical brain activity, but one cannot prove their effects on schizophrenia.  So all related  research and practice is unscientific.

Are you a Scientologist?
 
2013-02-12 02:53:12 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: liam76: YOu can't prove that suffering has been eliminated in an individual.

One can observe changes in neurochemistry or electrical brain activity, but one cannot prove their effects on schizophrenia. So all related research and practice is unscientific.


That might be a valid point if schizophrenia=suffering. It doesn't.

Can you point to any "related research" that shows suffering is lessend with Buddhism?

How about any research that shows they have stopped the cycle of re-birth?


/this is like arguing with christians like Kirk Cameron that think they are using science to prove evolution doesn't exist...
 
2013-02-12 03:24:14 PM  
Jesus fark, there are Buddhist fundies in this thread.
 
2013-02-12 03:28:18 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Jesus fark, there are Buddhist fundies in this thread.


I think you mean scientists...
 
2013-02-12 03:57:45 PM  

liam76: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Jesus fark, there are Buddhist fundies in this thread.

I think you mean scientists...


Yes, scientific fundamentalists. "Science is all of this, and all else is not science."
 
2013-02-12 04:21:11 PM  

doglover: Try as you might, the waking mind just doesn't let you fully experience simultaneous emptiness and form as a single state of being.


Bullshiat! Anyone who has played this game far enough to obtain both "tea" and "no tea" has experienced that!

www.douglasadams.com
 
2013-02-12 04:47:45 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: liam76: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Jesus fark, there are Buddhist fundies in this thread.

I think you mean scientists...

Yes, scientific fundamentalists. "Science is all of this, and all else is not science."


Studying how to break the cycle of rebirth and how to reach "Enlightenment" has nothing to do with science.
 
2013-02-12 05:44:22 PM  

liam76: BarkingUnicorn: liam76: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Jesus fark, there are Buddhist fundies in this thread.

I think you mean scientists...

Yes, scientific fundamentalists. "Science is all of this, and all else is not science."

Studying how to break the cycle of rebirth and how to reach "Enlightenment" has nothing to do with science.


You're right; I should have said, "all else is not scientific."

"Of, or relating to, or using the methods or principles of science."

Science and Buddhism share many methods and principles, not the least of which are  open-mindedness and collaboration.
 
2013-02-12 05:59:46 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Science and Buddhism share many methods and principles, not the least of which are open-mindedness and collaboration


They may share open mindedness and collaboration (I would argue that that statement can't be applied to Buddhism as a whole seeing as how different sects have very different ideas on how to gain enlightenment), but that doesn't mean they share the central principles and methods.

You can't prove enlightenment.  You can't prove someone has broken the cycle of rebirth (or that there even is one).  Without proof of those claiming "scientific method" for reaching them is meaningless.
 
2013-02-13 06:32:47 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Science and Buddhism share many methods and principles


Apples and oranges share many traits, yet apples are still apples, and oranges are still oranges.
 
2013-02-13 12:16:26 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: liam76: I am not arguing that the brain isn't going to experience different thing while meditating, sleeping, on drugs etc.

I am pointing out that if you can only 'grasp' things in that state it isn't scientific.

But that is not what Buddhism teaches. Enlightenment can come under any circumstances, not just while one is meditating. One of the Buddha's disciples "got it" when the Buddha simply held up a flower without saying a word.


Enlightenment is a funny word to use, because you don't really get what it means unless you know you've had a brief moment of it.  All people have and do from time to time.  I think the simplest way to describe is to say that it's like that light bulb going off in your head when you come to realize something then understand how that knowledge gives you deeper understanding of both prior and future events.  Funnily enough, I got it a lot when I first started learning about physics and pretty much every other core science.

Don't divorce science and spirit.  Science observes, tests, records, then observes, tests, and records again until concrete facts can be established.  The human spirit is the driving force leading us to the questions we ask that eventually lead to science and cataloging.

This all reminds me of a zen proverb.  Grope boobies, find enlightenment, grope more boobies.  Or something like that.
 
Displayed 23 of 123 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report