What am I doing today? Taking care of my son. Trying to have another child. What do I need to plan for tomorrow? How am I going to vaccinate my child next year? How do I get my wife medical care if she has another unviable pregnancy? How small of a life you must lead that you can just not engage.
So your argument to not engaging is that my argument isn’t sufficiently updated to the onslaught of news today? RFK passed committee yesterday. Trump planning to use our military for a middle east genocide isn’t something that I should worry about?!? Where were you on 9/11?
Definitionally there is no action that you will or can take about the things I said not to worry about, since I made that the condition. Comon man, at least read the comment.
Right, but "companies raise prices more than inflation based cost increases in production would allow for" non-sequitur. There's plenty of ways that prices can raise faster than input costs, that doesn't imply price fixing.
Cartel via an app. It should be illegal. I was hoping feds going after RealPage would be a deterrent to that trend. But with the new admin, yeah thats over.
The author is projecting his Catholic upbringing on the religion. Buddhism is not a singular hierarchical institution in the way Catholicism is. It has evolved and changed as it migrated from India through Tibet, China, Japan, then the USA. Does it have people that take bad actions - yes. Every human institution does.
Exactly. This sounds like he got exposed to some esoteric branch that itself was influenced by Christian Missionaries. Back when the east was being explored by the early colonial powers. Christian Missionaries were doing their thing, and converting all the local religions to Christianity. And out of that came a few Buddhist sects that have real Christian leanings, like the metaphysical ideas, gods, heaven, hierarchy, a perverse interpretation of karma, etc...
So if this guy got into those first, then his view of Buddhism is skewed.
"What’s worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so"
Most everyone I’ve encountered in my personal life has been introduced to Eastern beliefs through some western reinterpretation or a “guru”.
I’d read someone, somewhere (maybe here), write about their pilgrimage to somewhere in Asia. He was very disappointed by the monks he’d met and their lack of answers and felt Hinduism or Buddhism was really no different from Christianity.
I too had been disillusioned by religion and considered myself an atheist. Later, though, I found the Dao De Jing, Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada & Suttanipata* to be life changing. I read them on their own, without seeking further discourse or spiritual guidance, after listening to Duncan Trussel’s podcast for a long while. It’s even changed my perspective on Christian and Jewish theology.
All that to say, it’s personal. It’s my strong opinion that if you go seeking enlightenment from a person or an institution and cannot separate the art from the artist (or the message from the messenger) and do not read the source material you will always come away disappointed.
While I've never heard it put exactly that way I have been listening to a lot of Ram Dass and he has a few talks where he discusses Trungpa Rinpoche ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6gyam_Trungpa#Controver... ). The way I remember it for Ram Dass he saw Trungpa as enlightened so all the "bad" stuff he did was sort of ok because that was Trungpa's dharma and he did it in a detached state.
I understood it like.. just as there are people who's dharma is to reduce suffering in the world there are people who produce it and that's fine and normal.
LE: I think Ram Dass used the Hindu meaning for dharma which afaik means "path in life" not "teaching" like in Buddhism
Or maybe his brutal exile from Tibet due to Chinese invasion traumatized him in some way. I’m not a fan of rationalizing abusive behavior or hypocrisy. People can gain a lot of skill at something but it doesn’t make them a good person. Elon Musk falls in a similar category IMO.
I don't think enlightened beings can be traumatized. A better theory I've heard it's that it is easy to keep vows when you live in a temple and never been tempted.
My memory is that he had to escape through the Himalayas as a teenager. I don’t think teenagers can be enlightened beings. He failed to keep 2 of the 5 layperson Buddhist vows - a temple has nothing to do with it. From what I understand jhana >> booze, so why choose booze?
This website is super buggy. Sign up with Google doesn't work. The code editor keeps running in to tabs vs spaces issues. Defaults to 2 space tabs like it is Javascript.
Get your comment, and had a similar bias against him from “Wild Wild Country”. But when I read his work, was blown by how good it is. Definitely worth a try. My first Osho book was “Meeting with Remarkable People”.
>"Bringing logic to a risk and uncertainty analysis."
Your word salad doesn't faze anyone, least of all me. And anyway, what do you think "risk and uncertainty analysis" is, except logic? Do you analyse things with your gut or your butt (!), rather than with your nut (aka head)? Pathetic.
As for cults, I have come across more than one, and don't give a shilling for any of them - pun intended, he he.
you did not answer my point about the "contradiction between your second and fourth sentences" that I pointed out above in an earlier reply to you.
that means you are moving goalposts, a classic evasive technique used by people who know well that their arguments are not on solid ground. BIG FAIL, dude.
I did answer it. You insultingly changed the topic from cults to logic. I stated that the proper analytical framework for risk under uncertainty is probability, not logic. You didn’t understand the point so you insultingly labeled it word salad. The fact remains that you’re spending your time as an apologist for criminals. It must be hard going through life as a stupid person. I wish you the best of luck!
>I stated that the proper analytical framework for risk under uncertainty is probability, not logic. You didn’t understand the point so you insultingly labeled it word salad.
har de har har har :)
pompous meaningless phrases of yours like the one I italicized above, are definitely word salad, and need to be highlighted and condemned as such, you joker. nobody except fake philosophers needs any fancy "frameworks" for such a simple discussion. you are clearly off your rocker. and I say joker on purpose. your stupidity and fakery made me laugh and made my day. is that the only thing you can do in your life, making up meaningless crappy phrases to try to impress or put down people. neither intention worked, dummy and loser. BIG FAILURE, you are.
no, you definitely did not answer it. you are an out an out liar. it's a black and white point, there is no grey area about it:
I asked, in an above comment:
>there is a contradiction between your second and fourth sentences. can you even see it?
you did not answer that question. you just tried to evade the topic by talking about cults and shilling for them. I am actually quite aware of cults and am totally against them, because they are fake and exploit people. I even have practical experience of them due to having lived in locations where they existed, though I was not a part of them. I observed them with interest, though, and made some observations and deductions, about both cults in particular, and human nature in general. some of those deductions are applicable to you, ha ha. go figure.
call me insulting? I think you are insulting instead, because you insulted my intelligence by using such a stupid and obvious evasive tactic, of moving the goalposts, and not answering a simple direct question that was asked of you.
so you are not only a liar, but you are stupid and a coward too.
also I notice that you sneakily avoided replying to the factual proof in my other comment, here:
, referencing the Wikipedia article about rajneesh and the Oregon incidents, where it clearly says that he was the one who complained to the US authorities about Sheela and those crimes, etc., and that Sheela was convicted, not him.
I won't waste my time by addressing any of your other points or continuing on this thread, because you clearly are a donkey and prejudiced and have preconceived notions and don't bother to consider the facts.
Osho was in the middle of an oath of silence during this time and not actually running the ashram or accused by anyone credible of having been part of the salmonella attack.
But in any event, isn't it possible that his commentary on religious texts (he was a religion professor first) is valuable even if he later became associated with controversial and/or toxic behavior?
Personally I don't look for saints in my religious pursuits. I look for beauty and good ideas. If you want a person to have no bad aspects I think you'll be disappointed with every person.
>Having completed his BA in philosophy at D. N. Jain College in 1955, he joined the University of Sagar, where in 1957, he earned his MA in philosophy (with distinction).[50] He immediately secured a teaching position at Raipur Sanskrit College, but the vice-chancellor soon asked him to seek a transfer as he considered him a danger to his students' morality, character, and religion.[13] From 1958, he taught philosophy as a lecturer at Jabalpur University, being promoted to professor in 1960.[13] A popular lecturer, he was acknowledged by his peers as an exceptionally intelligent man who had been able to overcome the deficiencies of his early small-town education.[51]
No. It is impossible. He clearly didn’t understand the texts if he later engaged in such terrible behavior. The point of the texts is to teach you the best behavior! Was that cult town in OR beautiful with the cult members patrolling it with machine guns? Was bussing in the homeless and giving them beer in exchange for votes a good idea? Is (apparently) abdicating responsibility to your chosen person a good idea? Is narcing on them at the last minute to save your own skin beautiful? Is taking people’s donations to buy yourself 10 rolls royces beautiful?
Citation needed. And I know what you are talking about, the Rajneeshpuram, Oregon (fka the Big Muddy) incidents. Ma Sheela, one of his inner circle, who went rogue (envy, power grab) was said to be the instigator, by some people.
If you call his following a cult, you had better first call the current Repugn(ant)icans / Resucknicans who asskiss draft-dodger Frump a cult, and who have done much more damage to the world, not just to the you-ess.
LOL, sure, blame Osho’s Michael Cohen. Did he not approve the members running around with machine guns and bussing in homeless people to astro turf the town election? I don’t have to do anything to call out evil cults, but yeah, I have been strongly anti-Trump since 2015.
In 1981, the Rajneesh movement's efforts refocused on activities in the United States and Rajneesh relocated to a facility known as Rajneeshpuram in Wasco County, Oregon. The movement ran into conflict with county residents and the state government, and a succession of legal battles concerning the ashram's construction and continued development curtailed its success. In 1985, Rajneesh publicly asked local authorities to investigate his personal secretary Ma Anand Sheela and her close supporters for a number of crimes, including a 1984 mass food-poisoning attack intended to influence county elections, an aborted assassination plot on U.S. attorney Charles H. Turner, the attempted murder of Rajneesh's personal physician, and the bugging of his own living quarters; authorities later convicted several members of the ashram, including Sheela.[18] That year, Rajneesh was deported from the United States on separate immigration-related charges in accordance with an Alford plea.[19][20][21] After his deportation, 21 countries denied him entry.[22]
