Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Ah the off-topic boards. Work! What have you been denying me these past months?!

Hey man, welcome back! Where have you been?

Ahtman wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
I'm no expert on Hinduism but neither of these to my knowledge are part of their system of belief. They are Buddist beliefs, and it's the Eightfold Path that I believe you are thinking of (Granted I'm no expert on Buddhism either). It's true that Buddhism has roots in Hinduism but neither of the things you mentioned are to my knowledge among these roots. EDIT: I'm looking around and I actually think I may need to read more about this. I'm reading some stuff on Hinduism and its history and I could have even less of an understanding of it than I believed I did in its relation to Buddism. I think I might actually want to get a book on this and do some proper study.

Buddhism has both The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.



1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.




As for The Matrix, it is a hodgepodge of ideas. The idea of maya (the veil) predates gnosticism and the original title of the script was "The Third Eye". There certainly is some gnosticism, but the series draws from a lot of different ideas, often not very well once you get past the first movie. It might have been the whole plagiarism thing.

Something the Matrix had in it too was Fascism, Neo was the "Ubermensch", the Agents were "Das System" it's quite an interesting story.

Don't confuse Nietzsche and Fascism. Or Fascism and Nazism, for that matter.

The new truths:
1 life means suffering
2 suffering means everyone else does too
3 understand that and dont be a jerk
4 keep breathing as long as possible

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You know Alb, you could have saved everyone the eye strain by just admitting you don't really know anything about Eastern Religion/Philosophy. You didn't need to go through the trouble of showing us you don't know. We would have believed you.

Yeah... Good comeback, champ.

Yes it was. The things you say show that your knowledge is second-hand at best. Everything you needed to know about Buddhism you learned from The Matrix, amiright? Other people have tried to point out where you are incorrect, initially in a friendly way, but you continue to want to tell people that actually have knowledge of the subject that they are wrong. You purposefully are choosing the path of ignorance consistently on the subject. Are we supposed to pat you on the head and agree with you just to make you feel better? Well it won't happen. You are wrong, you are arguing with people that actually have above a laymen understanding of the subject yet you still want to disagree.

Ah. Can I assume you are a Buddhist? Specifically a relatively wealthy Buddhist? Interesting.

Albatross wrote:'Do the teachings of the various forms of Buddhism, and Buddhist philosophy in a general sense, allow for, encourage or approve of excessive consumption of, indulgence in, or accumulation of, material possesions?

There is nothing inherent in Buddhism that prohibits being successful and owning a great many things.

I didn't say that there was. I said that in a general sense, excessive materialism was discouraged. Instead of avoiding the issue, and just basically being a dick, why don't you answer the question? Is excessive materialism discouraged in Buddhist teaching? Yes or no?

Again it comes down to a humans relationship with the objects, not against their existence. Is excessive consumption bad? Sure...

So you admit it! What the feth are you arguing about in that case? Did you just want to show your knowledge of Buddhism? Did you just want to be right about something?
If excessive materialism/consumption, intoxicants, abortion and sexual license are generally discouraged amongst the religions I originally mentioned, then using them in an illustrative sense to provide examples of other religions which may view western lifestyles as decadent is absolutely acceptable, and you should just stop posting. Seriously.

but it is considered problematic by everyone, including atheists.

So I'm not allowed to treat religion as one homogenous mass, but you are allowed to treat EVERYONE as such? I think you'd better go and lie down.

Ahtman is quite knowledgeable regarding Buddhism, and all other Eastern religions.

dogma wrote:Ahtman is quite knowledgeable regarding Buddhism, and all other Eastern religions.

I'm not disputing that at all. That's obvious.

Why should that preclude me using Buddhism as an example of a religion that frowns upon decadence? I wouldn't have thought most people would identify Buddhism with indulgence in physical pleasures.

Decadence is itself a frowned upon thing. It is part of the definition of the word.

dogma wrote:Decadence is itself a frowned upon thing. It is part of the definition of the word.

...and it becomes problematic when determining by whose standards morality can be said to be decaying. That was the crux of my original point. By the standards of many religions, society is in a state of moral decay - it's not just radical islamists that think that.

Yes. We are all in a state of moral decay insofar as we are not consistent with the everyman.

Moral decay as an accusation on a societal level is an illusion necessary for the self-righteous. Nobody really has any rights except animal level survival instinct, which cannot be denied. The more rules get added on to that mean the more rights available to be violated and therefore the less moral we appear. Inventing the rules and then not following the rules you invented is not a sign of moral decay, it's just getting back to that simpler psychology of following a survival instinct.

I must say this thread has definitely turned in a positive direction. Its almost scary...

Dakka I am proud.

Societal decay is inevitable due to growing pressures on resource sharing.

While technological advance can alleviate that problem to some extent by stretching resource thresholds ultimately it will take a large philosophical change the west in particular is not ready for.

Religion is one of the prime solutions for that, all the major relgions have themes for dealing with a collective want, and in fact rose to prominence in times of collective want - even those that were founded in times of plenty.

This is not the only theme of societal decay, moral levity is also a major contributor, however the eventual resource crisis is the inescapable crunch time. Moral decay can largely be, and often is ignored. In fact it is illusory as man has not changed, its just that the different levels of liberty and constraint over thev generations mean that people break the social contraints in visibly different ways.

The problem Alby, is that you are assigning Western language to Eastern problems. For example when someone says 'logic', Dogma and I hear something very different (and more accurate) than your average person who hasn't had training. Suffering in the four noble truths isn't as simple as being unhappy or having unfortunate circumstances. It is more complex and ones status economically has no real bearing on it. The Buddhism you keep referring to is an overly simplified Western amalgamation of multiple Eastern philosophies. It has no bearing on the living, breathing religion. Are some Buddhist ascetics? Sure. Are some wealthy? Sure. Is it concerned with excessive materialism? It would define it differently and approach the subject in a radically different way than Christianity or Islam. The problem arises when you lumped them altogether as if they are all the same, which they are not; the concerns of Buddhism are very different.

Perhaps you should read God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter.


As for my socio-economic status and religious preference, it has no bearing. It is akin to telling a Mathematician you think he has ulterior motives when he tells you that 2+2=4. Since when does knowing something mean that one must be untrustworthy? Especially information one doesn't have and doesn't know. Making these assumptions just makes you look desperate.

Smugness has reached critical mass.... unsubscribing from thread...

Without getting into a semantic debate on it, Albatross is basically correct on the subject of Buddhism with respect to materialism. Waxing pedantic and fisking the Christ out of a bunch of posts with hyper-literal snarkiness isn't going to make this any less true.

I thought this thread was about a mosque. . .

Ahtman wrote:Perhaps you should read God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter.

You had to do that didn't you? Thanks a lot. I'll be back after my trip to Barns and Noble

Monster Rain wrote:Smugness has reached critical mass.... unsubscribing from thread...

Well stop being smug and it won't be a problem. Or is it that anyone that has a broader knowledge of a subject is automatically labeled as smug?

Monster Rain wrote:Without getting into a semantic debate on it

He says as he gets ready to incite a semantic debate...

Monster Rain wrote:Albatross is basically correct on the subject of Buddhism with respect to materialism

No, it's only accurate in the sense that 99% of the world is against it. At that point Buddhism (or Christianity for that matter) has nothing to do with it. The problem is lumping them together as if they all think the same way about something that is ill-defined and very regional. Shoving Islam and Buddhism together to argue against the subject shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between the two. It is making an "All religions are the same" argument and it just isn't true.

Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time

You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.

+1

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Smugness has reached critical mass.... unsubscribing from thread...

Well stop being smug and it won't be a problem. Or is it that anyone that has a broader knowledge of a subject is automatically labeled as smug?

no thats not it. I'm as dumb as a box of rocks but I'm feeling pretty smug today. Must be something else.

Stormrider wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
As for The Matrix, it is a hodgepodge of ideas. The idea of maya (the veil) predates gnosticism and the original title of the script was "The Third Eye". There certainly is some gnosticism, but the series draws from a lot of different ideas, often not very well once you get past the first movie. It might have been the whole plagiarism thing.

Something the Matrix had in it too was Fascism, Neo was the "Ubermensch", the Agents were "Das System" it's quite an interesting story.

The Matrix cannot be relied upon in any way as a philosophical tool, nor should films in general to be safe. Point being the film draws doctrines heavily from both Buddhism and Christianity mixes them together and pours the out, as Buddhism and Christianity are mutually exclusive it only works on a very superficial level.

Orlanth wrote:Societal decay is inevitable due to growing pressures on resource sharing.

Societies change, why do we think of that as decay, and why do we think of 'decay' as an objective quality?

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Societal decay is inevitable due to growing pressures on resource sharing.

Societies change, why do we think of that as decay, and why do we think of 'decay' as an objective quality?

Decay is entropy not change. Or to put it differently Nurgle not Tzeentch. Decay occurs because entropy is guaranteed. The only counter to entropy in the human timescale is sustainability. Sustainability is not achievable due to human greed and resource competition. The the population grows and also as the world devlops so that the finiite resources are shared between a larger proactive population, and above all as resources are consumed but not replaced, a pressure develops.

We see this with the cycles of boom bust et al, its an essential part of our economic structure. The eceonomy is engineered into cycles to allow for growth and renewal, amongst other benefits. However as the resources get more strained the cylce tightens. Technological advances can alleviate this, but not beyond our ability to guzle the worlds bounty. Something has to give, at the point the people, still entertaining short term mentalities react. look about you, this is what is happening today.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Smugness has reached critical mass.... unsubscribing from thread...

Well stop being smug and it won't be a problem. Or is it that anyone that has a broader knowledge of a subject is automatically labeled as smug?

no thats not it. I'm as dumb as a box of rocks but I'm feeling pretty smug today. Must be something else.

The rum. It does it for me, until I get maudlin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Societal decay is inevitable due to growing pressures on resource sharing.

Societies change, why do we think of that as decay, and why do we think of 'decay' as an objective quality?

Decay is entropy not change. Or to put it differently Nurgle not Tzeentch. Decay occurs because entropy is guaranteed. The only counter to entropy in the human timescale is sustainability. Sustainability is not achievable due to human greed and resource competition. The the population grows and also as the world devlops so that the finiite resources are shared between a larger proactive population, and above all as resources are consumed but not replaced, a pressure develops.

We see this with the cycles of boom bust et al, its an essential part of our economic structure. The eceonomy is engineered into cycles to allow for growth and renewal, amongst other benefits. However as the resources get more strained the cylce tightens. Technological advances can alleviate this, but not beyond our ability to guzle the worlds bounty. Something has to give, at the point the people, still entertaining short term mentalities react. look about you, this is what is happening today.

Buckminster Fuller did not agree.

Orlanth wrote:
Decay is entropy not change. Or to put it differently Nurgle not Tzeentch.

Entropy is a property of matter. It is not applicable at the level of our understanding.

Orlanth wrote:
Sustainability is not achievable due to human greed and resource competition.

I would argue that, insofar as the analogy is appropriate, entropy is countered by any human action. Whether or not it is driven by greed is irrelevant.

Orlanth wrote:
We see this with the cycles of boom bust et al, its an essential part of our economic structure. The eceonomy is engineered into cycles to allow for growth and renewal, amongst other benefits. However as the resources get more strained the cylce tightens. Technological advances can alleviate this, but not beyond our ability to guzle the worlds bounty. Something has to give, at the point the people, still entertaining short term mentalities react. look about you, this is what is happening today.

The economy isn't 'engineered' into cycles. Cycles occur because of the inability of human activity to function in the analog manner demanded by economic assumptions.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Buckminster Fuller did not agree.

Fuller was unrealistically optimistic because he refused to take into account the nature of man to consume until he can consume no more. Applying restraint to man except by force, or very rigid social custom is impossible, and even those systems breed a state that is resource wasteful in other ways through the corruption of its elite.
technology helps, but will only go so far.


Nice domes but I I prefered Meis Van Der Rohe.

One man's waste is another man's necessity.

dogma wrote:
Entropy is a property of matter. It is not applicable at the level of our understanding.

Decay is also a property of society, energy is used to renew society or stave off decay. This is why energy companies are the most powerful, everything feeds on them. Modern society is in a way organic, it gro0ws and responds like an artificial lifeform, if it gets ill it suffers. This has never been more true than with our current advanced infrastructure.
Please remember our resource base is finite, tyet the supposed benefit of economic growth is drawing ever more heavily from it.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Sustainability is not achievable due to human greed and resource competition.

I would argue that, insofar as the analogy is appropriate, entropy is countered by any human action. Whether or not it is driven by greed is irrelevant.

Greed accelerates decay as fewer people consume more resources than they need to. In fact the entirity of western scoiety is guilty of this. look in your local supermarket and you will see fruit and vegeteables out of season, a lot of that is imported. Individual bunches of cut flowers might contain the products of several different countries. There is a HUGE resource sink towards maintaining our infrastructure, while those companies in ther infrastructure can see a positive waste balance because to them it has been made profitable to operate in this manner. Globally it is a huge loss.
To counter this huge drain we would need to pretty much throw away our economic, greatly restrict resource access and generally be a lot pooererr as inddividuals. These sacrfifices are futuile because we simply wouldnt agree to end the good times, and if we did others didnt and would gain an 'advantage'.

dogma wrote:
The economy isn't 'engineered' into cycles. Cycles occur because of the inability of human activity to function in the analog manner demanded by economic assumptions.

It most cerrtainly is, while the cycles might not have a trigger time the cycles are counted on and reinforced by those who understand the larger scale economic model. Frankly there is no such thing as boom and bust, it is just that different types of entrepreneur expand at different times. Boom times are for the general economy to expand, often with the aid of an artificial credit economy, bust times are when the credit economy is reset and the hard work of the boom time entrepreneur is replaced by the wasy work of thre bust time entrepreneur who buys up busines failed in the bust. The latter is the wiser businessman, and to stock thier own larder they encourage growth of others in ther boom.
credit creates the boom bust, the resources are the same, but the money is illusory, more moneies exist as credit than actually exist, by a considerable margin. Essentially the cash economy is based on a huge lie.


The relevance of all this is that when lean times come some methods of social control are needed, to keep people content with where they are and whast they have got. State religion plays a part in this, state religion may or may not differs
from free religion, but at its core the choice of state relgion is largely irrelevant, any religion will do so long as it serves the state purpose.