I want to come back

[Auxin]

y get upset... it need not rub off on any of us, and really i hate that kind of distracting with puppies

Why do you think I started the puppy thing like a year back. If a fights going on or about to start show cute puppies so just maby it'll interrupt the cycle of ill will just enough so people can proceed telling eachother to fuck off without getting too upset After all, when folks get pissed the logic of their arguments falters and its no fun.

[Green Osiris]

Yes ! The puppy ! I was about to post, then noticed the thread got the page "4" with Auxin's comment above.

The simple fact of why you are such a bastard, onemind, is because your puppy is the embodiment of satan. All the world's ills rest on those cute, fluffy shoulders - and you support such a demonic beast.

Perhaps the complete version of my heavenly avatar can save us from evil. Grab a tentacle folks.

[sobriquet]

Monsteries, nunneries, mosques, synagogues, churches, and temples all fall into the category of places of 'show'. People go to be seen of men, to show to other men that they are observant. They attend and seemingly practice whatever is practiced but its all fluff and show.

The God does not need such spectacles as created by men. A humble heart and the silent prayer in the solitude of one's own home without show is higher in spirit than a building full of men apparently in worship. All they demonstrate is their lack of insight into the fact that they are merely bowing themselves to the minds of other men.

These people wear different clothes and distinguish themselves from the normal man whether it be garbs of different colours, various gowns and headgear, hold sticks and sceptres of various kinds, and yet the garment of righteousness which is invisible to the ordinary man is what is most crucial.

That my friends is the real illusion. The illusion of religious observance created by any form of public show of devotion. The meaninglessness of it is lost upon these people who really only desire the glitter of this life.

Edited December 21, 2006 by sobriquet

[Guest onemind]

Monsteries, nunneries, mosques, synagogues, churches, and temples all fall into the category of places of 'show'. People go to be seen of men, to show to other men that they are observant. They attend and seemingly practice whatever is practiced but its all fluff and show

That can only be said of god believing religions but is total bs when talking about buddhist monasteries. A buddhist monastery is somewhere you can go to simplify life to free up time for meditation. It is in the middle of a forrest away from society and people there spend 90% of their time in seclusion, only getting together to eat and do the daily chores. Buddhist monasteries have existed for thousands of years and can not be compared to montheistic monastic culture.

The God does not need such spectacles as created by men.

Again, there is no god in buddhism and buddhist monasteries are built for men, not god.

A humble heart and the silent prayer in the solitude of one's own home without show is higher in spirit than a building full of men apparently in worship

You say my biggest weakness is my assumptions when i would say it is your biggest weakness. Buddhist monasteries are not full of men worshiping anything.

To quote the buddha: Filled with fear they go to the temple to worship. Better is one day of meditation than 1000 years of prayer and worship.

The illusion of religious observance created by any form of public show of devotion. The meaninglessness of it is lost upon these people who really only desire the glitter of this life.

ROFL, that's rich coming from the guy who's preaching banana collecting, bananas are the biggest glitter of all.

Like i said, i am not interested in your constant god preaching, i'm not sure how else to make you get the picture with being a rude bastard.

[sobriquet]

double post.

Edited December 22, 2006 by sobriquet

[sobriquet]

Like i said, i am not interested in your constant god preaching, i'm not sure how else to make you get the picture with being a rude bastard.

My statement was generally against all organised religions not excluding Buddhism. The public practice of Buddhism has its own particular faults. It creates hierarchies amongst people in terms of their alleged access to the 'source'. It distinguishes a certain class of people as 'monks' who wear clothes different from their average man. A garb that allows these individuals to be parasites on their communities. The community at large in their turn believes these individuals to be in some ways above them and their willingness to give to these parasites food and necessities somehow absolves them of the duty to search for truth themselves.

My criticism is not towards every one of the concepts and precepts of these systems. There is obviously some good in all of them and all have been successful in one way or another at creating order amongst the communities they have arisen in. But wrong systems like slavery also create order.

But look at the so called Four Noble truths of Buddhism.

1. Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

2. The cause of suffering: The desire which leads to renewed existence (rebirth) (the cycle of samsara)

3. The cessation of suffering: The cessation of desire.

4. The way leading to the cessation of suffering: The Noble Eightfold Path;

It's a self refuting argument.

It says that the cessation of suffering requires the cessation of desire.

But to cease all desire, one must desire for this to happen. And if all desire must cease, then one cannot desire anything, including the desire to have all suffering cease, and the implementation of this path.

Desire is merely a strong wish for something; and what is it that Buddhists want above all else? Therefore they strongly wish to implement this plan above any other need in their life. They put it above any other need. Therefore they desire this. And yet they must relinquish all desire.

I hope you can penetrate the contradiction there.

[Auxin]

Unfortunatly your right that in some buddhist communities people mistakingly think donations to the sangha 'buy' enough merit to bring about a outcome thats really only possible with genuine practice. Such is not the norm but it does happen, especially in poor and under-educated regions.

Not all buddhists are arahants

But where the heck did you get that version of the four noble truths? Because it is entirely incorrect.

The Buddha never said life is suffering, or all is suffering, or seperation from that which is pleasing is suffering.

The Buddha also never said to abandon all desire.

(And the Buddha never said there is no self, you didnt mention that but whatever book/webpage your reading probably includes that mistake too )

The above are 3 of the most prolific misconceptions about buddhism.

The Buddha did, at times, mention suffering but in the majority of teachings he instead talked in terms of dukkha. He liked to use visualizable descriptive terms that a wide array of people could understand- dukkha is like a wheel thats out of round, its meant to be a blanket term for every level of unsatisfactoriness or disruption of the mind.

And for desire the Buddha said to learn to abandon unwholesome desire and abandon grasping to any desire. If your body is thirsty by all means desire water, get water, drink the water, then set down the glass and dont grasp the experience.

Heres how the four noble truths appear in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (where they were first taught) as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:1 Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

Now because dukkha has no english translation Thanissaro Bhikkhu decided to use the word "Stress". In his talks he admits its not a perfect equivalent but it was the best single-word translation he could make

Also in the noble eightfold path the word "right" is used- it too is not a perfect translation. It has no implied morality that a western reader might assume, rather its 'right' as in most effective, sometimes said as 'skillful'... like using a hammer to drive a nail would be the 'right' tool whereas beating a nail in with a saw would be the 'wrong' tool.

Anyway, you'll notice the craving hes saying to get rid of are the unskillful ones.

Dukkha was a well recognised aspect of life in india at the time, us westerners have perfected delusion to such a degree its often hard to notice when something actually is unsatisfactory but no prob, the 4 noble truths can be flipped upside down and say the same thing but in words we're more likely to relate to.

1. Life can contain happiness

2. Happiness is caused by non-grasping

3. Attaining happiness is possible

4. To get happy follow the noble eightfold path

Thats a fairly simplified form but you should get the idea.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Auxin

[Guest onemind]

hmmm.. I dont think i can be even bothered discussing buddhism with you.

Buddhism cant be understood by a 5 minute search on google and some dodgy websites written by people who dont understand buddhism themselves. Yes, buddhist sanghas have their problems as do all human organisations. Its just office politics and hardly a representation of the underlying teachings. Even secular groups argue about this that and the next thing, its just human behaviour, woopdey doo.

Arguments such as ending all desires requires a desire for ending desires is just gay, i've heard it a million times by a million people who obviously dont understand what letting go is all about.

I am not interested in converting you to buddhism or making you understand, I just wish you would do the same to me about the whole god thing.

If i experience god directly then i will believe in him but until then, there is nothing you could write that will make me believe in anything.

What else can i say? Thanks for sharing with me your views but please stop because i am not interested. Thanks.

Edited December 22, 2006 by onemind

[auto]

I sleep on the floor, am in 3rd year computer science and waste too much time trying to figure things out [...]

You seem young, impressionable and arrogant. Find love, and grow old.

[Guest onemind]

hehe, is there such a thing?

[auto]

[...] is there such a thing?

Yes.

[Green Chemist]

Ummm, I have being following this thread for a while now and I think some interesting and thoughtful responses have come out of it. BUT: I must say this, I find Onemind to be very disturbing. I will assume that everything he has said is true and really happened and he is not a troll seeking attention.

Before I begin I will state that it is my view that his huge amount of DMT intake was not an act of stuipity. It is after all his body, his life and and his risks. I will point out that he may have done either long term physical or mental damage to himself that may not be apparent for many years. I will give you a short story for a book called: "A higher form of Killing" to show how small seemly no dangerous doses can have long term effects. Some maintance workers at Porton Downs in England were disassembling pipes at the factory there, when they noticed a clear liquid dripping from the pipes. They very quickly left the building and into fresh air. The clear liquid was the nerve gas Sarin. The men had absorbed a small sub-lethal dose. Many years later these men suffered nervous system disorders from these tiny sub-lethal doses of nerve gas.

Now to why I find this whole thing disturbing and I will spell it out for all to see. I am sure most of the more intelligent SAB members will know this, yet Onemind has shown great difficulty in grasping this very simple concept.

1. One mind has a VERY VERY casual attitude to powerful and dangerous drugs. He talks about taking DMT like he is visiting his local Stabucks and ordering an expresso.

2. Onemind is under the impression that taking DMT in AUstralia is legal and alright and that the goverment is ok with this.

3. Onemind has openly admitted to possession and use of a highly ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE.

4. Onemind has clearly stated his intent to aquire more of this Illegal subtance for him to consume

5. Onemind has openly admitted to suffering a serious mental health problem while under the influence of this illegal substance

All this in 2 seperate posts and in an OPEN FORUM FOR ALL AND SUNDRY TO SEE.

Now you can be sure that any law enforcement officals who most likely visit this site from time to time will have perked up and now will be showing more then a passing interest in Onemind. And no. onemind there is no need to look outside your window for rough guys in unmarked cars sitting across the street looking in your home. That is not how it is done.

If you have caught the attention of investigators, there will one of 2 outcomes:

Outcome A: Onemind has made all this up and just seeking attention. There will be a very low key investigation against him, which he will not be aware of. He will not face arrest , but will have earned himself a file and the police may keep tabs on him just in case from time to time.

Outcome B: Same investigation as above but will go on for several months as they will be seeking to wipe out the entire network rather then just busting a pimple faced kid who has shot off his mouth.

I seriously doubt that his so called warning post will deter others from making the same mistake he did. He contradicts himself and his imaturety shows. Onemind is a shining example of why western people should NEVER EVER EVER have access to these types of drugs. I once said to my parent "It is not a question of are drugs bad for us, but a question of Why can't western society use drugs in a responsible and beneificial way like indigenous people can throughout the world"

My only advise to Onemind and people like him is this: STAY away from these powerful drugs, untill you learn respect and control.

Forget about reading shamanism and read about how indigneous people live in thier enviroment and seek to understand why they do the things they do.

Spend time in parks and wildplaces and just sit quietly and observe nature. She is a great teacher and you will learn more from her then any wise sage or book.

In the words of Eddie Murphy: "Party's over, Onemind has fucked it up for everyone"

[Guest onemind]

call the cops! rofl

[sobriquet]

Hi Auxin,

Thank you for demonstrating some of the nuances. I understand what you mean about the difficulty of translating concepts into English is not just about translating language but also translating well defined cultural/social understandings from the originating culture into the other in which there is no equivalent 'element' of cultural understanding.

Nevertheless the translation I presented is the one available on Wikipedia, so if you believe it is incorrect then it is probably in your interests to edit that page. I believe that the translation is an adequate one to illustrate the concepts. If you substitute 'stress' for 'suffering' and 'craving' for 'desire' then you have the same formula in effect. Being on Wikipedia I would imagine the formula I've presented has undergone review by Buddhists of all abilities and the fact it stands as is, means to me that it conveys the meaning to someone wishing to understand (even if superficially) the concepts.

I also understand the desire to replace the words 'right' and 'wrong' with the substitutes 'skillful' and 'unskillful'. While this may seem to change the moral loading of the words it does not change the heart of the issue in terms of the decision making process between what is right and wrong or skillful or unskillful. There is no objective way of deciding between what is skillful or unskillful.

Let's take the example of a pilgrimage made to Lhasa by some Buddhist devotees. I'm sure you've seen it. (http://en.tibettour.com.cn/geography/200412005122092016.htm) The people stand, then kowtow to the ground, then stand back up having advanced a short distance and repeat the procedure over and over till they get to their destination.

What makes this ritual skillful? In what way is this the right or skillful way to approach a pilgrimage? Is it the method that makes things most difficult? Is it the method that humiliates the person the most? Tires him the most?

I don't believe it is possible to answer in an objective way how this constitutes the right, skillful, or correct way. So while the 'moral' issue of right and wrong can be reframed, I think that doing so is a form of sophistry.

Unfortunatly your right that in some buddhist communities people mistakingly think donations to the sangha 'buy' enough merit to bring about a outcome thats really only possible with genuine practice. Such is not the norm but it does happen, especially in poor and under-educated regions.

Not all buddhists are arahants

But where the heck did you get that version of the four noble truths? Because it is entirely incorrect.

The Buddha never said life is suffering, or all is suffering, or seperation from that which is pleasing is suffering.

The Buddha also never said to abandon all desire.

(And the Buddha never said there is no self, you didnt mention that but whatever book/webpage your reading probably includes that mistake too )

The above are 3 of the most prolific misconceptions about buddhism.

The Buddha did, at times, mention suffering but in the majority of teachings he instead talked in terms of dukkha. He liked to use visualizable descriptive terms that a wide array of people could understand- dukkha is like a wheel thats out of round, its meant to be a blanket term for every level of unsatisfactoriness or disruption of the mind.

And for desire the Buddha said to learn to abandon unwholesome desire and abandon grasping to any desire. If your body is thirsty by all means desire water, get water, drink the water, then set down the glass and dont grasp the experience.

Heres how the four noble truths appear in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (where they were first taught) as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Now because dukkha has no english translation Thanissaro Bhikkhu decided to use the word "Stress". In his talks he admits its not a perfect equivalent but it was the best single-word translation he could make

Also in the noble eightfold path the word "right" is used- it too is not a perfect translation. It has no implied morality that a western reader might assume, rather its 'right' as in most effective, sometimes said as 'skillful'... like using a hammer to drive a nail would be the 'right' tool whereas beating a nail in with a saw would be the 'wrong' tool.

Anyway, you'll notice the craving hes saying to get rid of are the unskillful ones.

Dukkha was a well recognised aspect of life in india at the time, us westerners have perfected delusion to such a degree its often hard to notice when something actually is unsatisfactory but no prob, the 4 noble truths can be flipped upside down and say the same thing but in words we're more likely to relate to.

1. Life can contain happiness

2. Happiness is caused by non-grasping

3. Attaining happiness is possible

4. To get happy follow the noble eightfold path

Thats a fairly simplified form but you should get the idea.

[Auxin]

Let's take the example of a pilgrimage made to Lhasa by some Buddhist devotees. I'm sure you've seen it.

Yup, seen it Tho I cant really comment since I'm not a vajreyanist and dont know their culture or traditions. I respect their dedication to their chosen task tho.

As for discerning skillful from unskillful actions/intentions/mind-states it is well defined, and happily is not all that dogmatic. Your right to assume there is a established moral foundation, but in buddhism that component is extremely simple- hurting oneself or others is bad. Everything else can grow out of logical analysis of that. There are many instances of the Buddha explaining how to discern if an action is skillful or unskillful. The Kalama Sutta is one of my favorite examples, it is the discourse on how to evaluate teachings from any teacher for their merit and their ultimate ability to bring liberation. It is also a prime example of how the Buddha was very strongly against dogmatism and encouraged free inquiry and logical evaluation of any and all of his teachings. Before reading the kalama sutta I agreed with much of what I read about buddhism but was still unsure I could ever put much stock in any religion- this teaching changed all that because he wasnt telling them what to believe but rather explained how to apply the scientific method to psychology and philosophy to honestly evaluate them and he even encouraged them to put his own teachings to an equally rigorous evaluation.

[sobriquet]

Excellent. I see the simplicity of the moral foundation of - 'hurting oneself or others is bad'. There is a more simple formulation from the opposite point of view - 'be nice' and this is the problem in my view with moral precepts that are built upon simple foundations. That many situations don't have clear answers and there are many grey areas open to exploitation. Ultimately it comes down to whether you accept relativism or not. Whether truth is relative.

Because in that case a masochist who cuts themselves or flagellates themselves and enjoys it can't be said to be hurting themselves. A sadist does not see hurting others as bad either. It naturally leads to the question - who decides what is bad?

Yup, seen it Tho I cant really comment since I'm not a vajreyanist and dont know their culture or traditions. I respect their dedication to their chosen task tho.

As for discerning skillful from unskillful actions/intentions/mind-states it is well defined, and happily is not all that dogmatic. Your right to assume there is a established moral foundation, but in buddhism that component is extremely simple- hurting oneself or others is bad. Everything else can grow out of logical analysis of that. There are many instances of the Buddha explaining how to discern if an action is skillful or unskillful. The Kalama Sutta is one of my favorite examples, it is the discourse on how to evaluate teachings from any teacher for their merit and their ultimate ability to bring liberation. It is also a prime example of how the Buddha was very strongly against dogmatism and encouraged free inquiry and logical evaluation of any and all of his teachings. Before reading the kalama sutta I agreed with much of what I read about buddhism but was still unsure I could ever put much stock in any religion- this teaching changed all that because he wasnt telling them what to believe but rather explained how to apply the scientific method to psychology and philosophy to honestly evaluate them and he even encouraged them to put his own teachings to an equally rigorous evaluation.

[Guest onemind]

So what do you suggest? Get all our rules from an old book? The 10 commandments?

Enough of the bagging out buddhism, if its not for you then leave it. Then offer your better alternative because you have all the answers.

Edited December 22, 2006 by onemind

[The Dude]

So what do you suggest? Get all our rules from an old book? The 10 commandments?

Enough of the bagging out buddhism, if its not for you then leave it. Then offer your better alternative because you have all the answers.

He wasn't bagging the belief just the heirachy and such, the organisation. but whatever. Nobody here claims to have all the answers so don't be a rude prick saying that shit. You seem to be the one most sure of everything, even when asking us all for help u spit back at any suggestions we have then tell us to shut up:

What else can i say? Thanks for sharing with me your views but please stop because i am not interested. Thanks.

He's not interested guys, I agreee with Apothecary, don't bother feeding the troll. Eithere he's trying to be a rude cunt and piss people off, or he really hasn't got the basic social interaction skills. Whatever the case, interacting with this dweeb .. makes me revert to name calling, so I'm over it. Even though i want to kick your arse with real arguments and shit, I don't give a shit for whatever bullshit surface response you'll give me. I'm sure it's another case of: "Ah SHUT Up I came here for help but i don't want it No BODY TELL ME what to do with my LIFE!.. I know more about buddhism than any of you unenlightened noobs.. So STop Telling ME what to DO!! I Can RUn MY OWN LIFE!!!!@$^^%#@$^@"

he's a big boy now

oh shit i just gave the troll a huge meal!

...I appreciate what I'm doing in typing angry arrogant bullshit and provoking responses from myself against myself.. all in the name of being creative i guess.. How I love god... the real source of our dramas here.. mm humbling indeed.. we're all tools...

Oh Im sorry you dont believe in god.. WTF DO YOU THINK THIS ONEMIND IS?

[sobriquet]

I think Auxin deserves great credit and has actually done a splendid job of explaining some nuances of Buddhism that I honestly appreciate having learned. I'm sure he understands the spirit of the discussion, and that it's about dissecting the philosophies involved and learning in the process.

I think we should perhaps move further discussion to a different thread if you feel it is worthwhile to continue.

[Guest onemind]

I think Auxin deserves great credit and has actually done a splendid job of explaining some nuances of Buddhism

I think Auxin deserves great credit for wasting his time talking to a brick wall.

And el Duderino can kiss my ass..

[mescalito]

I think Auxin deserves great credit for wasting his time talking to a brick wall.

And el Duderino can kiss my ass..

I have great respect for both Auxin and El Duderino alike,and I love you because you are alive here in this slime-pit with us,when most of my dearest friends are no longer with us.

One day we will now truth and it won't seem that wonderous when we do.Until then I will continue to be me and neither will I knock someone elses' belief system, nor will I say I understand my own...(well not until the fat lady sings )

I don't feel anyone has the right to say "I am a......"

rather they should say "I'm practising.......in the hope that I can expand upon those that came before me".

My joy and pain comes through the path to understanding..not understanding as and entirity;as I see it as the end of this life of novelty, which I feel the need for exploring as do most of us on earth.

IMHO I really think you have loaded youself with too much literature and too little quiet,modest experience and introspection...and I'm giving you my feelings not advice or scripture.

Only an empty hand can grasp anything....

and puppys are cute

[nabraxas]

most puppys are cute, but i agree w/ green osiris---the one onemind posted looks like satan w/fur!!

Avalokitesvara save us!!!

(an LSD blotter)

[Auxin]

Thanks sobriquet, mesc :D

I don't feel anyone has the right to say "I am a......"

rather they should say "I'm practising.......in the hope that I can expand upon those that came before me".

I think it really depends on how much grasping and delusion they put into the concepts of the type "I am a.." "you are a.." "it is a.."

I try to be simultaneously mindful of two levels of reality- ultimate reality (which my understanding of which is still quite crude) and relative reality.

When I say "I am a theravada buddhist" I do so as a verbal convenience speaking on the level of relative reality. I dont precisely fit any mold for a theravadin, no one does, I even have some notions that are extremely unpopular among some. But on the most general level for convenience of communication of the general outlines of my beliefs and practices it gets the idea across.

These relative reality conveniences are entirely common and expected and ideally people should recognize them for what they are- not reality but conveniences for efficient communication.

Ex 1: When I fill out a government form I check the little box that says "White". Hell I'm not White! I'm sorta pinkish! If I stand naked in the snow you can still see me! I'm not of pure euro descent! One of my great grandparents was 2/3 cherokee and another was 1/2 chipawa. I dont exactly fit any generalization about how white folk act or talk or think... but for convenience of communication I'm 'a white boy'.

Ex 2: I hold up a fruit from a certain type of tree. I announce it is a apple, A-p-p-l-e, apple. Every "apple" is unique, there are many types of apples, no two apples will have exactly the same shape, size, taste, or smell but for convenience we condence a universe of appledom down into a single label that if we are unmindful could let us make the mistake of thinking all apples are the same or that there is some ideal form of an apple.

Ex 3: Table! All the apple arguments apply but here I'll point out others. We all know what a table is, its a plank held up off the ground that we put stuff on. If we think that a table has ultimate table existance or inherent table nature we're deluded. If you have to change a light bulb the table can miraculously become a stool, if you have to lay down its suddenly a bed, if a termite finds it its lunch, and if you are extremely cold its firewood.

Ultimate reality may be the core of the universe and where all the deepest of deep insights into the human mind originate but without a healthy utilization of relative reality terminology and conceptualization imagine how Long and inconvenient it would be to have a simple conversation!

So yeah, I'm a skinny white skinned long haired american male buddhist and I'm also none of those things -it just depends on which level of reality or mode of convenience you look at it from. I like convenience, so I'll still use the word 'apple'

...onemind, methinks you didnt heed my advice and brush up on metta practice. It might be beneficial.

[Guest onemind]

...onemind, methinks you didnt heed my advice and brush up on metta practice. It might be beneficial.

I did

El Duderino said:

don't bother feeding the troll, trying to be a rude cunt, interacting with this dweeb, i want to kick your arse, oh shit i just gave the troll a huge meal!

And I Said:

Kiss my ass..

And i'm the bad guy? I'd say he got off lightly but luckily i know better than feed trolls. And lets face it, i'm getting this reaction from people because i dont believe in their god and its the same reaction i get from all these dogmatic god fearing types so i could care less.

And i dont know why no one likes my puppy, i think its the cutest thing i have ever seen. But i suppose you could say that he looks like a mogwai just before he turns into a nasty gremlin

[-YT-]

mmm Everyones perspective of the same fundemental experience (be it life, social interaction or psychadelics) seems to greatly alter from individual to individual such is the beauty of this experience called life.. Everyones forging there own path - their own way in a sense derived from whatever that maybe, it is certain we are all different and the total sum of our life experiences which makes us think act and believe different things, nothing wrong with this until people think they know more and have no respect for others and their beliefs, and confront them blunty claiming supremecy over others.

Apoth is right, Onemind will only take what he wants from what we say to him no matter how carefully aimed and worded it is.

Funky pics Auxin