Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig Richards who wrote (23630)	7/14/1998 9:05:00 PM
From: George S. Montgomery	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Craig: I can enter this thread because I have begun fulfilling the requirements placed upon me by the denmother, Chrissy. She said, days ago, I should not re-post until I had begun getting my digs in order. I have begun, so I can re-enter. On Emile, who found Buddhism lacking. Why bother respond to such outlandishness, or such pathetic inability to see? On Del, you say his Buddha nature is still alive and kicking. I totally agree with you. I understand, though, his problem. Some early encounters with Zen had to do with having to eat sliced apples, and having to do something of other because it was (one of the) Buddha's birthdays. The ritual completely contradicted the belief that supposedly underlaid it. One of the few consistent statements I can make about my 'spirituality' is that I am at ease, comfortable, satisfied by it. (In elaborate contrast to the shit going on in the God thread, and the junk that that has just taken so much space on Feelings.) I had spent about a dozen years of actual searching when I was young. I came to a decision about a Personal God. A conclusion I could live with, that I had tested out, kicked about, and decided was 100% right for me. There, in no way, was a "God" who had any even minimal personal relationship with iddy-biddy me. Then, I traveled on to studies of absurdity and tasting the Tao. And, somewhere, somehow, a sense of oneness with the cosmos developed. Where all of the contradictions are easily comprehended. Contradictions like man is everything, man is nothing; our purpose is apparent, we have no purpose; we win when we outfox others, outfoxing others outfoxes ourselves. I have made these up, but I am certain you are into the concept. (I do not live in a capital letter world, yet, I live in a world of knowledge. I know. And I have no urge of the weeniest sort to impart that knowledge on others. Though, I admit, I enjoy jabbing, every now and then, at the Emiles, and the God folk, and the three-or-so guys who have been babbling on Feelings recently.) I write really for only one reason. To ask why you. Who seem to be aware. Bother to enter intellectual or spiritual discourse with these three dimensional clods for whom you attempting to be the master? They challenge. They are not seeking. (Exceptions for Del all alont the way.) Would the Buddha have answered them - if they hadn't even asked? I know you won't take this as a snotty question. My curiousity goes only into why try to move stones that are set in staying placed? The conversion-urge, and "God" arguements that fill their pages are sort of locked in. Would Buddha knock on their doors and ask to be let in? Where Emile's "lacking" is an extraordinarilly lopsided statement, Del's "ritual" is not. george