In the Theravada world of Sri Langka, Thailand, and Cambodia at all funerals the formula "Anicca Vata Sankhara" will be chanted by shaven bhikkhus wearing the ochre robe.

Anicca Vata Sankhara, All things are impermanent and subject to change. Literally, all conditioned things(sankharas)are subject to impermanence, Anicca(Pali) or Anitya(Sanskrit). This is the first of the three Marks of Existence.

All things fall apart, nothing in this galaxy lasts forever. This is non-metaphysical and evidence based. Can one deny that nothing lasts and everything is flux.

Given this premise, a creator God is not possible, because God himself would be subject to impermanence, and therefore a paradox would develop.

By accepting impermanence, the Aquinas approach of a first cause or Big Bang is impossible. There is no first cause, just the ebb and flow of impermanence, and interconnectiveness, because everything comes from something. Nothing stands alone.

The classical formula is
"Let be the past, let be the future, I shall teach you the truth: when this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this that ceases"
Majjhima Nikaya, sutta 79

Modern secular Buddhists like Stephen Batchelor, author of Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, have discarded traditional hagiography, and are developing a modern dialectic. Batchelor embraces living in the here and now, and seeing the world as it is. This is my personal philosophy.

word salad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3sAWJj1ngM

Maybe it's happening only to youuuuuuu,,,,,

at least in your nutshell explanation of Batchelor (whom I have not read). "Here," "now," "the world"--spiritually these do not have their pedestrian meanings.

Your current position or location is not "HERE"; HERE is not within space.

Your current fraction of an instant between your past and your future is not the eternal "NOW"; NOW is outside of time altogether.

And who--what human existing in the time-space grid--can "see" (a time-space limited brain interpretation) "the world as it is" (Kant's das Ding an such)? We (our time & space situated identity) can only see the phenomena that are created by our brains.

One possible reason for a western god is the King aspect; royalty is above the common man, so expanding that to an eternal King that you must serve or be punished helps keeps the serfs in check.

It's easier to shut people up and make them compliant....because .... GOD.

brianberkeley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can one deny that nothing lasts
> and everything is flux.

From everything we know, energy lasts forever. It can take different forms, but can't be created or destroyed.

However, since we don't know everything, we could be wrong :)

> ...living in the here and now, and seeing the world
> as it is. This is my personal philosophy.

Sounds darn reasonable.
I'll just point out that there's really no imperative to argue against a "god" existing. Those who claim such things do exist have provided no evidence to back up their claims. That makes the claims worthless on their face.

Good point about God claims. Whenever anything unexplainable happens, must be God. A baby falls three stories and lands on cement but is completely unharmed. How do you know God did it? Making God a catch-all for all unexplained phenomena doesn't go anywhere.

Buzzwords configurations made by intellectuals, although easier to understand, apply meticulous diminutive substitutes and engage in exchanges reflecting the weighty nature of the lengthy exposition.

But exmos are people with all high / low filters from ultraviolet to infrared, with BioRadio senses, and the ability to detect a static electromagnetic field changes, to feel the curvature of spacetime (this will be the ability of the biological effects of nano-carrier and then control) with echolocation and / or sound by tasting their reading ability plasmid, and almost any other physical effects in the macroscopic scale measured in some way.

The current alpha reference clock eldrae in 24 recognized methods, by the way, counts synthesis and beyond, taking into account the sense of smell and taste as one body, that is: photoception, auditory, chemoception / odor, static mechanoception, dynamic mechanoception, thermoception, hurt feelings, electroception static, dynamic electroception, body, chronoception, farspeech, spatioception, secondary, secondary lines, grids, metadata Gestalt, value, mnemonesis, natural, practical, daydreaming, obligations and autosentience.

ziller doesn't get any more comprehensible when he uses big words instead of 'in b 4.'

ziller does get less amusing, though. :)

ziller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
the weighty nature of the lengthy
> exposition.
>


I think "the weighty nature of the lengthy explosion" would be more likely with the mormons I know.

I nice vinaigrette with an egg yoke to emulsify the dressing is the best way to season your salad. The egg yoke doesn't overpower the vinegar the way mustard might. Plus adding the appropriate pepper with a slight mustard taste is enough. The other thing to remember with pepper is darker is better.

Also very important are the oil and vinegar. With the vinegar don't forget that true balsamic vinegar, while very costly, is the pinnacle of taste. You probably cannot go wrong with white wine or sherry vinegar. With your oil it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Olive oil is generally your best bet but if you are looking for a softer taste profile go with canola oil. I know that we've all heard 3:1 Oil to Vinegar but if you are using egg to emulsify you might want to consider 2.5:1. If mustard is your choice it has it's own taste profile and a bit more oil might be needed to get a more balanced vinaigrette.

Regardless, it is important that you stay away from other less effective ways of seasoning your salad. Particularly the creamy dressings as they are more focused on creating a taste unique to the dressing and not the salad.

But that's just my personal philosophy.

ziller can confirm this post ~


ziller am vinaigrette salad now ~


thx RfM


┈╭━━━━━━━━━━━─╮♪♫♪♪
┈┃┈EXMO BUS ┈┈┈┈┈┃♫♪♫
┈┃▔▔▔┊┏━┳━┓╭─╮┃♪♫
┈┃╱╱╱┊┃╱┃╱┃┃▏│┃♪♫
╭┻━━┳╯┃╱┃╱┃┃▏│┃♫
┃┛▂┗┊┈┗━┻━┛╰╥╯┃♪
┃╰┻╯┊┈┈┈┈┈┈┈║┈┃
┗▃▃▃▃╭╮▃▃▃▃▃╭╮┘
┈╰╯┈┈╰╯┈┈┈┈┈╰╯

Such a list of things to consider that could possibly answer as well as inspire even more questions and aid us in our journey of discovery. It's almost like you are saying there is no more need to rely on the chanting of shaven bhikkhus in ochre robes.

I like this science thing. Let's keep doing it.

M.Breckenridge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's almost like you are saying there is no more
> need to rely on the chanting of shaven bhikkhus in
> ochre robes.

Or old white guys in Mr. Mac suits :)

God exists where God has always existed: in the minds, (imagination) and beliefs of human beings. It's all about interpretation of the world and how people believe it works. No real manifestation is necessary.
Belief and faith are sufficient.

In physics, there are permanent things which do not change. Subatomic particles which pretty much cannot be created or destroyed. Energy cannot really be created or destroyed either. It changes position and form, but it is still there.

I think the Argument from Inconsistent Revelation and the Problem of Evil are more persuasive proofs that God does not exist.

I think your reasoning is flawed.

When you say "nothing in this galaxy lasts forever," I think you mean "nothing in this cosmos" or nothing in this material reality." But that is the starting point of Buddhism. Nothing in this "reality" bears any relation to eternity other than the bit of divinity within each of us that is tied down by the illusion of material existence. There is consequently, as Richard Foxe states, no physical or material evidence that has any bearing on God or ultimate truth.

That assumption is directly opposed to Aquinas's and indicates how difficult it is to combine the two approaches. Aquinas posits a material creation that speaks of a creator; Buddhism describes our realm as telling us absolutely nothing about God. There is no discussion between the two schools of thought because there is no agreement on what constitutes evidence.

Put differently, the Judaeo-Christian God is an interventionist deity, supposedly deeply involved in human history. We can therefore use history and science to query his existence, at least in the traditional sense. The Buddhist "deity," however, is the opposite of interventionist. He/she/it bears no relation to this "reality" or to any events in it, so there is no science or history or logic that applies to him/her/it.

You can't prove or disprove something that by definition is completely independent of anything in our cosmos.