Nak Khid

Survival is not relative, without air you will die in minutes It's not arbitrary. You can't suddenly decide to stop breathing and live to the next day. Instinct is not relative. It's particular behavior that people are biologically born with. Saying "it's relative" does not resolve any philosophical point made, is not a catch all argument

This is his take on it and he mentions God several times but in Zen they don't talk about God generally and they don't say the Ox is God They say the Ox is in fact something transcended However Leo doesn't say the Ox is God He says : "the Ox represents the practice and discipline required in seeking the dharma " and "to catch a rabbit not to catch a snare when you have caught the rabbit you no longer need the snare the Ox is used in the same way as a means of achieving awakening to Buddha nature we created a snare called the Ox but once you have understood Buddha nature you no longer need the Ox" Yes this would be the traditional Zen interpretation, the Ox is something that is eventually transcended ______________________________ Shinzen Young in these short videos on the Ten Bulls(ox) he defines the ox as the nature of consciousness 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8aN9O73lgg 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PQonSiGkVE 3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozca_5ifwQ0 _____________________________________________________________________ there are many resources here, various versions and commentary https://terebess.hu/english/oxindex.html

you may not be free yet , look at the periods.

The documentary was not in expose mode, it was mainly very complimentary. They mention his alcohol abuse and philandering (which his wife seems to had come to accept) , not that dark but to some questionable One point of the film is that he didn't hide anything However some had made more serious allegations https://boulderbuddhistscam.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/the-party.pdf

Good questions, this is not what I want. However we are looking at this hypothetical. Hypothetically students, no, they wouldn't be able to vote As for the unemployed they would be allowed to vote if they had worked a certain amount of time in say a 3-5 year time period before the present and allowances would be made for people in special circumstances, recovering from a serious accident etc

watch the video I posted"How Vivikenanda used his Third Eye Power" earlier in the thread it discusses these book reading powers

You just been elected president. You wanted free high education but couldn't get it through the legislature. A civics test is conducted , 30 million fail and this new law says they can't vote, some of them even had the higher education The scenario is you don't have complete control of the education system and then it is proposed people who are not educated should not have the right to vote. Or the situation is that you are not president but you have been given the opportunity to vote on a referendum, the future voter right will only be extended to those educated enough to vote Then the other scenario, only tax payers can vote, this would be considered income tax payers, So people of a household living on public assistance would not have the right to vote since they are not paying income tax and therefore the thinking goes not they have not "invested" in the government (this will come about under the Tucker Carlson presidency of 2024) . Retried people would be either not allowed to vote or they could vote if they had worked a certain number of years

These ideas I am not advocating just had noticed people bringing them up and had never thought about it much before It would be biased against poor people if such poor people were necessarily uneducated. I suppose in such a case people might have to pass a civics test to to vote yet rulers throughout history have been able to impose their will In such a system either the stay at home parent would not have the right to vote or they would have the right to vote because they could be considered contributors to the household of the working partner

when you mediate do thoughts of the bad habits come up?

Right and wrong are not arbitrary they are related to survival. To say survival exists is not a precise statement. It would be more accurate to say animals exist and have a survival instinct . Since survival is not a thing although the word is a noun. That things exist, survival instincts etc, would exclude those people who claim nothing exists all is illusion. or imaginary. If one gets pain in the stomach it is not a matter of preference. Chemical signals are delivered to the brain and the discomfort produced suffering which is a physical survival mechanism. The signal indicates to the person something is physically wrong internally and needs to be addressed. If you don't this uncomfortable suffering continues like an alarm bell. Prohibition on murder is not an arbitrary notion. "Wrongs" are considered to be something that puts a person's life or well being at stake. So if murder was made legal people would not feel safe and they would have good reason not to. So it's not an arbitrary notion.

why are you here?

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/iDSUqjqZlZfmi.6mxgsTJg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNQ--/https://itk-assets.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/2020/07/108416546_2894325034009662_6257822080656052648_n.jpg

Did you watch the video?

You forget he was a devil

It is also wrong to kill somebody and deprive them from living the rest of their life, even if you kill them by a painless method the obvious answer to this

Definition of wrong wrong 1a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause

So is murder love ? Not "love" . love without the quotes

the desire that things aren't random

so he goes into enlightened mode when he wears this shirt?

. .

mushrooms are umbrellas for ants

that is truth