Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Ahmadinejad, Ape of God

In order to understand patients, psychologists routinely monitor and observe their own reactions to the patient, known as counter-transference. My counter-transference reaction to Ahmadinejad is that he is palpably and disturbingly evil, like a demon in human form--like Hitler or Arafat.

Not only do I agree with Dr. Sanity that Ahmadinejad’s positively satanic speech yesterday before the UN was nausea inducing, but I believe that if you didn’t have some sort of similar gut reaction, there is something wrong with the state of your soul. And yet, one sees the useful idiots of the MSM blithely analyzing the literal content of his speech, as if it has any meaning or significance whatsoever. On the other hand, President Bush cannot utter the most banal truth without the MSM trying to determine his "actual" underlying political motive.

My reaction to Ahmadinejad must have felt somewhat similar to the way the delusional left reacts to President Bush. This is no secret, for if you read most any liberal blog, they openly talk and write about their visceral hatred of the President. Thus far I have seen no mention of any similar reaction toward Ahmadinejad, which speaks volumes about their moral compass, or lack thereof. I’m trying to imagine, say, a Republican in 1942 who absolutely loathed FDR with every fiber of his being, but who was indifferent toward Hitler. What to make of such a morally broken person?

To further quote Dr. Sanity, “Only in a world that values nothing would there not be instantaneous outrage at the lies, deceptions and self-serving tripe offered for world consumption by a man who clearly has no conscience and enjoys lying and distorting for the fun of it.” What kind of world is it, in which there is instant denunciation of the Pope’s truthful words about Islam, but no similar reaction to the outrageously vile lies of Ahmadinejad? It means that in this dark world, the Truth is under constant attack while the Lie flourishes, abetted at every step along the way by the nihilistic left. I will say it again: there is no religion or doctrine higher than truth, for if all good people were united in confronting the Islamic world with the simple truth, as did the pope, it would wither like a coward. These monsters are only emboldened by our cautious and mealymouthed evasions of their truth.

Ahmadinejad’s speech was not aimed at people like you or me or Dr. Sanity. Rather, as she writes, it was addressed “to the passive, uncritical and morally bankrupt minions who nod sagely at any idiocy as they desperately try to maintain a world view that ignores reality as its founding principle.” In fact, the speech was aimed at three varieties of idiot, 1) those with Bush Derangement Syndrome, both foreign and domestic, 2) the airheads of the mass media, and 3) well-intentioned but foolish and naive people who believe liberal platitudes about the world.

In the past, I have discussed Bion’s idea that truth is anterior to the thinker, and that it is only for us to discover it. In that sense, truth doesn’t require a thinker. It just is. The lie, on the other hand, requires a thinker-- often a brilliant one for particularly grandiose lies, such as Marxism.

In order to know and speak the truth, one needn’t be aware of the lie. But in order to lie, one must be aware of the truth, otherwise it isn’t a lie. This is why it is such a damnable lie for liberals to mindlessly chant that “Bush lied.” First, to say that “Bush lied” is to deceptively redefine the meaning of “lie.” But on a more malignant level, in order to advance their own lie, these libeling liberals must be aware of the truth. In other words, their lie has no basis in reality, but exists solely as a reaction to the truth--in the same way that a shadow exists only as an artifact of light.

There was a profoundly cosmic symmetry yesterday, what with existential light and darkness crossing paths in the same building on the same day. I don’t know if you had the opportunity to hear President Bush’s speech, but it was one of the most straightforward and morally lucid political speeches I have ever heard. If anyone but Bush had made the speech, it would be considered one of the few shining moments in the sordid history of the UN. So full of light were the President’s words, that I am surprised the U.N. building didn’t burst into flames. The very walls of this sanctuary of darkness must have cried out in pain at the violent intrusion of such an unfamiliar force of truth. It was like a reverse rape--forcing decency upon an unwilling subject.

Ahmadinejad’s words were a precise mirror image of truth, again highlighting the fact that one must on some level know the truth in order to lie about it. In Ahmadinejad’s case, one was struck at how frequently he made appeals to specifically Judeo-Christian principles and rights that he and the dictators of Syria or Libya or the Saudi entity would never dream of granting their own enslaved peoples: “Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.” (Where is my CAIR-sickness bag?)

This is one of the most disgusting and dysfunctional aspects of the U.N., for it means that tyrants and dictators can make pleas for the very justice or liberty or democracy that they deny their own people. And liberals fall for it every time. Indeed, why can’t Iran have nukes when Israel does? Why don’t the so-called Palestinians deserve a state? How are oppressed peoples to express their grievances but through terrorism?

Liberals love beautiful but empty platitudes about peace and justice and oppression, so Ahmadinejad was speaking directly to them when he said that “Today humanity passionately craves commitment to the truth, devotion to God [liberals don’t mind so long as it's a non-Christian one], quest for justice, and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth who aspire to a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion.”

Ahmadinejad sounds exactly like the America-hating Jimmy Carter--whom he is once again slapping in the face--when he says “The Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them. By causing war and conflict, some [he didn't have the courage to say the United States and Israel] are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.”

In words calculated to warm the hearts of empty-headed liberals everywhere, Ahmadinejad asks the same vapid questions they asked of Reagan: “What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or are these weapons in fact instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?” As every liberal knows, evil people don't kill people, weapons do.

Sounding just like our own resident One Cosmos moonbat, he appeals to the hearts and so-called minds of those who believe that pseudo-spiritual platitudes are the answer to the world's problems: “Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom? ... Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away, and no reason will remain for conflict.” He knows full well that people such as our resident moonbat confuse personal spirituality with civilizational suicide, and is speaking their language.

Speaking directly to the anti-Semites of the angry left, he echoes their grossly distorted understanding of history: “The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the second world war. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that war, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants. It was placed under the control of some of the war survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world who had not been even affected by the second world war, and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness.”

And sounding just like neo-Marxist new age dopes such as Deepak Chopra, he says “Peoples driven by their divine nature intrinsically seek good, virtue, perfection and beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection.”

If not “the,” then certainly Ahmadinejad is an Antichrist, in the sense that he is an absolute ape of God, of all that is good and decent and holy. I don't think he said a single thing that wouldn't fit perfectly into the Democratic platform. You can be sure that no prominent Democrat will rise to defend our country and our president from the insults of this little creep, as they know that he was playing to their base (in both senses of the term). After all, he hit every one of the Democratic barking points, except perhaps for global warming. My advice to him is that he tell the world that Iran is only pursuing nuclear power because it is gravely concerned about the adverse effect of fossil fuels. That should neutralize Gore, outflank Hillary, and cinch the nomination.

*****

He says he just bangs this stuff out, first draft, last draft. Should we believe him?

50 Comments:

Blogger Van said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/20/2006 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Van said...
" I will say it again: there is no religion or doctrine higher than truth, for if all good people were united in confronting the Islamic world with the simple truth, as did the pope, it would wither like a coward. These monsters are only emboldened by our cautious and mealymouthed evasions of their truth. "

YES!!!

Can't tell how good it feels to see that in print (virtual or otherwise)!

{If you ever spelled "good" as "doo" you'd delete your comment too}

9/20/2006 09:43:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

Yup, just when you think "interesting times" couldn't get more interesting.

I'd have to say that Hugo "Bush is el Diablo!" Chavez is definitely in the running for antichrist.

What a satanic one-two punch, that
Ahmadinejad and Chavez.

9/20/2006 09:53:00 AM  
Anonymous tanis said...

Bob wrote:
"There was a profoundly cosmic symmetry yesterday, what with existential light and darkness crossing paths in the same building on the same day. I don’t know if you had the opportunity to hear President Bush’s speech, but it was one of the most straightforward and morally lucid political speeches I have ever heard. If anyone but Bush had made the speech, it would be considered one of the few shining moments in the sordid history of the UN. So full of light were the President’s words, that I am surprised the U.N. building didn’t burst into flames. The very walls of this sanctuary of darkness must have cried out in pain at the violent intrusion of such an unfamiliar force of truth. It was like a reverse rape--forcing decency upon an unwilling subject. "

Inspired & affirming piece of writing Bob! I read the speech on the White House web page last night and was awash with gratitude at my recent political conversion which has allowed me to see the Light.

9/20/2006 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Perhaps I am being a bit optimistic but could it be that some Liberals are finally starting to see reality and the real dangers we face? How long before this guy is tarred and feathered by his own peeps, the Libs?

http://www.latimes.com/news
/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18
,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

If that link is too long and not workable it is in the LA Times entitled "Head-in-the-Sand Liberals" by Sam Harris. Check it out... I am so happy for the LA Times to boot! After only 5 short years of this problem, they are finally starting to acknowledge that we do have one! They sure do catch on quick. There may even be hope for some of our resident hippies (I will not use the word troll because I believe they do mean well, misguided and terminally wrong, but not intentional!).

9/20/2006 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

" if you read most any liberal blog, they openly talk and write about their visceral hatred of the President. Thus far I have seen no mention of any similar reaction toward Ahmadinejad, which speaks volumes about their moral compass, or lack thereof."

I'm not sure liberal "visceral hatred" for President Bush exceeds the "visceral hatred" that so many conservatives had for President Clinton from the outset, although you would no doubt say that the latter was justified whereas the former is not. :-) But I DO believe that one of the most compelling points you've repeatedly made here is that there is a widespread liberal "visceral" hatred for President Bush that is not justified and is counterproductive, and that there is too little and potentially productive liberal condemnation (not hatred) of the words and actions of people like Ahmadinejad.

I thank you and your commentators for helping me to see this much more clearly.

9/20/2006 10:21:00 AM  
Blogger Bro. Bartleby said...

Move over Mort Sahl ...

Chavez took your material!
"The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.
And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself]
And it smells of sulfur still today.
Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.
An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe." "

Plus! A plug for Noam!
"Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.]

9/20/2006 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"This is why it is such a damnable lie for liberals to mindlessly chant that “Bush lied.” First, to say that “Bush lied” is to deceptively redefine the meaning of “lie.”"

First, if liberals believe that Bush lied when they say he did, they are not lying. That is, they are not stating a falsehood as true that they know or believe to be false. You are accusing liberals of doing the same to Bush that they accuse Bush of doing to all of us. Second, they aren't "redefining the meaning of 'lie.'" They're saying that Bush is guilty of conduct that meets the correct definition of 'lie.' They may be right or they may be wrong about that, but they are not redefining 'lie.'

"Liberals love beautiful words, so Ahmadinejad was speaking directly to them when he said that..."

I think most liberals and conservatives love beautiful words, but we don't love seeing them cynically used to manipulate us. This liberal decidedly did not love hearing Ahmadinejad say the beautiful words he did about human rights and peace that he and so many of his kind trample or seek to trample in reality.

"Sounding just like our own resident One Cosmos moonbat, he appeals to the hearts and so-called minds of those who believe that pseudo-spiritual platitudes are the answer to the world's problems..."

If I am the person to whom you're alluding, I do NOT believe that "pseudo-spiritual platitudes are the answer to the world's problems." I believe that our solutions, whatever they are, to those problems need to be grounded as fully as possible in spiritual truths. Some of these solutions may very well, be military ones involving extreme, if regrettable, violence.

"He knows full well that people such as our resident moonbat confuse personal spirituality with civilizational suicide, and is speaking their language."

Again, if I am the person to whom you're alluding, where have I ever suggested that we do anything spiritually, either as individuals or collectively, that threatens to cause "civilizational suicide"?

9/20/2006 10:46:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

Lisa, I loved that article by Sam Harris. But bear in mind that Harris condemns most religion as mythical and destructive nonsense. I doubt that Gagdad would be too sympathetic to him on this. :-)

Anyway, gotta run.

Peace and love to you all. :-)

9/20/2006 10:51:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

Lisa, yeah, some libs are going to wake up and smell the caffeine, now that the nit is getting gritty and will get grittier.

I'm really curious as to how the newagers - "newage" being a pretty wide umbrella, I realize - are going to respond to airy-fairy (and yet wonderfully apocalyptic!) pabulum that Ahmadinejad and now Hugo Chavez are purveying. BTW, Chavez, pulling a Fidel, is going to Harlem tomorrow to pass himself off as a "man of the people".

Ahmadinejad has been touring the world and, from what I gather, has received the rock star treatment from the adoring young who really respond to his egalitarian-style mysticism. Now, over the years, I have taken in various interpretations of Biblical prophecy, many of which foresee a "rock star"-type antichrist, a guy who's young, mystical, quasi-Marxist - and I've generally thought, nah, much too obvious, has to be something, someone much more "nuanced" in order to pull the wool. Well, maybe I was underestimating the gullibility of the "masses", I just don't know. Well, we'll see before too long, I am thinking.

9/20/2006 11:51:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

>>He says he just bangs this stuff out, first draft, last draft.<<

anagram for JAMES LILEKS

SEE: JAM SKILL

(not be be a jealous nit-picker but JL may have misused the word "attenuated" in today's Bleat - or more likely, I am insane)

9/20/2006 01:08:00 PM  
Blogger Eeevil Right Wing Nut said...

Nag -

“First, if liberals believe that Bush lied when they say he did, they are not lying. That is, they are not stating a falsehood as true that they know or believe to be false. You are accusing liberals of doing the same to Bush that they accuse Bush of doing to all of us. Second, they aren't "redefining the meaning of 'lie.'" They're saying that Bush is guilty of conduct that meets the correct definition of 'lie.' They may be right or they may be wrong about that, but they are not redefining 'lie.'”

I find this statement very interesting. Liberals aren’t lying when they say “Bush lied” because they may believe what they are saying is true, however Bush is not given the same benefit of the doubt. You presume to know that the liberals really believe what they are saying thus they did not lie but Bush made statements that he did not believe therefore he lied. How do you *know* either of those things? Are you omnipotent? Do facts not play a part in determining what is true and what is not?

Your elastic definition of what a lie is and who is lying wears me out.

9/20/2006 01:46:00 PM  
Anonymous joseph said...

liberal hawk,
US history has proven that the only way to get the US public behind a war is for us to get attacked.

9/20/2006 02:06:00 PM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"Liberals aren’t lying when they say “Bush lied” because they may believe what they are saying is true, however Bush is not given the same benefit of the doubt."

He should be, unless it's certain that he IS lying.

"You presume to know that the liberals really believe what they are saying thus they did not lie but Bush made statements that he did not believe therefore he lied."

I don't presume that. I said, "IF" they believe it and it's not true. I don't know who believes it and who doesn't, and I don't know if it's true or not.

"Your elastic definition of what a lie is and who is lying wears me out."

I hope I've set your mind at ease that this is not the case.

9/20/2006 03:18:00 PM  
Blogger Alan said...

Interesting anagrams of Ahmadinejad

Ahmadinjad Anagram Generator


A JEHAD MIND
A HADJI MEND
A JIHAD MEND
A HADJ MINED
A JAM HIDDEN
JADED HAM IN
JADED MAN HI
JEHAD MAD IN
MEDIAN HADJ
MAIDEN HADJ
JADE HAM DIN
NAMED JIHAD
MANED HADJI
MANED JIHAD
AMEND HADJI
AMEND JIHAD
JIHAD MAN ED
HADJ AID MEN
MAD JEAN HID

9/20/2006 03:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Blog RatR said...

One Cosmos is a site that should appeal to those who like their conservative politics served with a philosophical twist. A critique of left-wing thinking is the usual topic.

This blogsite recieves an A- for intellectual stimulation, and a B for entertainment value.

Commentators are mostly male and well-educated.

9/20/2006 03:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

This post so clearly reminds me of, "The Last Battle" by C.S.Lewis. Therein, the ape finds a lion's pelt and uses it to deceive the dull-witted into believing that he is Aslan, returned to set things right. They've never seen a lion, and so believe the lie, even to their own hurt. Why? Because the sly cat in the story, with full knowledge of the Lie, sees an opportunity to be the interpreter of the confusion, seizes control and uses the ape for his own ends.

I reckon the Iranian president to be the Ape, while Chavez and Castro are his sly cats, using him for their own ends; (your mileage may vary.) And yet....

What will they do when they call upon Tash, as AdminDinnerJacket did yesterday, and he shows up?

9/20/2006 03:56:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

Assessment of BLOG RATR:

BR is probably male, has BA degree.

A- for entertainment value.

C+ for overall perspective: OC is not primarily about politics, nor is it about conventional "philosophy"

F for spelling. (i before e, except after c, you know)

9/20/2006 05:18:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

ha ha! Will, I was waiting for a clever retort but was busy with clients to think of one myself. I knew you would not let me down, plus Petey is probably jealous he didn't get one in first! Good Job and A+ in rating raters!

9/20/2006 05:41:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Forgive me for all the links today but I have just come across the most classic Liberal "Diversity" Irony yet!

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/09/19/bill-clinton-and-the-white-liberal-bloggers/

Must be another example of Nag's beliefs being true because they said they believe it!

9/20/2006 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"Must be another example of Nag's beliefs being true because they said they believe it!"

I never made such a claim.

9/20/2006 06:37:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

You really can't be serious, Nags. Do you ever reread your own comments to see if it follows any sense of logic or even at least what you are trying to say? In this thread you said and I quote, "First, if liberals believe that Bush lied when they say he did, they are not lying."

You really need to follow-through with your line of thinking before you post and make sure it is applicable or even true or would you just rather play the victim?
Remember, words do have meaning.

9/20/2006 07:09:00 PM  
Anonymous anujragan said...

Silence, impudent wench! "I AM God. Not the nonsensical, mythical, and morally degenerate God of the literal Bible. I'm the real deal."

--Nagarjuna, 9-20-06, 6:34PM

9/20/2006 07:16:00 PM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

Lisa, what I said makes perfect sense. Look up the definition of "lie" if you don't want to take my word for it, and something tells me you don't. :-)

9/20/2006 09:03:00 PM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

I AM God, and so are you.

9/20/2006 09:04:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

No, Nags, you are not God and neither am I or anybody else.

Do you pray to yourself, Nags?

You are a corpuscle in the body of God, same as the rest of us.

9/20/2006 09:31:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ground Control to Nagarjuna,
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Nagarjuna?

9/20/2006 09:37:00 PM  
Anonymous God said...

Much more talk like that, and it will be "was" a corpuscle in God.

9/20/2006 09:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I am Michael Jordan. So are you.

9/20/2006 09:44:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Nags--

Stop skipping ahead. You could at least finish the Tony Robbins Ultimate Power seminar before announcing that you are the Creator of the Universe.

9/20/2006 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

Ahmadinejad, the ape of Nags.

9/20/2006 10:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Aquila said...

"There is no religion or doctrine higher than truth"

Dr. Bob, are you a Theosophist? That's an almost verbatim rendition of the Theosophical Society's motto.

9/20/2006 10:07:00 PM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"Do you pray to yourself, Nags?"

Sure I do, Will. And if you pray, you pray to your S/self too, even if you don't realize it. Remember, atman is Brahman.

9/21/2006 05:50:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

aquila--

I was trying to recall the exact passage from the Upanishads. That's where the theosophists got it.

9/21/2006 06:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Nags--

You're confusing prayer and spiritual masturbation.

9/21/2006 06:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Moses said...

1. Nags is the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Nags.

9/21/2006 07:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Nags can now stand alongside communism as "the god that failed."

9/21/2006 07:46:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

To paraphrase Ken Wilber: You are in the universe; the universe is in your Self; and your Self is God.

Hope this clears up your confusion.

9/21/2006 08:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

That clears that up. Nagarjuna heard a rumor from Ken Wilber that he's God.

9/21/2006 08:52:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"That clears that up. Nagarjuna heard a rumor from Ken Wilber that he's God."

Not a "rumor." Truth. The truth that his Self is God. And your alter-ego's Self too, as much as it may pain me to admit it. :-)

9/21/2006 09:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new age blathering of Nagarjuna is a fine example of why esoteric teachings were preserved in silence or secrecy, to prevent them from falling into the hands of the profane and unworthy who confuse words with reality. Listening to this insufferable boob reminds one of the difference between music played by a master or a hack, only multiplied infinitely. Those of you with ears to hear will note the difference, as it is actually quite instructive.

9/21/2006 09:51:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Nagarjuna -

Just out of curiousity, what knowledge do you feel you have gained with the information that You, Ken Wilbur & Achkminijihad are all one & all God, and all eachother(coo-coo-kachoo)?

Does it help with your self confidence (the nature & soundness of your beliefs aside) when you must put yourself forward in frictional social situations?

Is it helpful to you in improving your character & will power to choose what is Right over what is Easy?

Does it supply some solace when recalling those instances where you (as we all have) chose the Easy over the Right?

9/21/2006 09:53:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"Just out of curiousity, what knowledge do you feel you have gained with the information that You, Ken Wilbur & Achkminijihad are all one & all God, and all eachother(coo-coo-kachoo)?"

You ridicule what you don't understand.

"Does it help with your self confidence (the nature & soundness of your beliefs aside) when you must put yourself forward in frictional social situations?"

Actually, it does, although that isn't necessarily relevant to whether or not it's true.

"Is it helpful to you in improving your character & will power to choose what is Right over what is Easy?"

Yes.

"Does it supply some solace when recalling those instances where you (as we all have) chose the Easy over the Right?"

Yes, but that doesn't weaken my resolve to make a wiser choice next time.

9/21/2006 10:02:00 AM  
Anonymous joseph said...

I was just thinking the same thing that anon wrote about Nag's ideas. The most profound esoteric truths, those that sometimes get those who realize them killed and/or excommunicated, are not for the many. Neither are they to be made into nation/state policies.

9/21/2006 10:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Van--

Today's koan--

How do you defeat a transparent sophist in argument? Or,if you prefer, "is there a correct way to milk the bull?"

9/21/2006 10:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Joseph--

You are correct, sir. Placing precious profundities into barbarian hands reduces them to the kind of new age twaddle we see reflected in Nag.

9/21/2006 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Nagarjuna said...
"You ridicule what you don't understand."

You seem to see (fear?) questions as ridicule - the Major Tom/Nagarjuna comment was ridicule, these questions were serious (if ultimately pointless - yes Petey, I know, my Wife calls me a Flogger, because I'm likely to be still sitting there flogging the horse to keep moving LONG after everyone else has noticed that the poor thing dropped dead some while back - I've got to stick with her horse analogy though, somehoe the Bull Milk is just a bit too disturbing).

To use your own terminology, if you merely believe it, it isn't known, so what use is it to assert it? If you KNEW it, I don't think contradictory blog comments would your first order of business or concern.

However, eventually even I notice that the horse is kaput, and I have to admit it's going no further.

9/21/2006 11:37:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"Placing precious profundities into barbarian hands reduces them to the kind of new age twaddle we see reflected in Nag."


Which "precious profundities" have I barabarized (if I may coin a neologism) into "new age twaddle," and how have I done it? That is, what is the difference between the profundity and the alleged twaddle?

9/21/2006 11:45:00 AM  
Blogger Nagarjuna said...

"To use your own terminology, if you merely believe it, it isn't known, so what use is it to assert it?"

Perhaps for much the same reason that you assert so many things you merely believe but do not know with indubitable certainty. That is, we express what we believe because we wish to share our beliefs with others with whom those beliefs may already resonate and with those with whom they don't initialy but may over time.

9/21/2006 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous yesandno said...

Finally.......

the answer to the question--where's the outrage?

It's here. Thank you for that.

9/22/2006 10:43:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home