Printable View
Theorem 0000 On the Identity of the Killer
... if man is not the killer of man, then philosophy must be the killer. Philosophy is what constructs
God and the Subject, and philosophy fells them in the same motion.
From: http://cultureandcommunication.org/g...ood%20News.pdf
Also: http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/20...esh-and-blood/
hi mal4mac and this is an interesting thread.
I have read through the links.
I am at loss to what the difference is between x-budhist and non-budhist.
the other interesting thing about this article is the reference to ''flesh and blood''.
at which point does one cease this expression to just refer to someone as a human.
to go the expression
''if man does not kill a man'' this is under condition. in a perfect world a man never kills a man and this is to be taken into account.
''Philosophy is what construct God and the Subject'' this I understand that philosophy is to be the thinking process behind what constitutes a God with regard to a subject human or not I take it.
does that mean God is only because it has a subject?
I am not very familiar with Sutra there seem to be 12 of them. I am not really clear on what theymean.
what is a sutra?
I however noticed the thread title
theorem 0000 identity of a killer
an identity usually identifies something from something else using differences and similes.
a killer identifies with nothing because ultimately a killer is terminating something/someone one like him. therefore terminating himself by order of logic.
the question that I am asking is this
if the killer kills himself then that should count as murder too? hypothetically speaking the killer has committed murder on himself in which case it comes to mean that he has killed himself twice which in real terms does not make sense.
anyway that is me speculating haha ;)
Having read, or tried to read (!), several articles on the site, I think the x in x-buddhist is placeholder for "any kind of Buddhist" so x might be "Tibetan" or "Zen" or whatever. I think a non-buddhist is just a non-buddhist (!) The blog owner has a PhD in Buddhist studies from Harvard and has written several books on Buddhism, and has a mediation practice. So I think to be his kind of non-Buddhist you have to know more about Buddhism, and pursue its practices more, than most Buddhists.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Yes, this really "grounds" the argument doesn't it, I think he's trying to get us from trying to disappear into some kind of transcendental fog, to realise that we are just flesh & blood.Quote:
the other interesting thing about this article is the reference to ''flesh and blood''.
at which point does one cease this expression to just refer to someone as a human.
It's sanskrit for "discourse", any written or spoken communication, usually used in reference to the Buddha's discourses.Quote:
I am not very familiar with Sutra there seem to be 12 of them. I am not really clear on what theymean.
what is a sutra?
Yes, as Buddhist mediation leads to a non dual state a killer must, in terms of the highest reality, be killing himself. So there really is no difference between murder and suicide. But, then again, as he is non-dual he can't, really, be doing anything... Imagine the expression, "he lifted the knife". That requires two things, "him" and "knife", so it's a non-dual situation, not part of the Zen master's reality. So a killer is not a killer at all. And that's why Japanese Zen buddhists, like D.T. Suzuki, happily backed WWII. Although the 5th precept says "do not kill", there really is no killing in the oneness of being, even if a samurai sword is splitting your head in two... It's also why Heidegger was a Nazi.Quote:
a killer identifies with nothing because ultimately a killer is terminating something/someone one like him. therefore terminating himself by order of logic.
the question that I am asking is this
if the killer kills himself then that should count as murder too? hypothetically speaking the killer has committed murder on himself in which case it comes to mean that he has killed himself twice which in real terms does not make sense.
anyway that is me speculating haha ;)
The final Buddha, in Nirvana, is a nihilist against false values, come as they may in unnecessary reincarnations and circular stupidities in any way. The final Buddha has no solutions. He doesn't make any sense. That's the point. Nietzsche was one of the few that saw this clearly. Do your own research. I'm not here to be understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
is one suggesting nazism is theoretically explained therefore plausible thus excused for being it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Japanese backing WWII does not necessarily gives the upper hand to nazism au contraire it is saying it needs approval.
for something to have an upper hand it just is approval or not.
to then link it to budhism is like treading on murky waters especially if buddhism basis is nothingness.
nothing singnifies it is no longer meaningless in the sense that it is not meant to be.
for something to be nothing it has to have no beginning and therefore the end is really rather neither or there.
nazism does not get away with it for being nothing. it means that it was an error/mistake/the odd one out, call it what you may, and therefore came to an end because it was not meant to be at the first place and therefore became nothing. that is the definition of nothingness. it is not it never happened it means it should not have happened since nothing is just that.
baddism bhudism it rather rings a bell if you excuse the pun or reasoning. :)
Nirvana? I thought Nirvana was a band and the lead singer is no longer because of a bullet.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
anyway the real nirvana as I understand it if you achieve it you should not come to back to life it is elixir or ecstaticism because there is no end to it. nirvana should by definition signifies the end of life here on earth. in others words you go there you never come back.
''it so good you never had it so bad.'' and since here on earth is depicted as bad then there is no return to it. right?!
Should have added a smiley, I was trying to be ironic.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War
sure :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
thank you for posting this link.
you see I do not dissociate nazism from holy war in a way. they are similar in that they believe in mass cleansing of a particular group of people.
the quote for highest wisdom being associated with enlightenment is igniting holiness with war and killing which we know not the case if faith is to be sustained. if holy meant war then by the end of it we should would annihilate all of us in the name of it and there is no faith to be had. the consequences of killing liked to enlightenment would reach a point of no coming back. it is as a crazy as do gooder. it does not know when to stop.
if it was down to me I would call it '' zen at warn'' ie warning, that sounds just about right to me.
so to go back to the thread I think it not possible to link philosophy to killing for the simple reason that philo is organised and means to tidy ideas and link them to another concept possibly linked to a higher being/notion. this means it is endless.
a killer however is random and its only mean is to exterminate. this can only mean extermination of itself too.
philosophy is a mean ending ie starts with a concept and ends up with another ongoing.
a killer is on delusion course ie on a mission that will only stop when the killing stop which means the killer end is overdue.
I would say that is fair. ''if you play with fire you will get burned''