Moore 24 Circumnavigation

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

I see that you too are not familiar with the Buddha's teachings. Man has the capacity to f### up everything including the beauty of the Buddha's teachings. True Buddhism is more psychology than religion.

Deep,

You may call my having spent much of my high school and then uni life reading various sources on buddhism and taoism (as well as some other exotic -isms) as "not familiar with Buddha's teachings". I am OK with this. At least this much I did glean from those books. Meanwhile my navigation and language skills suffered though (I studied navigation in the high and philology at the uni). Isms are no good for reason.

From that youth experience, I must admit, from all the -isms, I now prefer modernist abstractionism. (A quote, not mine.)

As for "true Buddhism being more psychology than religion", I think you have missed the information on places like e.g. Tibet where Buddhism is actually an institutionalised feudal system. Look up their social and economical structure, position of peasants, of women. And so much for psychology. Not too far a cry from middle ages feudal systems in Europe that were based in Christian-ism. (Miss-spelled, intentionally.)

You ARE right in how Buddhism is present in the Western societies (mostly via California, US) where it indeed is more of mistic-ism than religion. But we should not judge the whole nation by the few emigrants who abandoned that nation for their own reasons.

So, in short, yes, I am pretty much versed in Buddhism, way beyond the Western educational average. No, I do not see how elements of misticism and narrowly interpreted psychology* (present in all other major religions to at least the same extent) make Buddhism unique.

*For psychology, in the modern era, exists only thanks to the fact that religions got rejected as the source of information about us humans. That was called humanism and stood in opposition to the religious vision of the world. Alas, today there are men of reason who point it out that Humanism was ... just another -isms, and so it may be high time to move on!

I respect your view of Buddhism, but I do not share it.

Does it all have anything to do with the thread? No. But I am having a ride writing. (I am actually an Earth Monkey, btw, if you are getting my drift)

Peace&love,
I mean it,
barnakiel

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Actually Buddhism is a philosophy or road map to living. It is human nature that created a religion from it. Can't say i have ever heard it called psychology before.

It is not. It is a religion. It is a road map to make the monk at the top of the scheme fat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

You may mean dharma. This is present in any religion.

Philosoply is love of (or search for) wisdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Psychology is study of our minds and our of our behaviour.

Religion is a religion is a religion. Great tool to control and manipulate crowds, in the Middle Ages and still today.

No sugar coating, as one sailor said.

;-)

Sailors beware: XTE and shallows alarms blinking: level RED.

;-)

b.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

Thoreau was a pantywaist, trust fund, self-indulgent skulker baby who pretended to be a naturalist and seperist but actually went home for his meals and couldn't hack it as a survivalist. Anyone who creates a platitude for that miscreant in a signature cannot be trusted with a boat or a capt's hatt and gluvs

Monkey,
For someone who claims literary expertise as one of his many incomparable and stellar talents--as stated ad nauseum in your frequently emotional and squealing retorts, a writer is not judged by his lifestyle but rather by the body of his work. If we dismissed the lion share of artistic, musical and literary giants because their personal lives did not fit into our preconceived notion of an artist's life, we would have lost the majority of great works that exist today--Van Gogh, Mozart, Kosinski, Mishima, Hemingway, Wagner, Munch, Camus and even your literary icon Balzac--a prime example of a prodigious writer with a life gone amuck. Also, to compare the imaginative life of a writer/artist with mundane survivalist's skills(Les Stroud?) is not only off the mark in this obtuse analogy but patently laughable and absurd. You are not only comparing apples to oranges but to persimmons as well. Finally, among educated people it is universally accepted that when a conversation turns to name-calling and personal attacks in lieu of real substance, the offender has subliminally waived the white flag and confused it for a victory banner. There is nothing more patently disingenuous than those who real lives cannot be known via the internet and who claim authority on all matter large and small. In the end, they are only words. Good luck and safe sailing.

[SaltyMonkey]

rognvald, you spout nothing but bad taste in your diffuse retort of short comparisons.

Van Gogh, Mozart, Kosinski, Mishima, Hemingway, Wagner, Munch, Camus

All poor simili's for "Great Work"...with the exception of Gogh. All overrated. All mere vessels for mediocracy defended with artspeak and marketing plans and probably one or two piss poor white tower university curriculum's which, my guess, you might have attended or pretended to attain a mastery of. Or, void of that, listened to YouTube videos or perhaps a UTunes recording or maybe the GREAT COURSES for 299.99 on sale! Act Now!

I expected better from you. Perhaps you should stick to ice fishing?

Insulting? Oh no. I have not begun my insult rants yet. Should I? Do I dare? It would bring the monkey house down and you would steam your ears with Northern Great Lakes fog.

Now back to that Bhudda...converse....

Bhuddisssm is neither a religion or is it a philosophy, IMUO and judgement. You can decide based on what you find as a definition for religion

Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

rognvald, you spout nothing but bad taste in your diffuse retort of short comparisons.

Van Gogh, Mozart, Kosinski, Mishima, Hemingway, Wagner, Munch, Camus

All poor simili's for "Great Work"...with the exception of Gogh. All overrated. All mere vessels for mediocracy defended with artspeak and marketing plans and probably one or two piss poor white tower university curriculum's which, my guess, you might have attended or pretended to attain a mastery of. Or, void of that, listened to YouTube videos or perhaps a UTunes recording or maybe the GREAT COURSES for 299.99 on sale! Act Now!

I expected better from you. Perhaps you should stick to ice fishing?

Insulting? Oh no. I have not begun my insult rants yet. Should I? Do I dare? It would bring the monkey house down and you would steam your ears with Northern Great Lakes fog.

Now back to that Bhudda...converse....

Bhuddisssm is neither a religion or is it a philosophy, IMUO and judgement. You can decide based on what you find as a definition for religion

Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?

Monkey,
Perhaps you can share with the unwashed your opinion of "Great Works" since you so readily pontificate to the contrary. I'm certain some will truly be enlightened(perhaps not Satori) while others, like myself, might be truly amused. It rarely occurs in a Forum, of this sort, that such a meaningful and profound experience might materialize when Forum members can draw from your deep well of knowledge, so to speak, and drink of the vast and impressive intellectual experience you have garnered in your impressive internet career. Why, it is highly likely that future generations of scholars, artists and historians will revive your internet ramblings and place them on the highest precipice of 21st Century thought dangling like corpuscular diamonds into the meaningless void of humanity below. Man up to the table and show us your wares, Monkey. I, and, I assume others, eagerly await your learned response. Captain Rognvald--lost in anticipation

[barnakiel]

Webb is just too smart for that.

After we ridiculed and dismissed Russell Coutts (poor helmsmanship), Bernard Moitessier (numerous groundings, womanazing, delusion), Columbus (not using gps, using guns), Robert Perry (wrond SA ratio, bad taste for ties) and Julia Robers (wide mouth, just too pretty), no real world person will risk posting anything of value on THIS forum.

There are so many other places where you can go and have an equally constructive and way less deprecatory conversation.

Cheers,
b.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

SaltyMonkey is now back....now....what was it i was saying?

First an aspirin. (gulp)

"I believe he is still married to the last one that provides him with his voyaging stipend." so sayeth Boaty.

The stipend was for a LARGER boat. He is using the budget for pub crawls and pizza. I should report him.

If he is such and such a sailr, how come he's not on CF being interviewed and offering advise to all his "friends" here, similar to Rebel Heart? Perhaps one of you should invite him so we can ask him intelligtent questions

Intelligent questions around here? Are you kidding?

[barnakiel]

Oddly, it all reminds me of Ann Douglas' introduction to 'The Dharma Bums'.

She too talks there about the many pitfalls of taking life for art and about the western, narrowed vision of Buddhism.

I think I can nearly taste an impending smell of tar and feathers.

;-)
b.

[boatman61]

Ahahahahaaaa... always makes me laugh when Westerners discuss the 'religions' of India.. you've as much of a clue as you have of life on Mars..

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

It is not. It is a religion. It is a road map to make the monk at the top of the scheme fat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

You may mean dharma. This is present in any religion.

Philosoply is love of (or search for) wisdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Psychology is study of our minds and our of our behaviour.

Religion is a religion is a religion. Great tool to control and manipulate crowds, in the Middle Ages and still today.

No sugar coating, as one sailor said.

;-)

Sailors beware: XTE and shallows alarms blinking: level RED.

;-)

b.

The Buddha in me says..."whatever"...to the Buddha in you.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Monkey,
Perhaps you can share with the unwashed your opinion of "Great Works" since you so readily pontificate to the contrary. I'm certain some will truly be enlightened(perhaps not Satori) while others, like myself, might be truly amused. It rarely occurs in a Forum, of this sort, that such a meaningful and profound experience might materialize when Forum members can draw from your deep well of knowledge, so to speak, and drink of the vast and impressive intellectual experience you have garnered in your impressive internet career. Why, it is highly likely that future generations of scholars, artists and historians will revive your internet ramblings and place them on the highest precipice of 21st Century thought dangling like corpuscular diamonds into the meaningless void of humanity below. Man up to the table and show us your wares, Monkey. I, and, I assume others, eagerly await your learned response. Captain Rognvald--lost in anticipation

The problem rognvald, if that is your real name since I cannot find a suitable anagram for rognvald that is insulting enough, is that all the so called ARTISTS YOU mention or ANYONE mentions dissolves into the practical reality that every one of them was concerned ONLY about making MONEY. Art isn't in their vocabulary and therefore should not be in ours. Hemingway was interested only in MONEY. He was particularly challenged to find and develop a journalistic writing style, easily understood, that would reach the MASSES to make more MONEY. Wagner, likewise worked a particular style and personal pontification that catered to the day and V7/V-V7 progressions and his audience of Aristocrats and others to make MONEY. Mozart was interested in MONEY and composed for MONEY, unifying a style for that purpose. He would rather perform, and his compositions, like Bach, reflect his keyboard improvisation skills, with some exceptions to his later works where he was influenced by the baroque CP of Herr Bach. Unfortunately, his musical style was not all that popular toward the end so he took whatever **** he could find. I digress. Gogh, also was concerned about MONEY. And unfortunately for him the American Market in Boston for impressionistic French art, crashed. No one wanted to buy ANYONES art during that time. He was also concerned about developing a marketable unique style. READ his letters. This, contrary to post-facto retrospective academic dissertation and funding BS, is what drove them ALL. MONEY. MONEY. MONEY!!

You might make the argument, through the projection of analysis that has been taught in academia, that there is great art here. They could have given a ****. They did NOT think that way. They had specific techniques they used to achieve their goals. That is not art. That is craft.

So, this leaves us with a problem. Where does ART fit into this? how do I define ART? That is a difficult to convey in the space of an OP. Art might be called a personal experimentation to find answers that may not exist. THAT is ACTION. The result, of course, is doomed to failure. But usually, that result is a sensory object that stands on it's own that has a sensory value to the receiver. To try and deconstruct that into postulates and other abstraction destroys EVERYTHING from the sensual result and brings the focus ONLY on the critic's moving lips and hips. However the result of the object is not ART. ART is still the ACTION of experimentation, by the ARTIST. ONLy he or she can tell you whether it was GREAT for them or not.

Entertainment, on the other hand, knows the answers.

I, have certain historical creative folk in great regard. Musically for instance, Beethoven. Take a look at his Late String QTs. Read their scores if you can read at all. They were special, for him, intellectual experiments, and I am quite fond of them. But he was still PAID for them and wrote them for MONEY.

In the canon of literature, that is difficult and a matter of taste. I have lost my taste for 20th and 21st century. I used to love Nabokov, Orwell, Faulkner. I return to the English Novel of the early 20th and 19th century because the language and their social reflections interest me. Virginia Woolf; The Brontes; George Elliot. Flaws? Certainly.

How do I, SaltyMonkey, know all this? Because...

SaltyMonkey is a genius.

Once you taste genius you just know. I am not the only one who has said SaltyMonkey is a genius by the way.

Finally, for your Ishiguro, I hated everything he wrote and deferrer to Ursula Le Guin's comments whom I think a better writer.

[barnakiel]

We are adrift and at large. Still, good read, all the many takes on art and money and how things relate.

Meanwhile, there is another entry from Durban on Webb's blog. Good read too: relevant data points for 'how much fresh water', etc.

Cheers,
b.

[weavis]

I feel quite cheered up...

[SaltyMonkey]

I cringe at his banal metaphors and similes, and also his double posts:

"While being flailed In the failed attempt to tack, the jib sheets had tied themselves in a Gordian knot."
"While being flailed In the failed attempt to tack, the jib sheets had tied themselves in a Gordian knot."

"I was, like Lot’s wife, a pillar of salt."
"I was, like Lot’s wife, a pillar of salt."

guy must drink a **** load of liquor

I arrived with two jerry cans of water untouched and most of the third fifteen liter container of water unused.
I used 20 gallons/75 liters of fresh water in 55 days, which works out to .36 of a gallon/1.36 liters a day.
I also consumed other liquids. Orange juice, tonic, club soda, wine, beer, spirits.

[SaltyMonkey]

REPOSTing link to BLOG for newbies
self-portrait in the present sea journal