Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
    #26404633 - 12/28/19 12:40 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Also, i'm a millennial so I have no clue what you're referring to about the 80s. Snap out of the delusions and logical fallacies you're framing up.




You know, back when there was no internet and historical ignorance was excusable. Besides, Geeks and Romans didn't become "white" until quite recently. History was becoming more inclusive even prior to the internet.




I understand the soap-box you're attempting to preach from (Muh new age love .. we all is one) and in that I see you ignoring what I have stated and mis-characterization therein in order to go on your own tirade. Focus on the topic at hand and it will be easier to make contributions.

My words stand. If you want to directly challenge them with supporting facts, go for it. Greece/Rome were empires who conquered many opposing cultures/empires. They were included and folded into Rome (one part of its eventual undoing) because it brought more tax revenue/strength for a time into the empire. There were multiple classes in Rome, the highest echelon and empire were ruled primarily by 'established individuals' the same as all of its spin-off empires crafted in its own vein. There wasn't the concept of modern racism and there couldn't have been per the model Rome pursued which was conquer/expand/fold people into Rome and empower the empire. In that comes the direct address of OP's original inquiry : Rome heavily influenced and was heavily influenced by outside cultures.
My point was to make this glaringly obvious.

If by 'inclusive' you mean that Rome contained the many people and there were no systematic barriers to one's standing .. Indeed. However, at the upper echelons towards 'Rome' proper there was a clear distinguishable characteristic. Towards its conquered regions there was indeed a different makeup. This varied wildly with time which in part lead to its demise.

I don't need a history lesson or my words curbed by some 'love is all' posture. I stated what I stated. If you disagree, form sound arguments as to why its wrong.

I myself am of mixed race particular leaning towards white ad-mixture. So  fall-back with your personal directed rant. I can't reference your historical ignorance because all you've managed to do is make directed personal comments towards me and rant about 'we all are one'.

Stick to the topic and OP and not me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 16 hours, 58 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx] * 1
    #26404641 - 12/28/19 12:45 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

ahhh guys I messed up, It wasn't the romans that I was meant to be talking about, it was the greeks, the buddhists had a large influence on the greeks and i many people believe that it is the buddhists that introduced the greeks to stoicism. There was a strong link between buddhists and greeks for a time, they call it greco-buddhism

In fact this statue of guatama was made by the greeks,


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
    #26404676 - 12/28/19 01:01 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

You can actually read how stoicism arrived in helenistic culture and stoicism it arrived at more or less the same time the fist strong interactions between helens and buddhists (Alexander). But you must also take into consideration that stoicism could be considered a "son" of the cynicism.

Since, even with similarities, buddhism and stoicism is clearly different, we can just infer that it is just a coincidence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 16 hours, 58 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26404695 - 12/28/19 01:13 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

yes that is a given stoicism and buddhism are two different things, but the Greek empire owned the Ghandharan colony, where Greeks were Buddhists, it could be that Stoicism came from Buddhism, that the Roman Empire under Marcus Aurelius (a prominent stoic) could owe its greatness to the Buddha. King Ashoka who preserved the Buddha's teachings 200 years after his death, wrote in Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit.

You should know that Stoicism is nearly identical to Early Buddhism, and that Albert Ellis, founder of REBT which is now CBT, created his system based on Stoicism and Buddhism.

The Indo-Greek King, King Menander I, became a Buddhist and attained enlightenment, he has a whole book about him debating with monks in the pali Nikayas called the Milanda Panha.


Edited by kitten6 (12/28/19 01:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26404705 - 12/28/19 01:19 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Also, i'm a millennial so I have no clue what you're referring to about the 80s. Snap out of the delusions and logical fallacies you're framing up.




You know, back when there was no internet and historical ignorance was excusable. Besides, Geeks and Romans didn't become "white" until quite recently. History was becoming more inclusive even prior to the internet.




I understand the soap-box you're attempting to preach from (Muh new age love .. we all is one) and in that I see you ignoring what I have stated and mis-characterization therein in order to go on your own tirade. Focus on the topic at hand and it will be easier to make contributions.

My words stand. If you want to directly challenge them with supporting facts, go for it. Greece/Rome were empires who conquered many opposing cultures/empires. They were included and folded into Rome (one part of its eventual undoing) because it brought more tax revenue/strength for a time into the empire. There were multiple classes in Rome, the highest echelon and empire were ruled primarily by 'established individuals' the same as all of its spin-off empires crafted in its own vein. There wasn't the concept of modern racism and there couldn't have been per the model Rome pursued which was conquer/expand/fold people into Rome and empower the empire. In that comes the direct address of OP's original inquiry : Rome heavily influenced and was heavily influenced by outside cultures.
My point was to make this glaringly obvious.

If by 'inclusive' you mean that Rome contained the many people and there were no systematic barriers to one's standing .. Indeed. However, at the upper echelons towards 'Rome' proper there was a clear distinguishable characteristic. Towards its conquered regions there was indeed a different makeup. This varied wildly with time which in part lead to its demise.

I don't need a history lesson or my words curbed by some 'love is all' posture. I stated what I stated. If you disagree, form sound arguments as to why its wrong.

I myself am of mixed race particular leaning towards white ad-mixture. So  fall-back with your personal directed rant. I can't reference your historical ignorance because all you've managed to do is make directed personal comments towards me and rant about 'we all are one'.

Stick to the topic and OP and not me.




By inclusive I meant that Greeks and Italians weren't considered white until the early 20th century. Romans were mostly influenced by the Greeks and other local civilizations, who were in turn influenced by other locals, slowly spreading out through time. It is reasonable to suggest Greek culture was influenced by Mesopotamia and Egypt so that would be the next step back for Rome, which pre-dates Buddhism.

Anyway, has nothing to do with "new age love" or oneness and everything to do with the plethora of information available today which is impossible to ignore.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26404710 - 12/28/19 01:22 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:

If you actually read past what OP is inquiring about and what the links highlight among a pretty lengthy history of exchange, the point was to show that in 1-2 minutes one can find the information they are looking for which highlights exchange and influence. To what degree that exchange/influence occurred beyond being in someone's head and knowing their thoughts is inconclusive. My point was to highlight that the exchange and influence occurred... easily confirmed.

Also, I made reference to timing in which there were far more established empires/cultures of influence and import before Rome/Greek empires were established. In such a way, it is far easier to establish potential influence chains.

I have no clue what you're trying to get at but you seem to have misinterpreted my post





Even if there were other empires, the point is, when someone study european civilization history the actual past of european civilization history is actually quite literal more influential than other distant empires.
There is no "white conspiracy" as someone already pointed you.

And even then, i pointed to you that with the articles you found that i not only did indeed read, but even pointed out after reading them that they don't show a "strong influence" but a light almost not existent one.

For example this text that i quoted, have been copied and modified a lot of times. Making the validity and veracity a little harder, even taking that into account, the text itself talk about 30000 monks went from Alexandria to Sri lanka.
Such amount of people would be something actually someone else should have talked about, and since it is not another text speaking about it, we can take it as imagination instead of history authenticity. That doesn't mean that there wasn't an interaction between greeks and buddhist, but that it just doesn't prove it was influential at all. Which is the point of the thread


For example, here in Spain where there is a CLEAR history bias on older fold (fascist regime)spanish historians believe in the Cagayan battles. That something like 40 Spanish soldiers defeated something like 1000 samurais.
Of course, if something actually read more about the stuff, you can realize it was mostly a contraband battle between corrupt spanish army (lying in the letters) and taiwanesse pirates. That being the reason the only memory of it happening is of the spanish army...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6] * 1
    #26404732 - 12/28/19 01:34 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

kitten6 said:
yes that is a given stoicism and buddhism are two different things, but the Greek empire owned the Ghandharan colony, where Greeks were Buddhists, it could be that Stoicism came from Buddhism, that the Roman Empire under Marcus Aurelius (a prominent stoic) could owe its greatness to the Buddha. King Ashoka who preserved the Buddha's teachings 200 years after his death, wrote in Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit.

You should know that Stoicism is nearly identical to Early Buddhism, and that Albert Ellis, founder of REBT which is now CBT, created his system based on Stoicism and Buddhism.

The Indo-Greek King, King Menander I, became a Buddhist and attained enlightenment, he has a whole book about him debating with monks in the pali Nikayas called the Milanda Panha.




I know about that text, i quoted it in my last post.
It just proves that an indo-greek king switched to buddhist religion.
Probably he tried to switch religious to avoid a civil revolt (similar of what happened to romans and christianism). I just checked the book, and it tells there was indeed a civil revolt, however i have doubts about the book veracity or historical events.
It does not prove anything of remote relationship between stoicism and buddhism, since the father of stoicism is almost two centuries older. (cynicism, even more).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
    #26404862 - 12/28/19 02:53 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
By inclusive I meant that Greeks and Italians weren't considered white until the early 20th century. Romans were mostly influenced by the Greeks and other local civilizations, who were in turn influenced by other locals, slowly spreading out through time. It is reasonable to suggest Greek culture was influenced by Mesopotamia and Egypt so that would be the next step back for Rome, which pre-dates Buddhism.




If you slow down enough and read, it's exactly what I stated and was referring to so as to, in reference to OP, have no doubts about outside influences from surrounding empires folded into their corpus of knowledge and thought. In that you re-state my very point : Rome/Greek weren't white. Their bodies of knowledge and composition were from all over the world thus framing it as a 'white' empire is a false representation as it was am empire built on the backs of knowledge from tons of other might empires/civilizations.

Quote:

Rahz said:
Anyway, has nothing to do with "new age love" or oneness and everything to do with the plethora of information available today which is impossible to ignore.



Which was directly referenced and my initial statement.
I'm glad were done with this exchange and arrived at a consensus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26404883 - 12/28/19 03:05 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Even if there were other empires, the point is, when someone study european civilization history the actual past of european civilization history is actually quite literal more influential than other distant empires.
There is no "white conspiracy" as someone already pointed you.





What is Europe at this time? What is Rome today? What is Rome at its peak?  If you are a study of Roman history and the extent of the empire (peak) and its outward and inward influences, you clearly are aware of the geographical/cultural range of Rome such that there is no compass of 'European civilization'. So, you're either saying that Rome was primarily a 'white european' civilization or it wasn't and was instead a huge amalgamation of cultures and influences. Which is it?

There is no conspiracy nor was one stated on my behalf. You are interestingly bringing up my main point in your statement above. So which is it o' scholar of european history?

Quote:

living_failure said:
And even then, i pointed to you that with the articles you found that i not only did indeed read, but even pointed out after reading them that they don't show a "strong influence" but a light almost not existent one.




I gathered those links in less than 2 min. from google. I didn't read them nor do I need to as I already have a firm grasp of history. My point in putting them here without comment was to show how easy it is to get an answer to a particular inquiry such that there is no need to debate it. The information is all over the web. Please point out where I explicitly stated that Buddhism had a heavy influence on Rome?


Quote:

living_failure said:
etc etc...



Again, I provided the links to show how easy it was to find an answer.
Why the reaction gif under? Because even per the links, one cannot say what did or didn't influence lightly or heavily unless you can go back in time and live in a person's mind. I don't write down all of my thoughts or influences like a catalog of my life. And sometimes when I put forth thoughts I even consciously omit influences for a range of reasons.

My overarching point was that Rome/Greece aren't majestic 'white European empires' that are the center of human history. They're a blip on the radar and an amalgamation of a range of other pre-dated civilizations and empires and cultural ad-mixtures/groupings.

The end. So, I ask again :
> Was Rome/Greece primarily a 'white european' Empire of Grand
or
> Were Rome/Greece huge far stretching empires that were an amalgamation of various different people's culture, science, philosophy, math, astrology, etc etc?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 16 hours, 58 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26404897 - 12/28/19 03:15 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

I guess yea it seems unlikely that Buddhism was foundational to stoicism. I guess though before buddhism you have indian philosophy which existed around 1000BC, I think alot of these philosophies travelled down the silk road as did many things,

Do you think it's possible that greek philosophies including cynicism may have originated from other philosophies that came down the silk road?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
    #26404935 - 12/28/19 03:37 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

kitten6 said:
I guess yea it seems unlikely that Buddhism was foundational to stoicism. I guess though before buddhism you have indian philosophy which existed around 1000BC, I think alot of these philosophies travelled down the silk road as did many things,

Do you think it's possible that greek philosophies including cynicism may have originated from other philosophies that came down the silk road?




Buddhism predates Stoicism by 200 years as do a lot of 'philosophies' and theologies in other regions.  In my opinion, observation, practice, and because mainstream perception and history are tilted towards European centric achievement/thought/theology/philosophy and the empires of Rome/Greece glorified above others, what I simply do is cover a lot more history outside of Europe and consciously redress my perception and understanding of human history across the board.

Who influenced who.. Who came before who/etc
I only entertain these thoughts and pursue such knowledge so as to re-dress history and come to a more accurate/truthful perception which is that empires/culture/civilizations/ethnic groups rise and fall. Have for all of history. With any progress there are influences and foundations built by previous people. Where those people came from, isn't a big deal. We stand on the shoulder of giants. For a time, the east and many other civilizations/empires were far ahead of Europe. For a time, Europe was far ahead of the east and many other civilizations/empires.

Ping/pong - tick/tock is the pattern. Sometimes you're up. Sometimes you're down. Sometimes things are common sense. Sometimes they require deeper inquiry. Deep schools of thought philosophy of time's past are common sense in present and so thus we move forward and build upon it.

Whereas the east had and still maintains a far more spiritually, philosophical, and theologically mature religion of personal development and enlightenment, the religion of conquest born out of Europe and personal figures therein still blankets the world and still leads to armed conflict and idiocy.

Buddhism/Stoicism...
Do yourself a favor.. Go around and ask the average person if they know what Buddhism is. Then ask the same person what Stoicism is.

By and large (>50%) will know what Buddhism is but have no idea what in the world is Stoicism. My point? One cultural grouping likes to posture and postulate another actually put a lot of common schools of thought of the great Rome/Greece into practice.. Many did so long before it was even thought of being discussed in the great halls of Rome/Greece.

The point at this juncture in history is to grasp the concept not where it came from and who influenced who...Except of course if you are attempting to strip the implied bias from what you have been taught.
The more true philosophies and theologies are practiced widely in a person's day to day and in their waking lives. A good deal of others are simply wild fantasy, theory, and ruminations of the mind to extremes and while such things have become a favored mental masturbation past time, in this day and age, there isn't much emphasis placed on it as people are instead 'living their thoughts/fantasies' out vs entertaining the thoughts of it in their heads ad nauseam.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26404940 - 12/28/19 03:38 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
By inclusive I meant that Greeks and Italians weren't considered white until the early 20th century. Romans were mostly influenced by the Greeks and other local civilizations, who were in turn influenced by other locals, slowly spreading out through time. It is reasonable to suggest Greek culture was influenced by Mesopotamia and Egypt so that would be the next step back for Rome, which pre-dates Buddhism.




If you slow down enough and read, it's exactly what I stated and was referring to so as to, in reference to OP, have no doubts about outside influences from surrounding empires folded into their corpus of knowledge and thought. In that you re-state my very point : Rome/Greek weren't white. Their bodies of knowledge and composition were from all over the world thus framing it as a 'white' empire is a false representation as it was am empire built on the backs of knowledge from tons of other might empires/civilizations.

Quote:

Rahz said:
Anyway, has nothing to do with "new age love" or oneness and everything to do with the plethora of information available today which is impossible to ignore.



Which was directly referenced and my initial statement.
I'm glad were done with this exchange and arrived at a consensus




I've been reading just fine friend. And who falsely represented anything as white? Didn't you bring that up when you suggested the Romans and Greeks copied from colored civilizations? I'm sure you don't mean to set up a strawman.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
    #26404957 - 12/28/19 03:47 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
I've been reading just fine friend. And who falsely represented anything as white? Didn't you bring that up when you suggested the Romans and Greeks copied from colored civilizations? I'm sure you don't mean to set up a strawman.



Pick one :

> Rome/Greece were mainly great 'white European empires' based on 'white European history and school of thought'.

> Rome/Greece were huge amalgamation of various people's civilizations/empires that were conquered over time rendering Rome/Greece's achievements not that of 'white European' manufacture but of the collective and equal contributions of diverse groups that composed it including former and independent colored civilizations.

Since you want to beat around the bush, make clear where you stand by picking one of the above. Or, if you want to sliver some more, feel free to add your own version. In that will be you finally bringing to bear a critical thought as opposed to playing on mine.


Edited by r00tcmplx (12/28/19 03:58 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 16 hours, 58 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx] * 1
    #26405113 - 12/28/19 05:36 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

yes that may be true that things a schema that a lot of people has is that Europe was the birthplace of science and rational thinking, obviously that's not true, it's just a very marketable lie.
And many people think that science is the be all/end all method of understanding and explaining the world that is wrong as well of course, the truth is in ourselves and in everyone and everything the god within, the soul of god is what brings us this seemingly linear flow of causality. And the ancient people knew that well before the Greeks.

I think the Greeks were unoriginal, because they had their own problems that they failed to admit or even notice in many cases. The Greeks over-complicated things instead of trying to listen for the answers in their heart and work gradually on seeing the bigger picture of god, they would come up with preconceived conclusions and assumptions then specialize and pass those explanations down to their apprentices, the apprentices would conflict against each other in the name of their master. Disagreements ran deep forming ideologies, including stoicism and cynicism. Greeks would try to come up with 'a' truth only to end up contradicting other truths. I'm not saying that all Greeks were wrong, but as a whole they were too focused on advancement. Like we are, in fact we're making the exact same mistakes they did, the ones that led to their downfall. We can't all be so impatient, what are we rushing for.

The world has the so called 'truths' and the contradictions they cause.
The isolated truth is not of this world, the one truth is not up for debate, that is what Buddhists would write about after going on their journeys of contemplation, the truth is often very simple, in fact, it could be written down on the side of an emerald.

I think Christianity was the best thing that ever happened to the Greeks, at least we know they can preserve their teachings of kindness.


Edited by kitten6 (12/28/19 05:39 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
    #26405171 - 12/28/19 06:13 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

kitten6 said:
yes that may be true that things a schema that a lot of people has is that Europe was the birthplace of science and rational thinking, obviously that's not true, it's just a very marketable lie.
And many people think that science is the be all/end all method of understanding and explaining the world that is wrong as well of course, the truth is in ourselves and in everyone and everything the god within, the soul of god is what brings us this seemingly linear flow of causality. And the ancient people knew that well before the Greeks.




100% agree.

Quote:

kitten6 said:
I think the Greeks were unoriginal, because they had their own problems that they failed to admit or even notice in many cases. The Greeks over-complicated things instead of trying to listen for the answers in their heart and work gradually on seeing the bigger picture of god, they would come up with preconceived conclusions and assumptions then specialize and pass those explanations down to their apprentices, the apprentices would conflict against each other in the name of their master.
100% agree which is why I focus very little of my time/attention on the Greeks/Romans and their non universal school of thought most certainly when it comes to philosophy and theology
This was indeed more of my point but better stated. They are held as the bastion of thought/progress but I consider them as a bunch of noblemen who over-complicated the world because they spent more time theorizing about it vs living it... And in effect retraced with muddy shoes earlier plumbed ground. The Romans/Greeks accomplished a lot and moved humanity forward but only as a collective amalgamation of culture/thought and only in their time vs the other times in history when other civilizations/cultural groupings did the same.


Quote:

kitten6 said:
Disagreements ran deep forming ideologies, including stoicism and cynicism. Greeks would try to come up with 'a' truth only to end up contradicting other truths. I'm not saying that all Greeks were wrong, but as a whole they were too focused on advancement.




100% agree.

Quote:

kitten6 said:
Like we are, in fact we're making the exact same mistakes they did, the ones that led to their downfall. We can't all be so impatient, what are we rushing for.




The west is modeled after Rome's template and is follow it in many ways indeed. I personally don't subscribe to such schools of thought and life as I have more than enough understanding of history and reality to grasp when something is fundamentally flawed even when and especially when institution of power continue to endorse it.

Quote:

kitten6 said:
The world has the so called 'truths' and the contradictions they cause.
The isolated truth is not of this world, the one truth is not up for debate, that is what Buddhists would write about after going on their journeys of contemplation, the truth is often very simple, in fact, it could be written down on the side of an emerald.




100% agree

I don't disagree with anything above stated.
100% agree in fact. I just can't believe the mainstream narrative was different for so long. O'well. Forward we go


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26405216 - 12/28/19 06:34 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
I've been reading just fine friend. And who falsely represented anything as white? Didn't you bring that up when you suggested the Romans and Greeks copied from colored civilizations? I'm sure you don't mean to set up a strawman.



Pick one :

> Rome/Greece were mainly great 'white European empires' based on 'white European history and school of thought'.

> Rome/Greece were huge amalgamation of various people's civilizations/empires that were conquered over time rendering Rome/Greece's achievements not that of 'white European' manufacture but of the collective and equal contributions of diverse groups that composed it including former and independent colored civilizations.

Since you want to beat around the bush, make clear where you stand by picking one of the above. Or, if you want to sliver some more, feel free to add your own version. In that will be you finally bringing to bear a critical thought as opposed to playing on mine.




I don't think I've slivered. You took things personally and made a big deal out of it. I can tell someone is upset when they tell me what to talk about and when to quit talking and what to do. Not my fault or problem.

Anyway, the salient point is that Rome and by extension Greeks were a major influence on Europe as a whole. I think we agree on this. I took exception to your whiteness remarks and thought it odd you would suggest Greeks and Romans copied colored people which kinda makes it look like you're not sure what color they are. But as I originally said, who cares? I don't.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
    #26405247 - 12/28/19 06:53 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
I've been reading just fine friend. And who falsely represented anything as white? Didn't you bring that up when you suggested the Romans and Greeks copied from colored civilizations? I'm sure you don't mean to set up a strawman.



Pick one :

> Rome/Greece were mainly great 'white European empires' based on 'white European history and school of thought'.

> Rome/Greece were huge amalgamation of various people's civilizations/empires that were conquered over time rendering Rome/Greece's achievements not that of 'white European' manufacture but of the collective and equal contributions of diverse groups that composed it including former and independent colored civilizations.

Since you want to beat around the bush, make clear where you stand by picking one of the above. Or, if you want to sliver some more, feel free to add your own version. In that will be you finally bringing to bear a critical thought as opposed to playing on mine.




I don't think I've slivered. You took things personally and made a big deal out of it. I can tell someone is upset when they tell me what to talk about and when to quit talking and what to do. Not my fault or problem.

Anyway, the salient point is that Rome and by extension Greeks were a major influence on Europe as a whole. I think we agree on this. I took exception to your whiteness remarks and thought it odd you would suggest Greeks and Romans copied colored people which kinda makes it look like you're not sure what color they are. But as I originally said, who cares? I don't.




Yeah so no comment when your rambling is nailed to a wall.
I know when someone is systematically wasting my time and have nothing of value to say and I know how to handle that. My emotions relate to having wasted my time with you in the first place.

*cheers

And thank you to kitten6 (OP) for having and extracting knowledge and wisdom.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26405293 - 12/28/19 07:32 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

I did in fact address your two choices, before and after you gave them to me. Your emotions have got in the way of any reasonable correspondence. You waste your own time... though I do not consider it a waste.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNear Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,929
Last seen: 7 days, 31 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26405512 - 12/28/19 11:25 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Near Dylan]
    #26405536 - 12/28/19 11:55 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Near Dylan said:
Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Also, what does the $55k refer to? That was the total cost of attendance for a year at my University.



Clearly they didnt want you that much.

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_Roman_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7fxzdy/was_there_any_awareness_of_buddhism_in_ancient/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74q57n/were_there_any_interactions_between_buddhism_and/dpp2qpr/?context=3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Gnosticism
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Greco-Buddhism.htm




:burke: nice reddit and wikipedia links.




No comment was provided on the links on my behalf.
They were posted to see how easy it was to find information pertaining to OP's question. It was compiled in 1 to 5 mins and posted. My position was detailed and supported and ultimately supported by a well reasoned OP.

"Clearly they didn't want you that much.."
What does this even mean?
As this is attracting a Jerry Springer crowd, I'm going to use it to add names to my filter.
So keep them coming whoever else has any bum like comments.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Buddhism
( 1 2 3 all )
akb112211 4,268 47 02/02/09 11:06 AM
by durian_2008
* Buddhism Overview to correct Misunderstandings
( 1 2 3 4 all )
egghead1 8,864 77 05/13/05 06:05 PM
by Icelander
* On Mysticism and the Mandatory Madness of Irrationality relating to Buddhism, etc. deCypher 1,588 13 01/06/13 01:29 AM
by deCypher
* buddhism
( 1 2 3 all )
JCoke 4,629 46 01/21/05 01:58 PM
by Paou
* Why is Buddhism "hip"? SneezingPenis 2,149 19 07/26/07 11:11 PM
by Ravus
* Christianity + Buddhism
( 1 2 all )
Alnico 4,560 33 07/28/07 01:58 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Early Indian Buddhism Kremlin 840 4 10/31/03 09:07 PM
by Kremlin
* The Deconstruction of Buddhism. Icelander 1,507 6 12/01/05 04:07 PM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
973 topic views. 0 members, 12 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.