British Magazine Profiles Erich von Däniken, Interviews Me as Counterpoint

1/26/2017

A British history magazine ran an article this week profiling Erich von Däniken and discussing the Swiss author’s longstanding belief that space aliens are the force animating human history. For an opposing view, the magazine turned to me, and I am quoted extensively in deconstructing von Däniken’s carefully crafted image as a nice old man who is just asking questions. He is, after all, the man who once said that Black Africans were a mistake that space aliens rectified by creating whites.

The article presents many of my conclusions about von Däniken’s accidental influence from H. P. Lovecraft, whose space gods were given a nonfiction sheen by von Däniken’s direct source, The Morning of the Magicians, written by Lovecraft super-fans Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier.

We find in this most recent interview (which I had not seen prior to my own interview for the article) that the elderly author of Chariots of the Gods? is still offering the same old lines that we find in Chariots, nearly 50 years ago. His argument, however, for why he believes that the Old Testament God is not a divinity has modern resonance because so-called “alt-right” pseudo-intellectual Jason Reza Jorjani lifted the exact same ideas in order to condemn Yahweh as a malign alien in Prometheus and Atlas (2016), a book meant to be an intellectual foundation for the political groups that everyone but Jorjani admits to be a white nationalist movement.

According to von Däniken, speaking last month, “My God had to have some minimum clarities. Such as ‘God can never make a mistake’ or ‘God cannot use a vehicle to travel from point A to point B’. Making these translations, I realised God in the Bible uses vehicles to move around.” Compare this to his Chariots from 1968, where he first claims that Yahweh is a plural set of multiple beings: “They were certainly not ‘gods’ in the traditional sense of the word, or they would not have needed a vehicle to move from one place to another. This kind of locomotion seems to me to be quite incompatible with the idea of an almighty God.”

Now in the twilight of his life, von Däniken has become more insistent on the spiritual nature of his message. This has always been part of his work—he wrote a book on Christian miracles three decades ago—but now it is becoming more insistent. He told writer Martyn Conterio that he believes that God is the first cause of the universe, inspiring the first aliens, who influenced other aliens, who influenced still more aliens, until the divine wave, traveling from species to species, reached us. Thus can he reconcile a seemingly non-theistic ancient astronaut theory with the lingering love of God leftover from his lapsed Catholicism.

But I was most interested in the braggadocios way that von Däniken paints himself as embracing criticism:

I love the critics. Sometimes they are absolutely right and I am wrong. But I always learn. When I get scientific critics, mostly they have never read the book or never speak with me. When we sit together correctly – not blindly, not lying, not trying to convince someone with false arguments – after an hour or two I always learn something from the critic. The other side [of the debate] is a critic says to me: ‘Erich, I did not know about these ancient texts,’ and both sides learn. [That is] how it should be in an organised society.

In other words, von Däniken claims that critics are ignorant and will come around as soon as they are confronted with ancient texts. This seemingly happy accident is a far cry from how he presents himself in his books, where he frequently lashes out at critics and claims any number of unfair conspiracies are being waged against him and his ideas. For example, in 2015 he said that “the television professors and debunkers want to make Erich von Däniken look like an idiot.” Even though I have read nearly all of his books, and he alleges to be open to speaking with his critics, he has refused to speak to me.

He isn’t alone in that: Last year Alien Con offered me interviews with ancient astronaut theorists from Ancient Aliens and then reneged, lest I ask challenging questions. Last week National Geographic offered me an interview with Simcha Jacobovici and Richard Freund about their claim to have discovered Atlantis. I accepted, and as of this writing NatGeo’s PR team stopped all communication with me three days ago and have not scheduled the interview or provided the promised screener of the documentary. Reading between the lines about the availability of a screener, the network also isn’t letting the people they are allowing to speak with the filmmakers actually see the documentary before it airs. Could it be because they don’t want any challenging questions? Without a screener, interviewers can only guess at the show’s content and report uncritically what the claimants have to say. That is not reporting so much as stenography.

Anyway, I will leave it to you to read the remainder of the profile of Erich von Däniken and my comments on the grand old man of kooky claims.

42 Comments

A Buddhist

1/26/2017 10:58:38 am

The First Cause argument is contrary to the Tipitaka and illogical. Easier to posit infinite regression of causes than to posit an infinitely existing first cause God. Both scenarios involve the invocation of infinity as an origin, but only the God theory involves creating something not perceived in life. But causes and effects are easy to recognize.

A pity, truly, that von Daniken, so willing to challenge so many other widely held beliefs, did not challenge the belief in God. Such a challenge would have been less difficult to make without surrendering intellectual honesty, unlike the lies that he makes to justify the Ancient Astronauts theory. But it would be less profitable.

Uncle Ron

1/26/2017 12:14:21 pm

A day or two ago you said that Buddhism was superior to every religion; yet Buddhism has it's own metaphysical aspects so it is not entirely based is on what can be "perceived in life." Your smug condescension is as tiring as that of Christians, Muslims, and every other spiritual group. "Infinite regression of causes" is no more an explanation of a first cause than God is. The question "what was before that?" can never be answered.

Real intellectual honesty requires admitting that one believes in one's chosen spiritual explanation not because it is logical or true but because it makes one feel good.

1/26/2017 12:46:45 pm

Uncle Ron

I am not saying that Buddhism is based solely upon what is perceived in life. I say that the infinite regression of causes is justifiable based upon what is perceived in life; such an explanation is also supported by the Tipitaka. My over all point, which you seem to have missed, is that there is a sound argument to be made that there is no first cause that can be created from either of two angles: the Tipitaka of Buddhism and the affairs that we perceive every day.

I am aware that Buddhism is easy for me to believe because it makes me feel good, but it is also easy for me to believe in Buddhism because it is logically sound. For example, in the Tipitaka there are listed the six senses, and I find from life that there are six senses. In the Tipitaka there is taughten the nature of unsatisfactoriness, the origin of unsatisfactoriness, and the way to eliminate unsatisfactoriness. In the Tipitaka there is taughten the nature of violence, the origin of violence, and the way to eliminate violence. And reading these through my senses of sight and mind, I realize these teachings to be true.

Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims are all convinced that their religions are true, otherwise they would not be Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims

TheBigMike

1/26/2017 04:48:32 pm

You said that in the Tipitaka there are listed six senses and you accept that there are solox senses. On reality, there are far more than six senses. Sight, hearing, and smell are usually simple enough to identify, but it could be argued that taste is multiple senses as each flavor that the tongue and olfactory organs are able to differentiate between could be described as individual senses. The sense of sweetness, the sense of sourness, etc.
The "sense of touch" is the one that is far from simple. There is a sense of temperature, a sense of hardness, an sense of texture, a sense of sharpness. Each of these aspects of physical objects is a unique and measurable dimension and thus our SENSES of touch must be differentiated accordingly. Not to mention there is the sense of pain, which can occur internally away from the organs (skin) that we usually refer to when using the "sense of touch" that'd not going into the meta-senses, sense of self, sense of outrage, sense of shame, etc.

Also, "taughten" means to make tight, to increase in intensity, or to become taught. You were using it to mean "taught" as in the past tense of the word "teach"

1/26/2017 06:18:01 pm

The six senses are
taste
touch
smell
hearing
sight
and mind

The six sense bases are
tongue
body
nose
ears
eyes
and consciousness

All of the things that you list can be slotted into one of the six senses.

flavours, arising due to contact with the tongue, are tastes.

the aspects of physical objects, arising as they do through contact with the generic body, are senses of touch.

emotions, arising due to changes in the mind, are sensed by and creations of the mind.

Considering the numerous people who cannot distinguish its and it's or there and they're, taughten is hardly a gross error on the internet.

Scott Hamilton

1/26/2017 06:42:13 pm

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! A Buddhist is just as lame when he has to defend his irrational, non-scientific beliefs as all the Christian apologists he's constantly complaining about! Too bad his "six senses" omits the sense of shame, or he might realize what a hypocrite he his. No need to listen to that troll ever again.

1/26/2017 07:46:02 pm

A Buddhist, "mind" is not a sense. "Mind" is its own category--"MIND." It cannot be a sense in and of itself because "mind" interprets "taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight."

There is also kinesthetic sense--ie, the sense of body in space--which is none of the other five physical senses, nor is it "mind" as it interprets nothing. Sense of balance is separate from kinesthetic sense, and also separate from hearing--both provable from the fact that someone who has no sense of body below the neck can still tell when they are in or out of balance, and by the fact that deaf people have a sense of balance.

That makes seven hard-core, mapped by science, physical receptors known, known for more than a century senses that do NOT include "mind."

Furthermore, I challenge that "logically sound" means "true." As a computer programmer and as a teacher, I am familiar with the GIGO principle--garbage in, garbage out. It refers to any situation wherein the data conforms to the rules of logic--ie, appears to be logically sound--but the foundational premise is untrue. Many of the concepts in Buddhism--reincarnation, for example, and chakras--hinge on the existence of "soul." Yet we have no proof nor even any real evidence for "soul." If you accept "soul" as genuine, then yes, both reincarnation and chakras are capable of passing basic tests of logic. The problem is that "soul" is a "garbage" principle, because there is no reason whatever to accept "soul" as truth. "Soul" is outside of current scientific definition. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. But right now, it does NOT in and of itself pass the test of logic, so anything based on it, whether it passes logic tests or not, is "garbage".

1/26/2017 09:44:52 pm

V,

If you were knowing even a hair's tip of Buddhist wisdom, you would know that Buddhism teaches that there is no soul. I am not a Pudgalavadadin, which means that I do not even belief in the ultimate reality of a person. Conventionally, the person exists, but not ultimately. Souls are as real as rabbits with horns; pretty to imagine, but unable to be found outside the imagination.

To deny that mind is a sense is to assert that what we perceive in dreams is really happening. Do you assert that?

the kinesthetic sense and sense of balance are both, as understand, the interaction of the sense of touch and the mind. The body moves in a way, triggering the sense of touch, which in turn triggers the mind. From these interactions, you get the illusion of independent kinesthetic sense and sense of balance.

The so-called soul forms through similar illusions. There are five aggregates (distinct from the six senses):
"form"
"feeling"
"perception"
"mental formations"
"consciousness"

These five aggregates interact in such a way as to create the illusion of a soul, self, or person, but it is an illusion. Any criticism of Buddhism that insists that it teaches about a soul is as misguided as a criticism of Christianity that accuses it of atheism.

Americanegro

1/26/2017 09:56:29 pm

A Buddhitst, please stop trying to hit people with your head and please consider using the more standard "Tripiṭaka" and while you're at it, use it less. I will now correct your work.

In the Buddhist analysis, there are six consciousnesses (strike the word "sense" for now):

sight
hearing
smell
taste
touch
mind

Five of these are sense consciousnesses, the sixth is a mental conscious. The sense consciousnesses perceive objects directly, that is non-conceptually; the mental consciousness generally but not exclusively perceives objects conceptually, i.e through the use of images.

"Touch" includes everything other commenters have listed, kinesthetic, heat, proprieception, etc. It is not limited to simple contact.

The senses are dependent for their operation upon their respective sense powers, which in the Buddhist view is clear matter in each sense organ. In the modern view it would be the body machinery: retina, eardrum, etc. The sense power of the mental consciousness is a previous moment of consciousness (as opposed to a continuum of consciousness or the brain).

Off the top of my head, but there, handled. You're welcome. Please for the love of Cthulhu, stop banging on and on about Buddhism and the "Tipitaka"!

p.s. in tipitaka/tripitaka the second t should have a dot under it to indicate retroflex pronunciation, this site is not set up to handle that; not the end of the world.

1/26/2017 10:11:15 pm

p.p.s. I was wrong about the ṭ. I blame my lying eyes.

1/27/2017 08:04:56 am

I use the term Tipitaka because that is the term used by the Pali language, which is the language of Theravada Buddhism, which is the school of Buddhism that I mostly follow. Tripitaka is the Sanskrit equivalent term (and I am sorry for not putting in diacritics).

See, as evidence, the website Access to Insight, which opens: The Tipitaka (Pali ti, "three," + pitaka, "baskets"), or Pali canon, is the collection of primary Pali language texts which form the doctrinal foundation of Theravada Buddhism. The Tipitaka and the paracanonical Pali texts (commentaries, chronicles, etc.) together constitute the complete body of classical Theravada texts. The Pali canon is a vast body of literature: in English translation the texts add up to thousands of printed pages. Most (but not all) of the Canon has already been published in English over the years. Although only a small fraction of these texts are available on this website, this collection can be a good place to start.

http://www.religionfacts.com also says similar: In Buddhism, the Tripitaka (Tipitaka in Pali) is the earliest collection of Buddhist teachings and the only text recognized as canonical by Theravada Buddhists. Many commentaries have been added over the centuries, however. Tripitaka means "three baskets," from the way in which it was originally recorded: the text was written on long, narrow leaves, which were sewn at the edges then grouped into bunches and stored in baskets.

1/27/2017 10:00:13 am

FIRST AND GD MF'ING FOREMOST: DO NOT POST UNDER MY NAME. I'm the guy who knows what you're talking about and you're the guy who doesn't know what you're talking about.

You failed to properly present grade school level information so I had to clean up for you.

You in America now, boy. Talk English so folks can understand you.

I read Pali, you don't. You need to stop whatever it is you think you're doing, because you're not doing it. The cold hard reality is no one's interested in what you say except when it's wrong. I'm trying ot coach you in a better direction. Accept the coaching. Stop, stop, stop.

1/27/2017 10:33:05 am

Americanegro: Please accept my apologies about using your name. I got confused when typing in the names field and forgot to enter my name, rather entering yours. I meant to enter your name at the beginning as I did in this message, but forgot. I am so sorry.

I am not in America. I can count on one hand the number of times I have been to America.

If you know Pali, then why do you not know the term Tipitaka?

As far as coaching, I love it when I receive useful coaching, and you give me some good coaching, such as the help with the six senses. But other coaching that you give me is useless, such as wen you criticize me for using the Pali term Tipitaka under the wrong impression that it is a misspelling of the Sanskrit term Tripitaka.

Still, I accept words of criticism, however misguided, much better than mere vituperation. To be told "you are a fool" is much less helpful for me than being told "you are a fool for reasons X, Y, and Z."

I write this while bicycling; please be tolerant of any spelling errors.

1/27/2017 12:32:33 pm

If you get confused to the point where you mix up your own name and someone else's, that's a problem.

"If you know Pali, then why do you not know the term Tipitaka?

As far as coaching, I love it when I receive useful coaching, and you give me some good coaching, such as the help with the six senses. [no, fuck you, not six senses!] But other coaching that you give me is useless, such as wen you criticize me for using the Pali term Tipitaka under the wrong impression that it is a misspelling of the Sanskrit term Tripitaka."

Pali is nothing more than Sanskrit misspelled. I was under no wrong impression. You can say "Tipitaka" all day long as far as I'm concerned. THE POINT WAS IT MAKES YOU SOUND SILLY.

"Still, I accept words of criticism, however misguided, much better than mere vituperation. To be told "you are a fool" is much less helpful for me than being told "you are a fool for reasons X, Y, and Z."

I've already told you to stop posting. I've already told you to stop saying "Tipitaka". You don't take that advice. That's fine. I strongly urge you to accept the fact that you are not a salesman, and certainly not a salesman of Buddhism. Any attempts by you to "sell" Buddhism are undercut by the fact that you are often wrong and even more often refuse to admit you are wrong.

My suggestion, coaching, is that you use a different name and stop trying to hit people over the head with Buddhism WHICH YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND AT A GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL.

To sum up: Stop. Stop. Stop.

"I write this while bicycling; please be tolerant of any spelling errors."

1/27/2017 01:24:06 pm

Americanegro,

I have many problems in my life. For example, I have to do all of my typing with only one finger out of the ten that I possess. Yet I try to go beyond my problems and improve the world.

You say a thing that I have never heard before: That Pali and Sanskrit are one language with different pronounciations. This in contradicted by many sources, such as:

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/culture-miscellaneous/difference-between-sanskrit-and-pali/

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=3215.

Even if I be wrong in saying that Pali is a language in its own right, by acknowledging Pali as a valid register of Sanskrit but criticizing it for making me sound silly, you reveal your own bias. Do you criticize British people for using the term Aluminium v American Aluminum? Because according to your model of the difference between Pali and Sanskrit, the difference between Tipitaka and Tripitaka is that way.

I am aware that I am no Nagarjuna, Fotudeng, An Shigao, Bodhidharma, etc., in expounding upon the Buddhadharma/Buddhadhamma. But I am a Buddhist. I have the Three Jewels as my refuge, am bound by the Five Precepts, study the Tipitaka/Tripitaka when I have time, and also enjoy reading Buddhist scholarship such as that by Jan Nuttier. Buddhism infuses what non-Buddhists might call my soul. And so I identify as Buddhist, and when people make unjustified criticisms of Buddhism, I feel bound to correct them as best as I am able. I wonder where these grade school errors that I make are, and hope that they may be identified and corrected.

No less a sage than Nagarjuna said "Although these words of mine be poor, do not feel scorn; they teach the holy way." I am much inferior to Nagarjuna, but I try to teach the Buddhist way.

An Over-Educated Grunt

1/27/2017 09:12:37 am

Now, I'm just a dumb grunt, and raised Catholic to boot, which means according to you I'm a priori wrong and under the sway of demons, but where in your Eightfold Path is it specified that you have to beat those around you over the head with your beliefs while also non-stop criticizing theirs as, as I said, under the sway of demons? You want us to care about your religion beyond being at this point flat-out offensive? Set the example. You want to show how much better your religion is? Quit proselytizing. According to your own belief system my salvation is inevitable on a long enough timeline anyway so quit trying to sell something that you have made unattractive by your sales technique.

1/27/2017 10:21:30 am

You assume that I adhere to the Lotus Sutra when you say "According to your own belief system my salvation is inevitable on a long enough timeline anyway". But I am Theravada; I reject the Lotus Sutra. All must put in effort in order to achieve nirvana/nibanna.

There is more to Buddhism than the 8 fold path. The Tripitaka/Tipitaka includes many debates between the Buddha and followers of other religions who are presented as wrong. The Buddha even provides instruction to his followers about how to correct others in their false views.

How am I offending? I do not mean to offend.

1/27/2017 11:57:14 am

You really want a list?

Stop forcing your religion on me and anyone else who reads this blog.

Stop going on about how all faiths but yours are wrong but yours is right. Even yours can't be right because as you yourself keep bringing up, sectarian division is a thing even in Buddhism. If there are sects there's room for division of opinion, therefore no one right answer.

Stop telling people how their gods are demons but your guy is the way. What, you think nobody thought of asceticism and moderation before him?

Stop prattling about religious texts that exactly nobody here but you cares about enough to drag into a conversation.

Display some humility. Your response to my post was to correct me.

Stop assuming that we give a damn about Buddhism, that we want to know more, or that you're a credit to your faith. We don't automatically, we don't automatically, and you're so far from right action in your constant overweening belief that you need to proselytize to us that from where you stand it's red-shifting.

I honestly do not give a damn about your religion, I give a damn that you're making it look bad in public because all you are, as far as comments here show, is a Buddhist, and as a Buddhist you believe that we should all know you're a Buddhist, did we know you're a Buddhist, because you totally are a Buddhist, like, a serious Buddhist, did you mention you're a Buddhist? If I preceded every single comment with "from a military standpoint," "as an engineer," or "based on St. Thomas Aquinas," you would assume that's my entire personality. You've reached that point, that you've turned into Buddhist Gunn.

1/27/2017 01:42:10 pm

An Over-Educated Grunt,

I am aware that there are sects, yet the modern Buddhist view, to which I largely subscribe, is that the sects of Buddhism all teach different ways to achieve the same goal: nirvana/nibbana. The teachings are adjusted to differing levels and temperaments of audiences in order to help guide them upon the path.

I correct your errors about Buddhism because my Buddhist scriptures tell me to do so. In the same way, Christians will not offer homage to the Buddha Amitabha because of their scriptures.

You make 3 more errors that I feel bound to correct: Firstly, that I say that all theistic religions aside from Buddhism worship demons is not as insulting as it may seem. There is little, if any, distinction, within Buddhism between Gods and demons; there are even some traditions in English that use the term God-Demon to refer to the collective. One side's god is another side's demon. See, for example, the Asura/Ahura spirits of Indo-Iranian tradition. But all gods are bound within Samsara and cannot offer true escape from suffering.

Secondly, Buddhas are not gods. They transcend humanity, becoming teachers of gods and men. They are thus superior to gods.

Thirdly, there is more to Buddhism than moderation, etc. There is the teaching about the nature of suffering, there is the teaching about the origin of suffering. There is the teaching of how to end suffering. There are also Buddhist metaphysics, Buddhist phenomenology, etc. All of these things are united in helping all people to go beyond all bliss.

I use the name A Buddhist because I am A Buddhist. Creating another name might be lying or it might reveal personal information. Yet by choosing the name A Buddhist, I am honest in my naming and honest in my biases. In this way I differ from, e.g., At Risk the Fundamentalist Christian who does not reveal in his screen-name his biases.

1/27/2017 02:00:42 pm

You know, instead of depleted uranium, they could make anti-tank rounds out of you. You are THAT dense. Even when asking what exactly you've done that pissed people in general, and me specifically, off, rather than read it and ask whether any of it is accurate, you feel the need to correct. It's a wonder if you can see McCoy in the opening scene of Star Trek 2, because you're incapable of seeing DeForrest for the trees.

1/27/2017 02:21:12 pm

Over-Educated Gent:

I am aware that I am quite pedantic. I could not abide the Game of Thrones Adaptation because they cut a non-speaking role. But that is my Aspergers, I guess.

I am not denying the accuracy of your justifications for your anger; I am merely correcting errors that you make about Buddhism. I am actually very grateful for your feedback; it helps me to understand more about how other people think in the world. If more people were giving the type of feedback that you give me, then I would be having fewer times when I break down in tears because I do not understand why people do not respond in friendly ways to me. And I would be less afraid of trying to meet people.

1/28/2017 07:11:35 am

As someone else said to you specifically: "quit trying to sell something that you have made unattractive by your sales technique."

And once again you've played the Asperger's card. There is no syndrome, there is no spectrum, you have a behavior problem. I know more about everything than you do. You do not accept corrections. You need to stop, stop, stop. I'm not giving you special treatment just because you claim to be an Ass pie. Just shut the fuck up about Buddhism and behave like a normal human being.

"I try to teach the Buddhist way." Yet almost all of your posts are WRONG. You're not teaching ANYONE. Stop, stop, stop.

Tom

1/26/2017 11:48:13 am

Since every bizzare historical claim by Von Daniken has been refuted by those with the true expertise to judge sources his move into the wonderland of theology was not unexpected.
If he thinks he will find welcome there he is undoubtedly wrong as he will find it has its sharp toothed experts as well.

1/26/2017 12:52:29 pm

Those who write theological claims may find it easier to get their claims accepted. See, for example, the anti-evolutionist creation "science", or the willingness of Christians to publish long tomes defending the historicity of every aspect of Jesus's resurrection (except for the zombies in Jerusalem, but that attracted controversy).

Consider: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/november/interpretation-sparks-theology-debate.html

Jonathan

1/26/2017 12:43:55 pm

That was very well said, Jason, and well done to the magazine for including your perspectives.

1/26/2017 10:07:05 pm

Let me add my congratulations for getting some physical ink, sadly not enough.

DaveR

1/26/2017 01:07:24 pm

Jason,
I find it interesting that you're offered to interview fringe personalities and then not given the opportunity. It makes me wonder if the promoters are reaching out to critics/debunkers in the hopes nobody agrees to attend. This certainly gives the appearance that the promoters don't want any differing opinions presented, or as you put it, difficult questions being asked. It seams the promoters understand much of what the fringe personalities claim is not supported by facts and evidence and know that if given the opportunity people with education, experience, and expertise in the fields of history, archeology, anthropology, etc. would rip these guys apart in an interview. It would be great to actually have an open debate between fringe personalities and academic professionals.

Weatherwax

1/26/2017 02:47:48 pm

That's possible, but I suspect the producers are trying to drum up publicity without discussing it with the fringe personalities involved first. Once they tell von Däniken (or whoever) "we've arranged for you to debate Jason Colavito for some extra publicity", it quickly gets shot down.

Jason Colavito link

1/26/2017 03:01:02 pm

To be fair, they send out press releases to every journalist on their list with the same offer to arrange an interview. 90% of recipients ignore such releases, but I say yes to them. Then, typically, "talent" refuses to agree to an interview because they don't want to talk to me. It's usually not the PR firm's fault.

Mike Morgan

1/26/2017 04:40:30 pm

Or sometimes, the <cough> "talent" <cough>, is so fearful of you, that one refused to honor a commitment to speak before a college class, not because he didn't want to talk to you, but simply because you were going to appear before the same class a month or more later speaking on a completely different subject ala Scott Wolter. Now that's power!

1/27/2017 08:17:15 am

Jason,
So what I'm inferring by your experiences is when the fringe personalities claim nobody in academia will debate them, they're, meaning the fringe personalities, outright lying.

Only Me

1/26/2017 06:17:32 pm

Why is anyone still giving this fossil the time of day? I refuse to believe he still has relevance when so much of his "legacy" has been clearly debunked as the garbage it is.

Now, in regards to the interviews, I find it hilarious Jason is so threatening to the champions of the fringe. Truth really is their Kryptonite, isn't it?

Kilbuck

1/26/2017 09:10:48 pm

Jason- I have the episode of Codes and Conspiracies saved on my DVR about E Von D where you contributed. Whenever I need a little protection from the purveyors of sham and woo, i kick back, put it on and enjoy some critical thinking.

1/27/2017 09:33:45 am

Given how frustrated I know you get with the process, I would call this an overdue win.

Pop Goes The Reason

1/27/2017 12:08:50 pm

Good one Jason. It won't work, though, the world has decided to make do without reason and there's nowt we can do about it.

Bloody buddhists and that lot: (1) You can have non- repeating infinities, either single ended or double ended. The infinities you are most familiar with are of that sort. Hence there doesn't have to be a before, but there can be. (2) Buddhism is shite, just look at Sri Lanka and Burma, and Indonesia back in the 60s. Kill you as soon as look at you. And I know what the bugger is going to say: they aren't buddhists because they do that. No true buddhist- there's probably only one in the world, his truly. That of course isn't to say that individual buddhists are shite, but when they are decent it's not because they are buddhists, it's despite- just like all other people.

1/27/2017 12:23:14 pm

... The Ikko sect in Japan... hell, the popularity of Zen among the military class in Japan from the Sengoku period onward...

... Asoka and his campaigns to spread Buddhism at spearpoint...

... The commercialization of the Shaolin monastery...

Yep. Perfect nonviolence and renunciation of material things.

1/27/2017 02:12:47 pm

I am not claiming to be the only true Buddhist. Others who meditate are better at Buddhism than I am. I am indeed tormented by the knowledge that I cannot be a better Buddhist through meditation, missionary work (such as that done by Fotudeng in China), etc.

Nor do I deny that there are Buddhists who do horrible things. Yet their actions are in contradiction to the Buddhist Scriptures, which discourage violence. Finally, utter renunciation of material things in only for Buddhist monastics. Or should I be criticizing you as a Catholic for not having given up all of your wealth as Jesus told the rich man? Would you like citations for these?

Indonesia is over 80% Muslim, and Buddhists are a minority.
Would you like citation?

Ashoka gave up violence according to multiple sources, some of which he commissioned, others coming from other sources. He converted to Buddhism after being sickened by the violence of his war against the Kalingas. Would you like citation?

Finally, are you aware of the homophobic meaning of the insult "bugger?" Do you mean to insult me by claiming that I am homosexual/a sodomite?

1/27/2017 02:30:32 pm

"ndonesia is over 80% Muslim, and Buddhists are a minority. ". But buddhists joined in the massacres of communists in 1965. It's irrelevant that others did.

"their actions are in contradiction to the Buddhist Scriptures, which discourage violence" Like all the other religions. But when push comes to shove, out come the knives.

"should I be criticizing you as a Catholic " Criticise me as a catholic, a jew, a surrealist, a wart on Boris johnson's bum, whatever. I'm none of those.

"are you aware of the homophobic meaning of the insult "bugger?"" Yes. It's a legal term from some hundreds of years ago. It's now used generally as a term of mild disparagement, or an expleteive you can utter in the presence of your maiden aunt. Think yourself lucky I didn't use less mild terms. I can't stand smug bastards. And before you launch off again, I neither know nor care if your mother was married.

And smug seems to be your forte.

"Do you mean to insult me by claiming that I am homosexual/a sodomite" I would certainly not try to insult anyone by suggesting that they had a perfectly ordinary sexual orientation.

1/27/2017 06:26:20 pm

I am glad that you seem to be getting an understanding of how my mind works. I tend to be very literal in interpreting remarks. For example, I wonder why you call me smug, when I do not seem, as I see it, to be exuding an aura of satisfied superiority. Maybe such an aura is said to arise always in given circumstances.

I rather think that my forte is being a pedant. But that would not be an insult to me. Rather, to be pedantic is to be praiseworthy as I see it.

I am so glad that you are no longer a Catholic. That is a thing that we share in common :)

I have been so worried throughout all of these exchanges that I would lose my temper, but I have not. I must be doing something right. Maybe if I continue in whatever good I am doing, I can eliminate the aspects of my personality that others do not like.

I thank you very much for your advice to me. I wish that I could be more normal; if that were the case, I would not need such advice. But since I am not normal, the Buddha, Dharma/Dhamma, and Sangha are especially attractive to me.

If you will be so kind, I must cease this conversation in favour of studying.