On Jun 27, 9:29 am, plutonium.archime...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> The below concerns a Amazon website discussing the Dalai Lama book of
> "The Universe in a Single
> Atom"
"In" =/= "is".
> --- quoting Amazon website ---
> 4.0 out of 5 stars a wise and interesting opinion, May 9, 2008
> By Harry Pandolfino (York, PA USA) - See all my reviews
> (REAL NAME)
> This review is from: The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of
> Science and Spirituality (Paperback)
> My uncle sent me a review of this book and he recommended it and I
> have found the book rewarding. It is the first book of the Dalai
> Lama's that I have read. It is refre****ng in this era of parochial
> adherence to rigid dogmas that a spiritual man finds no conflict
> between science and religion. They are parallel roads to the truth. It
> is remarkable that the Dalai Lama says that where science is found to
> contradict Buddhist belief then science must stand and belief must be
> modified. It's certainly a rare opinion for the leader of a major
> faith. In interesting and thoughtful book
> Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
> Was this review helpful to you? YesNo YesNo
> Re****t this Re****t this | Permalink
> Comment Comment
>
> 2 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
> 3.0 out of 5 stars chicken or the egg, September 21, 2005
> By Matthew A. Lewis - See all my reviews
> (REAL NAME)
> Didn't Archimedes Plutonium publish on this in the early 1990s?
> I was disappointed that he wasn't cited as a source.
>
> --- end quoting Amazon website ---
>
> Thank you Mr. Lewis for trying to keep the record straight.
>
> I do not feel like confronting the Dalai Lama in the fact that he did
> not properly cite me for
> the Atom Totality Theory. Religious people do not have the scientific
> code of conduct in their
> everyday behaviour.
That's partly because he said nothing about any Atom Totality
Theory. He wrote "in" a single atom, not "is" a single atom.
> And I congratulate the Dalai Lama for perhaps being the first
> religious figure to embrace
> science, and thus probably the first religious figure to be "above"
> all other religious figures.
If you consider him to be a reincarnation of Siddartha Gautama AKA
Buddha, then yes.
Buddhism is not, properly speaking, a religion or even a "faith".
Buddha said (paraphrasing); There is misery in the world, it has
causes, here are some methods I've found for avoiding those causes so
you don't have to suffer the misery. Try them and see if they work for
you.
That was ~600 BC.
Since then other people have built a huge religio-social structure
around what he said, but at the core is the "test it and see" aspect
missing from "real" religions.
The same aspect missing from your so-called "theory".
> It would have been nice if the Dalai Lama had cited my work, since I
> obviously took precedence by about
> 10 years.
No. You're about 2600 years late.
> In a day and age and time where other religious figures are utterly
> out of step and tune with the realities
> of modern world such as the Pope wanting South Americans and others to
> never use contraception and
> fill the world with people even if it threatens the extinction of the
> human species. It is refre****ng to see
> that one religious figure -- the Dalai Lama -- has his mind favorably
> in the direction of science.
He always has.
> Am I upset that the Dalai Lama did not reference me and my work--
You have no right to be because there is no connection. But then,
since your "theory" includes goofiness about "god", you're obviously
about belief, not evidence.
> I think what drew the Dalai Lama into this book of Atom Totality
Now you're hallucinating.
> It would have been nice if the Dalai Lama had cited Archimedes
> Plutonium since the Atom Totality theory
> is what the title of the Dalai Lama's book is -- Universe in a single
> atom
No. "In" still =/= "is".
Mark L. Fergerson
|
