qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,587 | How to ask the position(?) of a president (like 10th) of a country, correctly? | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/4587",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/148/"
] | If I understand your question correctly, you mean position as in 9th, 10th, 11th etc. If so you could say:
>
> Was he the 10th president of the United States?
>
>
> | I would use this:
>
> At what number does Obama stand in the sequence of American
> Presidents?
>
>
>
Another option though not so good:
>
> What is Obama's serial number among the American Presidents?
>
>
> |
4,587 | How to ask the position(?) of a president (like 10th) of a country, correctly? | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/4587",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/148/"
] | You have your answer in the question itself!
>
> Which position is Obama at on the list of American Presidents?
>
>
>
And the answer is...
>
> He's 44th on the list of American Presidents.
>
>
> | A simple way to ask this kind of question and a way that many speakers do opt for, is with "How many".
**How many American presidents (did we have|were there|came) before Obama?**
-- He's the 44th president.
**How many people were ahead of you in the customer service phone queue?**
--I'm third in line.
**How many times has he been absent?**
--This is his fourth absence.
If you need more precision than that, then you're probably writing or speaking in a specialized domain where unwieldiness plays second-fiddle to precision:
**In which offset of the array was the string value found?**
**What is the item's position in the job queue?** |
4,587 | How to ask the position(?) of a president (like 10th) of a country, correctly? | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/4587",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/148/"
] | You have your answer in the question itself!
>
> Which position is Obama at on the list of American Presidents?
>
>
>
And the answer is...
>
> He's 44th on the list of American Presidents.
>
>
> | If I understand your question correctly, you mean position as in 9th, 10th, 11th etc. If so you could say:
>
> Was he the 10th president of the United States?
>
>
> |
4,587 | How to ask the position(?) of a president (like 10th) of a country, correctly? | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/4587",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/148/"
] | You have your answer in the question itself!
>
> Which position is Obama at on the list of American Presidents?
>
>
>
And the answer is...
>
> He's 44th on the list of American Presidents.
>
>
> | I would use this:
>
> At what number does Obama stand in the sequence of American
> Presidents?
>
>
>
Another option though not so good:
>
> What is Obama's serial number among the American Presidents?
>
>
> |
4,587 | How to ask the position(?) of a president (like 10th) of a country, correctly? | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/4587",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/148/"
] | I don't particularly like the way this sentence sounds, but I think it's the clearest way to ask your question without being over-elaborate:
>
> What number president was Taft?
>
>
>
So I suggest you say that. But since I don't really like the sound of it, I'll discuss a few other ways to say the same thing:
---
I like this sentence much better, but it's pretty ambiguous:
>
> Which president was Taft?
>
>
>
. . . so we could probably clarify it a bit. In informal speech, I might say the following:
>
> Which president was Taft, like the thirtieth? Thirty-first?
>
>
>
Less informally:
>
> Which president was Taft? For example, was he the thirtieth president?
>
>
>
Since I gave examples of answers, it's clear what I meant.
You can, of course, spell out exactly what you mean. I avoided doing so because it's difficult to do so *concisely*. We can write the following sentence, which is precise and acceptable:
>
> In the chronological sequence of Presidents of the United States, which position did Taft occupy?
>
>
>
. . . but it sounds unwieldy to me. | I think it can be asked in this way also.
>
> Where does Obama come among American presidents?
>
>
> |
4,587 | How to ask the position(?) of a president (like 10th) of a country, correctly? | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/4587",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/148/"
] | I don't particularly like the way this sentence sounds, but I think it's the clearest way to ask your question without being over-elaborate:
>
> What number president was Taft?
>
>
>
So I suggest you say that. But since I don't really like the sound of it, I'll discuss a few other ways to say the same thing:
---
I like this sentence much better, but it's pretty ambiguous:
>
> Which president was Taft?
>
>
>
. . . so we could probably clarify it a bit. In informal speech, I might say the following:
>
> Which president was Taft, like the thirtieth? Thirty-first?
>
>
>
Less informally:
>
> Which president was Taft? For example, was he the thirtieth president?
>
>
>
Since I gave examples of answers, it's clear what I meant.
You can, of course, spell out exactly what you mean. I avoided doing so because it's difficult to do so *concisely*. We can write the following sentence, which is precise and acceptable:
>
> In the chronological sequence of Presidents of the United States, which position did Taft occupy?
>
>
>
. . . but it sounds unwieldy to me. | A simple way to ask this kind of question and a way that many speakers do opt for, is with "How many".
**How many American presidents (did we have|were there|came) before Obama?**
-- He's the 44th president.
**How many people were ahead of you in the customer service phone queue?**
--I'm third in line.
**How many times has he been absent?**
--This is his fourth absence.
If you need more precision than that, then you're probably writing or speaking in a specialized domain where unwieldiness plays second-fiddle to precision:
**In which offset of the array was the string value found?**
**What is the item's position in the job queue?** |
4,587 | How to ask the position(?) of a president (like 10th) of a country, correctly? | 2013/03/27 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/4587",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/148/"
] | A simple way to ask this kind of question and a way that many speakers do opt for, is with "How many".
**How many American presidents (did we have|were there|came) before Obama?**
-- He's the 44th president.
**How many people were ahead of you in the customer service phone queue?**
--I'm third in line.
**How many times has he been absent?**
--This is his fourth absence.
If you need more precision than that, then you're probably writing or speaking in a specialized domain where unwieldiness plays second-fiddle to precision:
**In which offset of the array was the string value found?**
**What is the item's position in the job queue?** | I would use this:
>
> At what number does Obama stand in the sequence of American
> Presidents?
>
>
>
Another option though not so good:
>
> What is Obama's serial number among the American Presidents?
>
>
> |
410,777 | When installing linux must you always burn the ISO image to disc pior to installation? | 2012/04/10 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/410777",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/127503/"
] | Certainly not.
<https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation#Installation_without_a_CD> - Here is a list of alternate installation procedures for Ubuntu, with links to guides. | Burning an ISO image using [imgburn](http://www.imgburn.com/) on Windows or other alternative software is the recommended way of doing it. You can certainly install Linux from other media such as USB, PXE boot, or by loading the ISO from an existing harddrive partition. |
212,895 | From an hydrostatic point of view, the pressure in a fluid should be the same at the same depth/altitude.
Obviously, in our atmosphere that does not happen. I am guessing that the main reason is the fact that the atmosphere cannot be regarded as *hydrostatic*.
Is this the reason? How exactly can we explain these pressure differences?
I understand that a higher pressure region must have a higher density, and therefore it would take *time* for reducing such density gradient. But how fast is this? In the order of the speed of sound? Or it has nothing to do with it? | 2015/10/16 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212895",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/22285/"
] | The air moves in great swirls.
In places where the air is being warmed from below it moves up.
That causes air to be sucked in from below, and spread out at the top.
What it sees as the reason to be sucked in is a lower pressure pulling it.
When any fluid is pulled in to a center, its angular momentum is conserved (and it has plenty of that because it is spinning with the earth), so it spins faster.
(Coriolis force is another way to describe this.)
So, you have meteorological low pressure areas, where the air is spinning the same direction as the earth, only faster, and high pressure areas, which are the opposite.
So that's why you can see different pressures at sea level or any other altitude.
(By the way, a low atmospheric pressure at sea level causes the water itself to be pulled up, resulting in "storm surge".) | You asked a number of questions in this question.
>
> From a hydrostatic point of view, the pressure in a fluid should be the same at the same depth/altitude.
>
>
>
That "should be" assumes hydrostatic equilibrium. That is a simplifying assumption. It's a reasonable starting point, but it's not a hard and fast rule. The Earth's atmosphere, it's oceans, and even its interior are approximately in hydrostatic equilibrium.
>
> I am guessing that the main reason is the fact that the atmosphere cannot be regarded as hydrostatic. Is this the reason?
>
>
>
Significant deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium do occur. This is an effect, not a cause.
>
> How exactly can we explain these pressure differences?
>
>
>
Ultimately, it's because the Earth
* Is round,
* Is lit by the Sun,
* Rotates about its axis once per day,
* Has distinct rotational and orbital axes, separated by about 23 degrees,
* Has a fairly clear atmosphere, and
* Is covered by lots of liquid water.
These result in climate and weather, which in turn result in the Earth's atmosphere being only approximately in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Equatorial regions receive a lot more sunlight than do polar regions. The resulting temperature gradient is one of the key drivers of the climate. On Venus, which rotates slowly, this energy transfer occurs in a pair of Hadley cells that reach from the equator almost to the poles. On Titan, which rotates in about 16 days, the Hadley cells breaks up at about 60 degrees latitude. Jupiter and Saturn are so large and rotate so quickly that they have bands instead of Hadley-type cells.
On the Earth, which rotates once per day, the Hadley cells extend to only 30 degrees. Polar cells form around the poles, and the Ferrel cells act as intermediaries between the Hadley and Polar cells.
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/f/s/Figure-4-Global-cells(edit)2.jpg>
>
> But how fast is this? In the order of the speed of sound? Or it has nothing to do with it?
>
>
>
The speed of sound has nothing to do with it. Winds do, and winds generally move much slower than the speed of sound. The fastest winds recorded are inside tornados, and even there things only move at about 40% of the speed of sound. |
212,895 | From an hydrostatic point of view, the pressure in a fluid should be the same at the same depth/altitude.
Obviously, in our atmosphere that does not happen. I am guessing that the main reason is the fact that the atmosphere cannot be regarded as *hydrostatic*.
Is this the reason? How exactly can we explain these pressure differences?
I understand that a higher pressure region must have a higher density, and therefore it would take *time* for reducing such density gradient. But how fast is this? In the order of the speed of sound? Or it has nothing to do with it? | 2015/10/16 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212895",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/22285/"
] | The air moves in great swirls.
In places where the air is being warmed from below it moves up.
That causes air to be sucked in from below, and spread out at the top.
What it sees as the reason to be sucked in is a lower pressure pulling it.
When any fluid is pulled in to a center, its angular momentum is conserved (and it has plenty of that because it is spinning with the earth), so it spins faster.
(Coriolis force is another way to describe this.)
So, you have meteorological low pressure areas, where the air is spinning the same direction as the earth, only faster, and high pressure areas, which are the opposite.
So that's why you can see different pressures at sea level or any other altitude.
(By the way, a low atmospheric pressure at sea level causes the water itself to be pulled up, resulting in "storm surge".) | A very simplified explanation: because the temperature is not everywhere the same. Why is the temperature not uniform? There are various reasons, the most important reason for temperature and pressure differences at locations not too far from each other is that the ground below is not the same everywhere. Depending on whether it's a forest, a lake, a field, or rocks below you, the ground absorbs and reflects heat differently. The humidity will also be different, depending on what is on the surface.
This local variation in temperature leads to air getting warmer and rising up at one location, and getting colder and moving downward at another location, leading to pressure differences. Air then moves around to equalize these pressure differences, this is what we call "wind". |
212,895 | From an hydrostatic point of view, the pressure in a fluid should be the same at the same depth/altitude.
Obviously, in our atmosphere that does not happen. I am guessing that the main reason is the fact that the atmosphere cannot be regarded as *hydrostatic*.
Is this the reason? How exactly can we explain these pressure differences?
I understand that a higher pressure region must have a higher density, and therefore it would take *time* for reducing such density gradient. But how fast is this? In the order of the speed of sound? Or it has nothing to do with it? | 2015/10/16 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212895",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/22285/"
] | The air moves in great swirls.
In places where the air is being warmed from below it moves up.
That causes air to be sucked in from below, and spread out at the top.
What it sees as the reason to be sucked in is a lower pressure pulling it.
When any fluid is pulled in to a center, its angular momentum is conserved (and it has plenty of that because it is spinning with the earth), so it spins faster.
(Coriolis force is another way to describe this.)
So, you have meteorological low pressure areas, where the air is spinning the same direction as the earth, only faster, and high pressure areas, which are the opposite.
So that's why you can see different pressures at sea level or any other altitude.
(By the way, a low atmospheric pressure at sea level causes the water itself to be pulled up, resulting in "storm surge".) | Another example (in the question and not clarified by any response) of treating compressible and on-compressible fluids the same. Once they are separated the problem is simplified and for me at least sorts itself out. |
212,895 | From an hydrostatic point of view, the pressure in a fluid should be the same at the same depth/altitude.
Obviously, in our atmosphere that does not happen. I am guessing that the main reason is the fact that the atmosphere cannot be regarded as *hydrostatic*.
Is this the reason? How exactly can we explain these pressure differences?
I understand that a higher pressure region must have a higher density, and therefore it would take *time* for reducing such density gradient. But how fast is this? In the order of the speed of sound? Or it has nothing to do with it? | 2015/10/16 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212895",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/22285/"
] | You asked a number of questions in this question.
>
> From a hydrostatic point of view, the pressure in a fluid should be the same at the same depth/altitude.
>
>
>
That "should be" assumes hydrostatic equilibrium. That is a simplifying assumption. It's a reasonable starting point, but it's not a hard and fast rule. The Earth's atmosphere, it's oceans, and even its interior are approximately in hydrostatic equilibrium.
>
> I am guessing that the main reason is the fact that the atmosphere cannot be regarded as hydrostatic. Is this the reason?
>
>
>
Significant deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium do occur. This is an effect, not a cause.
>
> How exactly can we explain these pressure differences?
>
>
>
Ultimately, it's because the Earth
* Is round,
* Is lit by the Sun,
* Rotates about its axis once per day,
* Has distinct rotational and orbital axes, separated by about 23 degrees,
* Has a fairly clear atmosphere, and
* Is covered by lots of liquid water.
These result in climate and weather, which in turn result in the Earth's atmosphere being only approximately in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Equatorial regions receive a lot more sunlight than do polar regions. The resulting temperature gradient is one of the key drivers of the climate. On Venus, which rotates slowly, this energy transfer occurs in a pair of Hadley cells that reach from the equator almost to the poles. On Titan, which rotates in about 16 days, the Hadley cells breaks up at about 60 degrees latitude. Jupiter and Saturn are so large and rotate so quickly that they have bands instead of Hadley-type cells.
On the Earth, which rotates once per day, the Hadley cells extend to only 30 degrees. Polar cells form around the poles, and the Ferrel cells act as intermediaries between the Hadley and Polar cells.
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/f/s/Figure-4-Global-cells(edit)2.jpg>
>
> But how fast is this? In the order of the speed of sound? Or it has nothing to do with it?
>
>
>
The speed of sound has nothing to do with it. Winds do, and winds generally move much slower than the speed of sound. The fastest winds recorded are inside tornados, and even there things only move at about 40% of the speed of sound. | A very simplified explanation: because the temperature is not everywhere the same. Why is the temperature not uniform? There are various reasons, the most important reason for temperature and pressure differences at locations not too far from each other is that the ground below is not the same everywhere. Depending on whether it's a forest, a lake, a field, or rocks below you, the ground absorbs and reflects heat differently. The humidity will also be different, depending on what is on the surface.
This local variation in temperature leads to air getting warmer and rising up at one location, and getting colder and moving downward at another location, leading to pressure differences. Air then moves around to equalize these pressure differences, this is what we call "wind". |
212,895 | From an hydrostatic point of view, the pressure in a fluid should be the same at the same depth/altitude.
Obviously, in our atmosphere that does not happen. I am guessing that the main reason is the fact that the atmosphere cannot be regarded as *hydrostatic*.
Is this the reason? How exactly can we explain these pressure differences?
I understand that a higher pressure region must have a higher density, and therefore it would take *time* for reducing such density gradient. But how fast is this? In the order of the speed of sound? Or it has nothing to do with it? | 2015/10/16 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212895",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/22285/"
] | You asked a number of questions in this question.
>
> From a hydrostatic point of view, the pressure in a fluid should be the same at the same depth/altitude.
>
>
>
That "should be" assumes hydrostatic equilibrium. That is a simplifying assumption. It's a reasonable starting point, but it's not a hard and fast rule. The Earth's atmosphere, it's oceans, and even its interior are approximately in hydrostatic equilibrium.
>
> I am guessing that the main reason is the fact that the atmosphere cannot be regarded as hydrostatic. Is this the reason?
>
>
>
Significant deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium do occur. This is an effect, not a cause.
>
> How exactly can we explain these pressure differences?
>
>
>
Ultimately, it's because the Earth
* Is round,
* Is lit by the Sun,
* Rotates about its axis once per day,
* Has distinct rotational and orbital axes, separated by about 23 degrees,
* Has a fairly clear atmosphere, and
* Is covered by lots of liquid water.
These result in climate and weather, which in turn result in the Earth's atmosphere being only approximately in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Equatorial regions receive a lot more sunlight than do polar regions. The resulting temperature gradient is one of the key drivers of the climate. On Venus, which rotates slowly, this energy transfer occurs in a pair of Hadley cells that reach from the equator almost to the poles. On Titan, which rotates in about 16 days, the Hadley cells breaks up at about 60 degrees latitude. Jupiter and Saturn are so large and rotate so quickly that they have bands instead of Hadley-type cells.
On the Earth, which rotates once per day, the Hadley cells extend to only 30 degrees. Polar cells form around the poles, and the Ferrel cells act as intermediaries between the Hadley and Polar cells.
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/f/s/Figure-4-Global-cells(edit)2.jpg>
>
> But how fast is this? In the order of the speed of sound? Or it has nothing to do with it?
>
>
>
The speed of sound has nothing to do with it. Winds do, and winds generally move much slower than the speed of sound. The fastest winds recorded are inside tornados, and even there things only move at about 40% of the speed of sound. | Another example (in the question and not clarified by any response) of treating compressible and on-compressible fluids the same. Once they are separated the problem is simplified and for me at least sorts itself out. |
7,599,600 | I have a camera class that sets up two variables - a projection and a view matrix. I could either make these extern and include the header in anything I wanted to have access to the variables, or I could make a getter for them / pass references for these variables to anything that needed them. Is this simply a case of preference or are there real benefits to doing it a particular way? | 2011/09/29 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7599600",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/956689/"
] | A getter has the advantage of not letting external code write in your variable (eg a pointer array can't be incremented).
Otherwise, it's functionally the same, especially if it's for your own use. | It is more a question of encapsulation. If your camera class is the only holder of these two matrices, it would be wise to make them available via getters and not with public attributes.
This will, for example, allow you to subclass your camera and create other methods for your view and projection matrices. |
37,130,390 | Can't access PostgreSQL from outside of the server
I already have 2 instances of PostgreSQL database on my server, but they were configured not by me. Both databases are lunched as service on Windows Server. There is a column 'Log On As' where values for PostgreSQL services are 'Network Service'.
I created another instance of PostgreSQL and added it to the service via pg\_ctl.exe. Everything is exactly the same as other services have. One different is that value for 'Log On As' is set to '.\postgres'. If I change it to 'Network Service', then I recieve the next message in service startup:
>
> The "servicename" service on Local Computer started and then stopped. Some services stop automatically if they are not in use by other services or programs.
>
>
>
If it set to '.\postgres' or 'Local System' then database can be lunched and I can access it via pgAdmin (if it is on local server). But I can't access this database from outside of the server.
In postgresql.conf I only set listen\_addresses and port.
The problem might be in router, but I want to know that this 'Log On As' is not a root of the problem. | 2016/05/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/37130390",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4175247/"
] | The access from external IP should be allowed explicitly in pg\_hba.conf - <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/auth-pg-hba-conf.html> | My problem when I can't start PostgreSQL service with 'Network Service' as 'Log On As' was caused by lack of permissions to data folder for this user. I just added 'Network Service' in the Security tab with Full control permissions and this solved this small problem.
But the problems, when I can't access my database from outside of my server were caused by network settings. I configured my router and now everything works fine. |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | CSS3
====
What new things can be done in CSS3, etc. | Debugging UserScripts
=====================
UserScript usage is increasing and debugging them is a real challenge. |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | MonoTouch and Mono for Android
============================== | Practical cross-platform development
------------------------------------
Possible topics:
* Virtualization for testing, builds, development
* Licensing/copy protection across multiple platforms
* Continuous integration while building for multiple platforms
* Best practices and best tools (e.g. useful debugging and profiling tools for each platform)
* UI frameworks for cross platform development |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | Hadoop
======
[MapReduce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce), [HBase](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBase), [Cassandra](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cassandra), [HDFS](http://hadoop.apache.org/hdfs/), etc. How are they useful? When should they be used? | [Erlang](http://www.erlang.org/)
================================
Erlang's actor model is of particular interest, as are the constraint of immutable data and the error detection among processes. The ease of handling binary messages is a bonus. Though Scala also supplies the Actor model, it would be more motivating to learn about this high profile, battle tested solution. Erlang is used by many high profile companies, such as [Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook, T-Mobile, Motorola, and, of course, Ericsson](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1636455/where-is-erlang-used-and-why/1637137#1637137). |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | CoffeeScript
============
When I noticed that two of the smartest developers I knew were (independently) running around converting all of their existing, perfectly functional JavaScript to [CoffeeScript](http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/) I realized this was the Next Big Thing. | **CQRS and Event Sourcing**
See *[CQRS and Event Sourcing](http://cqrsinfo.com/documents/cqrs-and-event-sourcing-synergy/)* for more details. |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | **JavaScript 1.8.5+ (ECMAScript 5)
================================**
along with HTML5 | WPF
===
It's funny how almost no other answers here have touched the good old desktop app. Though it does seem like a dying breed this day and age, I think there's still a niche for that, and WPF brings a lot of potential to the interface side. It would be interesting to find out more about it. |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | Programming Best Practices
==========================
While a lot of folks on Stack Overflow are experienced developers, I'm sure there's quite a few who are newcomers to the field and are still learning. A good topic might be an overview of some industry best practices to make the event more open to newcomers, and to perhaps give folks still in school some insights into real world problems/solutions which they might not normally learn at school.
A quick list of things that spring to mind:
* SQL injection - What is it? Why is it bad? How to prevent it?
* Version control - Why you should use it, systems available, single vs distributed, etc.
* Internationalization - Unicode, why it's not as simple as it first seems, etc.
* Encryption - Why it's bad to roll your own, etc.
* Unit testing - Why it's important, how it helps, etc.
As the event is single track, the downside would be that it would be of little use for experienced programmers whom I imagine would make up a significant portion of the audience. | [Lift](http://liftweb.net/)
---------------------------
Scala web framework. |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | **Distributed cache (Memcached, AppFabric Cache), search (Lucene, Solr).** | **CQRS and Event Sourcing**
See *[CQRS and Event Sourcing](http://cqrsinfo.com/documents/cqrs-and-event-sourcing-synergy/)* for more details. |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | Coding on GPU's
===============
Choices, benefits, examples, etc. | GWT and WindowBuilder
---------------------
Google Web Toolkit can be used with or without Google's App Engine. It allows you to create the client-code in java that it underneath compiled into javascript.
WindowBuilder is a user interface builder tool that closely integrates with GWT, but also with desktop application level UI libraries like Swing and SWT. |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | PhoneGap
========
and other frameworks for developing mobile applications. | Windows Phone 7 Development
===========================
Possible topics:
* Silverlight
* XNA game development
* Service integration with [OAuth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth) |
88,052 | Here's a very brief summary of how [Stack Overflow DevDays](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com) 2011 will go down:
1. It'll be [two days long](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86663/devdays-2011-straw-poll-one-day-or-two).
2. It'll be sometime in September or October.
3. There will be FOUR independent, separate events to choose from in different cities: [London](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/london/), [Washington DC](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/washington-dc/), [San Francisco](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/san-francisco/), and [Sydney](http://devdays.stackoverflow.com/sydney/).
4. There will be a single track, so you never have to worry about choosing between two equally cool topics.
When we did DevDays 2009, the idea was to do some intensive, one hour programming tutorials on the kinds of topics that we thought a lot of programmers really wanted to learn, but didn't have a chance yet to use at work. Two years ago, the topics we tried to cover were jQuery, Python, iPhone development, ASP.NET MVC, Google App Engine, etc.
This year, we've got two days, so there'll be time for even more sessions. We'll also have time for deeper, more big-picture talks in between the tutorials.
What topics would you like to learn about at DevDays 2011? One topic per answer, please, and vote up all the ones you like.
**UPDATE (April 21st)** Thanks for all the feedback, ideas, and votes so far. Keep it coming! We are working on nailing down dates and venues. Soon, we will line up committees for each city responsible for lining up speakers and fleshing out the schedule: they'll use this input as guidance to set up an awesome program in each of the four venues.
In the meantime *if you have other questions about DevDays or other discussion, please ask it as a separate question tagged devdays-2011, don't just leave a random fly-by comment in the comments*. | 2011/04/19 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88052",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/4/"
] | Knockout js
===========
[Knockout js](http://knockoutjs.com/): Declarative bindings, automatic UI refresh, dependency tracking, templating. | **Right tool for the right job**
(I'm bringing Java in here since this is my day-to-day language but maybe this can be expanded to other languages/platforms)
This is a discussion around all the Java technologies and JVM languages really -- the idea behind it being to create a set of standard questions/answers one needs to answer before deciding which of the Java frameworks and languages to use when starting a project.
For instance:
* if quick prototyping is needed and it consists of a lot of front end screens -- should something like Grails be considered first?
* Groovy vs Scala vs Java -- when and where to use one versus the other?
* why choose Spring MVC over Struts -- and maybe performance hits recorded for each?
* should the throughput of data/transaction influence such a decision and if so how?
* "Standard" ways of scaling out applications with each of the above
I guess the list can grow quite a lot -- this is obviously just a first "go" at this... |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | Credit letters were used already by medieval bankers to avoid customers bringing around large amount of money.
They simply need to be made smaller, so that fairies can carry them around, but still human readable, so that humans can verify and accept them.
For small amounts the receiver can use a credit note which is then covered at the end of a time period. Not much different than what was common practice in small villages until few years ago, where most of the residents would tell the shop owner "write it down" and then pay the due the day they got their salary/pension. | Checks
======
Checks are not a new invention. There is evidence they existed [as early as 352 BCE](https://www.infoplease.com/business/consumer-resources/brief-history-checking), though they didn't catch on until the 1500s. With the pressure for fairy trading, checks have much more reason to catch on.
Smaller Banknotes
=================
Paper money is just fine if the money is simply resized to the size of a postage stamp. Fairies could easily carry them in a briefcase or backpack, but it's also not too small for humans to manage.
Favor Economy
=============
If your fairies are of the variety that always keeps their word and have built society around the mutual exchange of favors / deals, trading becomes a matter of exchanging goods for services and services for goods.
This would focus on the things that each race is good at. Fairies would be good at delivering messages and building intricate things like watches, rings, and magical trinkets while humans would be better for building structures and transporting goods. A human in need of message delivery might feed a fairy in exchange for that service while a fairy might offer to create an engagement ring for a human in exchange for that human building the fairy a new house. |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | **Proxies and Credit**
IMO There isn't a solution that will allow fairies to participate with currency directly. You don't define the technology level of the human society, so I'm going to jump to the conclusion it's mid-medieval castles-and-swords. That means money based on metal.
Now, unlike most fantasy stories, metal coinage was rarely as heavy as the stories portray. Stamping coins was a painful process, so coins tended to be small and thin. Because of that (and because of the fluctuating value, no complex economies back then!) people tended to cut the coins up to get smaller denominations (which is where "pieces of eight" came from, cutting the coins up into eight pieces) or they'd shave metal off the coin edges to "forge" new coins (you'd be surprised at all the phrases and idioms that generated, like using the word "nick" to describe stealing something and using the word "forgery" to describe counterfeiting).
But even if we're dealing with pieces of coins, those are still huge objects to a fairy, and objects of low value to boot.
**Proxies**
If the fairy market is valuable enough, I can believe that humans (for a reasonable fee, of course) would develop a career acting as financial proxies. Everything from being the dude who hauls around the coin purse to being the CPA of the fairy world. This would develop a whole bundle of laws and punishments to establish responsible trust (hah), but it's possible. The value of the fairy market is the key! If it's valuable enough, the government will establish licensing and suitable punishments ("Let's cut you into eight pieces, then!"). If it's not valuable, it's just a thieve's market.
**Credit**
Banks could be the foundation of the proxy system and could therefore develop a simple credit-based bearer-bond system for payment. I spent a couple of years in Finland where they have something called a "pankkisiirto." Think of it as a "counter check." Almost everything mundane (like rent) was paid by pankkisiirtot. Carrying this idea into the fairy world, merchants would have a stack of blank "counter checks" available. At the end of the transaction, they'd fill it out, everybody would sign it, and it would be turned into the bank for processing — not unlike the early credit card stamping machines (remember those? That'll date ya!). | The fact that fairies can fly means they can provide a very secure means of transporting money. Small squads or even large swarms of fairies would be able to transport large sums, and the speed of their travel means they can facilitate inter-bank settlement very quickly, compared to other creatures.
Additionally, they can have very tall shelves where they keep records and access the records very quickly. |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | **I don't think will be a problem at all**, if you consider how much money fairies are likely to earn and spend.
Assuming that precious metals are more valuable by weight than food. A fairy could buy more food than they can carry with as many coins as they can carry.
Terry Pratchett explores this a little bit in Feet of Clay; paraphrasing 'A dollar will buy a loaf of bread which will feed a human family for a day, the same loaf will feed a gnome family for a whole week.'
If you would allow the currency to be chopped into small pieces, the fairies would be happy with an eighth of a coin in payment for some service, and use it to buy a thimble-full of flour. | The fact that fairies can fly means they can provide a very secure means of transporting money. Small squads or even large swarms of fairies would be able to transport large sums, and the speed of their travel means they can facilitate inter-bank settlement very quickly, compared to other creatures.
Additionally, they can have very tall shelves where they keep records and access the records very quickly. |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | **For in-shop trading** where the fairy is selling her items from inside the shop, storing currency should not be an issue. Where fairy can have a simple box that the customer himself can operate to put money into and take back change, It basically works on the trust factor and self-help nature of the customer.
**For outside trading** with amount of cash exceeding banknotes or coins that a single fairy can carry, They have human handlers, just like accountants these days. These accountants do the heavy lifting, transactions, and whatever is required, while charging nominally, as a single accountant can serve multiple fairies.
A really rich boss fairy can afford to have a dedicated accountant for herself.
These accountants may also serve as points of contact when fairies need to spend the money on their utilities, or human shopkeepers may provide free of cost support for fairies as a special customer care service. | Frame challenge: Coins and notes are not standard methods of payment in medieval or early-renaissance societies.
Notes didn't even exist, not in the modern, fiat-money sense anyway.
Coins were in use, but only for storing value and for big transactions; they were just too expensive to produce to be available in the quantities needed for day-to-day quantities.
Instead, people would simply write up what was owed, and pay back either when the sum reached a level good enough for a coin, or (more usually) when reverse services or goods were rendered the owed amount would go down.
Owed amounts weren'd in fractions of coin but in units of actual produce, such as "John drank this many beers: ||| and ate this many meals: |" - and the tavern owner would make sure that he got paid before John would leave the village.
Everybody tracks what's owed by somebody else, disputes would be settled by the community - works for them, you need money only when trading with people you don't know.
Fairies would simply live in such a barter economy.
Now for fairies who are into "big money" (well, money at all), they would simply use the services of a bank. Or they would have a human accountant treasurer to carrying all the bulky weight around, or rather keep it safely locked most of the time.
Just like they would rely on helpers for shipping large amounts of material, or doing long-distance trading. If fairies are into such a thing; it all depends on whether fairies do have a knack for and interest in accumulating wealth - author's choice. |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | I can see a huge market for fairy (or human) merchants doing most of the buying and selling of human goods, which to them will be in bulk, and acting as an intermediary between the two groups. The fairies could mostly use their own currency among themselves or use a debt/credit system (which is what most people did in the real world anyway). Coin trading was used mostly for strangers. Use of tally sticks (debt tracking) persisted for hundreds or even thousands of years in many places.
These merchants could easily double as banks, storing coins, and issuing banknotes. In many ways, this is how real banks get started. If you are worried about the power imbalance the merchants will have to make them community-run shops/banks run by elected officials.
Your biggest issue is there is not much labor that fairies can do better than humans, those they can often involve an intermediary anyway, (pin maker, mapping, scouting, lighting, ect.) so direct trade is less of an issue. They will have to worry about company stores/scripts.
What would really happen in the long term is the coinage would adapt, just like it did when long-distance trade became common. Smaller lighter fractional coins will come into existence. | The fact that fairies can fly means they can provide a very secure means of transporting money. Small squads or even large swarms of fairies would be able to transport large sums, and the speed of their travel means they can facilitate inter-bank settlement very quickly, compared to other creatures.
Additionally, they can have very tall shelves where they keep records and access the records very quickly. |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | Checks
======
Checks are not a new invention. There is evidence they existed [as early as 352 BCE](https://www.infoplease.com/business/consumer-resources/brief-history-checking), though they didn't catch on until the 1500s. With the pressure for fairy trading, checks have much more reason to catch on.
Smaller Banknotes
=================
Paper money is just fine if the money is simply resized to the size of a postage stamp. Fairies could easily carry them in a briefcase or backpack, but it's also not too small for humans to manage.
Favor Economy
=============
If your fairies are of the variety that always keeps their word and have built society around the mutual exchange of favors / deals, trading becomes a matter of exchanging goods for services and services for goods.
This would focus on the things that each race is good at. Fairies would be good at delivering messages and building intricate things like watches, rings, and magical trinkets while humans would be better for building structures and transporting goods. A human in need of message delivery might feed a fairy in exchange for that service while a fairy might offer to create an engagement ring for a human in exchange for that human building the fairy a new house. | **I don't think will be a problem at all**, if you consider how much money fairies are likely to earn and spend.
Assuming that precious metals are more valuable by weight than food. A fairy could buy more food than they can carry with as many coins as they can carry.
Terry Pratchett explores this a little bit in Feet of Clay; paraphrasing 'A dollar will buy a loaf of bread which will feed a human family for a day, the same loaf will feed a gnome family for a whole week.'
If you would allow the currency to be chopped into small pieces, the fairies would be happy with an eighth of a coin in payment for some service, and use it to buy a thimble-full of flour. |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | **Proxies and Credit**
IMO There isn't a solution that will allow fairies to participate with currency directly. You don't define the technology level of the human society, so I'm going to jump to the conclusion it's mid-medieval castles-and-swords. That means money based on metal.
Now, unlike most fantasy stories, metal coinage was rarely as heavy as the stories portray. Stamping coins was a painful process, so coins tended to be small and thin. Because of that (and because of the fluctuating value, no complex economies back then!) people tended to cut the coins up to get smaller denominations (which is where "pieces of eight" came from, cutting the coins up into eight pieces) or they'd shave metal off the coin edges to "forge" new coins (you'd be surprised at all the phrases and idioms that generated, like using the word "nick" to describe stealing something and using the word "forgery" to describe counterfeiting).
But even if we're dealing with pieces of coins, those are still huge objects to a fairy, and objects of low value to boot.
**Proxies**
If the fairy market is valuable enough, I can believe that humans (for a reasonable fee, of course) would develop a career acting as financial proxies. Everything from being the dude who hauls around the coin purse to being the CPA of the fairy world. This would develop a whole bundle of laws and punishments to establish responsible trust (hah), but it's possible. The value of the fairy market is the key! If it's valuable enough, the government will establish licensing and suitable punishments ("Let's cut you into eight pieces, then!"). If it's not valuable, it's just a thieve's market.
**Credit**
Banks could be the foundation of the proxy system and could therefore develop a simple credit-based bearer-bond system for payment. I spent a couple of years in Finland where they have something called a "pankkisiirto." Think of it as a "counter check." Almost everything mundane (like rent) was paid by pankkisiirtot. Carrying this idea into the fairy world, merchants would have a stack of blank "counter checks" available. At the end of the transaction, they'd fill it out, everybody would sign it, and it would be turned into the bank for processing — not unlike the early credit card stamping machines (remember those? That'll date ya!). | Frame challenge: Coins and notes are not standard methods of payment in medieval or early-renaissance societies.
Notes didn't even exist, not in the modern, fiat-money sense anyway.
Coins were in use, but only for storing value and for big transactions; they were just too expensive to produce to be available in the quantities needed for day-to-day quantities.
Instead, people would simply write up what was owed, and pay back either when the sum reached a level good enough for a coin, or (more usually) when reverse services or goods were rendered the owed amount would go down.
Owed amounts weren'd in fractions of coin but in units of actual produce, such as "John drank this many beers: ||| and ate this many meals: |" - and the tavern owner would make sure that he got paid before John would leave the village.
Everybody tracks what's owed by somebody else, disputes would be settled by the community - works for them, you need money only when trading with people you don't know.
Fairies would simply live in such a barter economy.
Now for fairies who are into "big money" (well, money at all), they would simply use the services of a bank. Or they would have a human accountant treasurer to carrying all the bulky weight around, or rather keep it safely locked most of the time.
Just like they would rely on helpers for shipping large amounts of material, or doing long-distance trading. If fairies are into such a thing; it all depends on whether fairies do have a knack for and interest in accumulating wealth - author's choice. |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | **Two pegged (fiat) currencies.**
Everyone knows that a fairy dollar is just as good as a human dollar, except that one of them is hard to handle for humans and the other for fairies.
Businesses that need to handle large sums in both currencies just employ accountants/cashiers from both species.
Edit: depending on inter-species politics, it may as well be a single currency with coins/notes issued in two sizes.
It may as well (at some early point) not be a fiat currency. It will be just that fairies use mainly gold and humans use silver (way larger for the same value). | You have a fundamental economic mistake going on here:
"The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well."
You are basically mixing gold-backed currency with government-backed currency. Today we have government-backed currency. Which means that none of our currency - even the penny - is worth in precious metal value what it's face value us. But you are saying the coinage is "precious metals" that is the actual metal of the coin currency has value - while the banknote value of the paper the banknote is on is zero.
For currency to exist that has no actual value of the currency itself, you have to have a government around that will back it. This is why coins were used in ancient times - because for example the government of one city would have given zero value to the government of another city. You could, for example, take a wagonload of wheat to 1 city where it was worth maybe 1 gold coin, then take that coin to another city and buy maybe 2 wagonloads of wheat (because in that other city, wheat was more common) and then spend time going back and forth transporting wheat and amassing a large stack of gold coins. (and there were people that did just that)
But a scheme like that could not exist if you took a banknote in trade for the wagonload of wheat because when you got to the other city, the banknote would be worthless.
You have to either completely dispense with government-backed currency (which means coins and gems only) or dispense with gold-backed currency (coins where the value of the metal is equal to the value of the coin). If you mix the two you will have people melting down coins for the metal and thus destroying the economic system because they will be affecting the money supply.
If you go with gold backed currency then the fairies can carry precious gems pretty easily (small ones, obviously)
If you go with government-backed currency then that solves the problem because the "fairy government" will back whatever tiny banknote is printed that is easy for the fairies to carry so the merchant will happily accept it because at the end of the week he can take the thimble full of fairy banknotes to the fairy government and get it exchanged for "big people" banknotes.
In Fantasy stories people often like to dispense with the simple fact that currency is mainly tied to governments. Governments are annoying things to have around since they introduce politics and politics complicates a simplistic idea of Good and Evil. So you have lines like from Lord of the Rings where Barliman Butterbur compensates for stolen horses with "12 silver pennies" with zero mention of what government minted these pennies, where the silver came from, whether the pennies will be even of any value the moment they leave Bree, or if 12 silver pennies can buy the same number of horses anywhere else in Middle Earth (most likely, they can't) and are thus even a fair compensation at all.
In summary, the moment you said "established currency system" you are bringing in a whole set of things you are not considering that makes the problem you think exists, not exist at all. Any sort of established currency system will be only on ONE standard - gold or government - and either of those can easily handle this problem. You just need to pick which one it is. |
184,421 | Fairies are small winged humanoids, about 10 cm in height at most. They can proportionally carry more than a human, but not much in absolute terms. Previously, fairies have lives in their own smaller, separate societies away from humans and have had no need for money.
Now, humans have begun settling in fairy lands. There hasn't been much conflict, instead the fairies have begun integrating themselves in the human towns and villages. They live partially in their own little enclaves that provide for their own, but there is also economic activity between species Which is increasing over time. Fairies are realizing that humans can easily provide large (for them) amounts of food and other bulk goods and humans realize fairies are good at many types of fine craft and detail work while requiring less pay.
Humans have an established currency system with coins and banknotes, all made of a size to fit in and be handled by human hands. Most humans, especially common traders, prefer all payment to be given and received in this currency as it is stable and widely accepted. For a fairy however, it is simply impractical to handle. The coins contain precious metals and weigh too much to carry more than a few, and the banknotes, while lighter, are big and unwieldy and don't handle folding too well.
How will this be solved? The tech level is late medieval/early renaissance, and while magic exists it is rare and not available to most people. The fairies can use innate magic for flight and simple illusions and not much else. | 2020/08/26 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/184421",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/20953/"
] | I can see a huge market for fairy (or human) merchants doing most of the buying and selling of human goods, which to them will be in bulk, and acting as an intermediary between the two groups. The fairies could mostly use their own currency among themselves or use a debt/credit system (which is what most people did in the real world anyway). Coin trading was used mostly for strangers. Use of tally sticks (debt tracking) persisted for hundreds or even thousands of years in many places.
These merchants could easily double as banks, storing coins, and issuing banknotes. In many ways, this is how real banks get started. If you are worried about the power imbalance the merchants will have to make them community-run shops/banks run by elected officials.
Your biggest issue is there is not much labor that fairies can do better than humans, those they can often involve an intermediary anyway, (pin maker, mapping, scouting, lighting, ect.) so direct trade is less of an issue. They will have to worry about company stores/scripts.
What would really happen in the long term is the coinage would adapt, just like it did when long-distance trade became common. Smaller lighter fractional coins will come into existence. | They may prefer the stable and widely accepted currency, but any merchant who insists on it when it's impractical for customers is simply going to be cut out of the loop. Losing customers because you don't like their money is a good way to go out of business.
It is possible that there are fairy middlemen, if only because what is a retail sale to a merchant may be a bulk purchase to a fairy. (There are stores in Africa where traders come in, buy boxes of matches or bottles of perfume, and then go out and sell the matches in bundles of three or perfume by the drop, and that's with humans on both sides.) But it is likely that at least some human merchants will want in on the fairy retail side.
Also, fairy-side solutions, if onerous or requiring a long-term investment from the fairy, are something that a merchant can work with to get his cut.
One simple one is running tabs. A merchant may perhaps secure fairy magic to ensure that fairies settle up in the long run, but a regular customer can order the goods and then pay up either on a regular schedule, or have the merchant send someone to collect the purchase price from the fairy's home. (There would, of course, be a surcharge if the merchant is usually cash and carry. However, many stores ran tabs in that era, and for humans.)
Another one is developing a fairy-scaled currency. The merchants, being fewer and dealing with more money, have an advantage here over the individual fairies. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | This line from Kevin sums up the clear lack of a motive for Kevin’s actions throughout the film (and the book). The book and film is based around the nature/nurture debate - did Kevin grow into a murderer or was he a psycho from the get go? Ultimately it is left to the reader to decide.
It would be a relief to get some kind of resolution at the end of the film but no resolution is allowed. We (the viewer) will have to live with the horror, confusion and unanswered questions the same way Eva does and those affected by his terrible actions. | I think his answer has to do with the change in his mother, earlier in the movie when she is visiting him they talk about the scar on his arm and he says it's the only honest thing you ever did.
He seemed to always be trying to get a reaction out of her. He knew that she resented him she even said it to him as a child I could be in France right now instead she is with him.
I always felt like he was trying to get her to admit that she hated him and her resentment towards him cause him to resent her to the point he wanted to make him suffer. But after he murders all those people and even when she is suffering the way he wanted, she still came to see him all the time.
He gave her the chance for her to truly show her hatred towards him but she didn't and I think that's what made him question his reason for doing it. Also I think it was his last test to see if she would finally say it but instead she hugs him. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | This line from Kevin sums up the clear lack of a motive for Kevin’s actions throughout the film (and the book). The book and film is based around the nature/nurture debate - did Kevin grow into a murderer or was he a psycho from the get go? Ultimately it is left to the reader to decide.
It would be a relief to get some kind of resolution at the end of the film but no resolution is allowed. We (the viewer) will have to live with the horror, confusion and unanswered questions the same way Eva does and those affected by his terrible actions. | Kevin hated his middleclass privilege, his mothers bourgeoisie attitude, the tedium of having whatever wants. He wanted a hard life. But at the end the film he bears the physical and mental scars of his time in juvenile prison and is facing the prospect of being moved into adult prison - he is afraid but this is the closest he can come to saying he regrets his actions. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | This line from Kevin sums up the clear lack of a motive for Kevin’s actions throughout the film (and the book). The book and film is based around the nature/nurture debate - did Kevin grow into a murderer or was he a psycho from the get go? Ultimately it is left to the reader to decide.
It would be a relief to get some kind of resolution at the end of the film but no resolution is allowed. We (the viewer) will have to live with the horror, confusion and unanswered questions the same way Eva does and those affected by his terrible actions. | I have just a simple understanding of this line.
Kevin throughout the film makes numerous sadistic attempts to provoke Eva into displaying behavior unbecoming of a parent (or even a human being). But in the end, whatever teeming hatred he has for his mother is tempered by the realization that she continues to love him... despite the carnage he's wreaked on her life and the lives of others. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | This line from Kevin sums up the clear lack of a motive for Kevin’s actions throughout the film (and the book). The book and film is based around the nature/nurture debate - did Kevin grow into a murderer or was he a psycho from the get go? Ultimately it is left to the reader to decide.
It would be a relief to get some kind of resolution at the end of the film but no resolution is allowed. We (the viewer) will have to live with the horror, confusion and unanswered questions the same way Eva does and those affected by his terrible actions. | I loved this line, and his mother did too. It was the first time we see him drop the façade of smug superiority and allow himself to be something like vulnerable. Instead of his usual wry, cynical, and ultimately meaningless pseudo-worldly pronouncements, he expresses perhaps the only thing that could have truly reached his mother - the fact that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
It is almost like he's forgiving her and letting her in. He stops punishing her for her flaws, and gives her a small part of himself. It’s about the most honest thing he could say. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | I think his answer has to do with the change in his mother, earlier in the movie when she is visiting him they talk about the scar on his arm and he says it's the only honest thing you ever did.
He seemed to always be trying to get a reaction out of her. He knew that she resented him she even said it to him as a child I could be in France right now instead she is with him.
I always felt like he was trying to get her to admit that she hated him and her resentment towards him cause him to resent her to the point he wanted to make him suffer. But after he murders all those people and even when she is suffering the way he wanted, she still came to see him all the time.
He gave her the chance for her to truly show her hatred towards him but she didn't and I think that's what made him question his reason for doing it. Also I think it was his last test to see if she would finally say it but instead she hugs him. | Kevin hated his middleclass privilege, his mothers bourgeoisie attitude, the tedium of having whatever wants. He wanted a hard life. But at the end the film he bears the physical and mental scars of his time in juvenile prison and is facing the prospect of being moved into adult prison - he is afraid but this is the closest he can come to saying he regrets his actions. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | I think his answer has to do with the change in his mother, earlier in the movie when she is visiting him they talk about the scar on his arm and he says it's the only honest thing you ever did.
He seemed to always be trying to get a reaction out of her. He knew that she resented him she even said it to him as a child I could be in France right now instead she is with him.
I always felt like he was trying to get her to admit that she hated him and her resentment towards him cause him to resent her to the point he wanted to make him suffer. But after he murders all those people and even when she is suffering the way he wanted, she still came to see him all the time.
He gave her the chance for her to truly show her hatred towards him but she didn't and I think that's what made him question his reason for doing it. Also I think it was his last test to see if she would finally say it but instead she hugs him. | I have just a simple understanding of this line.
Kevin throughout the film makes numerous sadistic attempts to provoke Eva into displaying behavior unbecoming of a parent (or even a human being). But in the end, whatever teeming hatred he has for his mother is tempered by the realization that she continues to love him... despite the carnage he's wreaked on her life and the lives of others. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | I think his answer has to do with the change in his mother, earlier in the movie when she is visiting him they talk about the scar on his arm and he says it's the only honest thing you ever did.
He seemed to always be trying to get a reaction out of her. He knew that she resented him she even said it to him as a child I could be in France right now instead she is with him.
I always felt like he was trying to get her to admit that she hated him and her resentment towards him cause him to resent her to the point he wanted to make him suffer. But after he murders all those people and even when she is suffering the way he wanted, she still came to see him all the time.
He gave her the chance for her to truly show her hatred towards him but she didn't and I think that's what made him question his reason for doing it. Also I think it was his last test to see if she would finally say it but instead she hugs him. | I loved this line, and his mother did too. It was the first time we see him drop the façade of smug superiority and allow himself to be something like vulnerable. Instead of his usual wry, cynical, and ultimately meaningless pseudo-worldly pronouncements, he expresses perhaps the only thing that could have truly reached his mother - the fact that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
It is almost like he's forgiving her and letting her in. He stops punishing her for her flaws, and gives her a small part of himself. It’s about the most honest thing he could say. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | Kevin hated his middleclass privilege, his mothers bourgeoisie attitude, the tedium of having whatever wants. He wanted a hard life. But at the end the film he bears the physical and mental scars of his time in juvenile prison and is facing the prospect of being moved into adult prison - he is afraid but this is the closest he can come to saying he regrets his actions. | I have just a simple understanding of this line.
Kevin throughout the film makes numerous sadistic attempts to provoke Eva into displaying behavior unbecoming of a parent (or even a human being). But in the end, whatever teeming hatred he has for his mother is tempered by the realization that she continues to love him... despite the carnage he's wreaked on her life and the lives of others. |
46,286 | At the end of ["We Need to Talk About Kevin" (2011)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need_to_Talk_About_Kevin), Kevin's mother tells him she wants to know why he did what he did.
He responds:
>
> I used to think I knew. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>
>
What is the purpose of this line? It feels like it is meant to have some broader significance to the story beyond its surface value.
The scene can be seen here starting at about [8:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z86CUVfFhE&t=526) | 2016/01/15 | [
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/46286",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com",
"https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/22993/"
] | I loved this line, and his mother did too. It was the first time we see him drop the façade of smug superiority and allow himself to be something like vulnerable. Instead of his usual wry, cynical, and ultimately meaningless pseudo-worldly pronouncements, he expresses perhaps the only thing that could have truly reached his mother - the fact that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
It is almost like he's forgiving her and letting her in. He stops punishing her for her flaws, and gives her a small part of himself. It’s about the most honest thing he could say. | I have just a simple understanding of this line.
Kevin throughout the film makes numerous sadistic attempts to provoke Eva into displaying behavior unbecoming of a parent (or even a human being). But in the end, whatever teeming hatred he has for his mother is tempered by the realization that she continues to love him... despite the carnage he's wreaked on her life and the lives of others. |
134,812 | There are existing users who login with their email or social accounts. How will existing users login if we get rid of social and email login? | 2020/09/24 | [
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/134812",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com",
"https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/107604/"
] | [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SXqfI.png)
As Nash says it is better for legacy users that you let them login with their old method but if you cant.
1. You should invite your existing users to migrate to new form of login.
2. Explain them why the change.
3. Ask them to migrate their user.
4. Notify them the confirmation of the new way for login.
But as I say. The better is to let the two ways available. | Your options are:
1. **Keep email and social login option for legacy users:** Don't allow them for new users, though.
2. **Notify old users via email or in the application of the migration:** Tell the users that they need to change their login method until day X (This is also what a lot of banks have to do if they requirements for login change). |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | If we want to eradicate or remove something first we should know and aware about the thing that we wanted to eradicate.
Similarly, Lord buddha taught us to remove or eradicate Sorrow, sadness, stress, whatever the things bring uncomfort bad feelings and keep us happy forever. For that we need to know what are the things that brings us unhappiness or sorrowfulness or mental and physical stress. In Buddhism we called them in One word "Dukkha".
Not only that he understood through his Omniscience wisdom that people have continuous travelling all over the 31 levels [4 Hells, 6 Heavens, Earth, 20 Brahma lokas] due to their own actions called "karma". This journey is called "Samsara". Also, he told us most of the time we were in hells due to bad actions and very rare that we spend our samsara journey as human or Deve or Brahma. This is the kind of Dukka we called "Jathi". Rebirth happening but we did not know of those feelings in this life. Because of that again and again we are doing bad karma which creates our next birth most probably in hell.
That is why he just wanted to stop traveling of this journey and be free forever.
In Buddhism what we experiencing now as "Dukka" little differ than the dukkha we know normally. This is the real explanation of Dukkha.
1. Birth is dukkha,
2. Aging is dukkha,
3. Death is dukkha;
4. Sorrow,
5. Lamentation,
6. Pain,
7. Grief,
8. Despair are dukkhas
9. Association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
10. Separation from the loved is dukkha
11. Not getting what is wanted is dukkha.
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
Buddha taught us to how can we overcome this agony and free for ever from this Dukkha.
For that he recommend us Four Noble truth with Eight fold Path.
Four Noble Truths are:
1. The Noble Truth of Suffering
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
4. The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering
If we take an example:
We can experience these truths, which lie at the heart of the Buddha’s teachings, through direct experience. They can be viewed as:
1. Diagnosis of an illness
2. Prognosis
3. Recovery
4. Medicine to cure the disease.
The first 2 truths deal with the way things are; the last 2 point the way to freedom from suffering.
5. The Noble Truth of Suffering
Besides “suffering,” other translations of the Pali word dukkha include unsatisfactoriness, dis-ease, and instability. All these words point to the fact that no conditioned phenomenon can provide true (lasting) happiness in our lives. The first step in a spiritual life is to look very closely and honestly at our experience of life and see that there is suffering. We tend to overlook or ignore or just blindly react to the unpleasant, so it continually haunts us. Yet although physical suffering is a natural aspect of our lives, we can learn to transcend mental suffering.
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.” The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering.
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
The mind can be purified of all the mental defilements that cause suffering. Nibbana, the ultimate peace, has been compared to the extinction of a three-fold fire of lust, ill-will, and delusion. One who has realised cessation has great purity of heart, ocean-like compassion, and penetrating wisdom.
4. The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering
The Way leading to cessation contains a thorough and profound training of body, speech, and mind. Traditionally it’s outlined as the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Understanding;
2. Right Intention;
3. Right Speech;
4. Right Action;
5. Right Livelihood;
6. Right Effort;
7. Right Mindfulness; and
8. Right Concentration.
On the level of morality (sila), the Path entails restraint and care in speech, action, and livelihood.
The concentration (samadhi) level requires constant effort to abandon the unwholesome and develop the wholesome, to increase mindfulness and clear comprehension of the mind-body process, and to develop mental calm and stability.
The wisdom (panna) level entails the abandonment of thoughts of sensuality, ill will, and cruelty; ultimately it penetrates the true nature of phenomena to see impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and impersonality.
When all 8 factors of the Path come together in harmony to the point of maturity, suffering is transcended. In summary, the Four Noble Truths can be thought of as that which is to be (1) comprehended, (2) abandoned, (3) realized, and (4) developed.
This is the clear precise way to Nibbana. All other context in Buddhism within this and explaining various ways to attain Nibbana. In other words for practising eight fold path Lord buddha taught us 40 activities we called them 4 meditation principles called :Sama Sathalis Karmasthana". All Suttra's were the one's Buddha preached different People, Deva[Gods], Brahma[Supreme Gods], Bhikku[Monks] and etc.to achieved Nibbana.
You can refer these below links to learn more:
1. [A path to Freedom](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html)
2. [A theravada Library](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/index.html)
3. [The Great Higher Buddhism - Abhidhamma](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html)
4. [The Forty Classic Meditation Objects](https://www.dhammatalks.net/samahita/40_Classic_Meditation_Objects.htm)
May you be able to find the way to attain Nibbana!!!
May Triple Gem Bless you!!! | TL;DR
=====
Denying rebirth-of-self view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth-of-self view after discarding self view is the noble right view. Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
Please also see [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34206/471).
Long answer
===========
Denying rebirth-of-self, while clinging to self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism. This is also the view of annihilationism.
>
> And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,
> nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
> actions. There is no this world, **no next world**, no mother, no father,
> no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
> faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
> after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
> wrong view.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
Holding on to the rebirth-of-self, while clinging to the fetter of self view, is a right view with effluents/ taints.
>
> "And what is the right view **with effluents**, siding with merit,
> resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
> what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
> There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
> are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
> who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
> next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
> is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
> acquisitions.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
Why is this the case? This is because siding with merit, one could use this as skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)), a helpful tool, to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation.
The Buddha is the doctor ([Iti 100](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html#iti-100)) who treats the illness which is suffering (*dukkha*). This is a medicine that he has prescribed.
>
> “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
> householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
> my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
> relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
> good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
> and mind. **But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
> is either completely abandoned or diminished**. It is for the sake of
> this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
> should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
> kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
> resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
> .....
>
>
> “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
> owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
> origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
> the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
> that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
> their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
> kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
> whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ **As he often reflects on
> this theme, the path is generated.** He pursues this path, develops it,
> and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
> and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
>
> [AN 5.57](https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
Once self-view is discarded, rebirth-of-self view will also be discarded. This is the noble Right View.
>
> "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
> transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
> discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
> factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
> the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
> who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
> is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
How do we know that rebirth-of-self view will be discarded? This is the higher teaching for those who have understood anatta, as taught in [MN 38](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi) and [SN 22.85](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi).
Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
>
> “Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after
> paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked
> him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen
> in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is
> this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of
> rebirths, not another’?”
>
>
> “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
> Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
> through the round of rebirths, not another.”
>
>
> “What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
>
>
> “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
> and there the result of good and bad actions.”
>
>
> “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
> that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
> to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
> origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
> misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
> up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
> long time.”
>
> [MN 38](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
>
> “But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
> actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
> understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
> taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
> the body and does not exist after death’?”
>
>
> “Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
> pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
> Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
> made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
>
>
> “If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
> bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
> him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
> would you answer?”
>
>
> “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
> form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
> suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
> Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
> impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
> away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
>
> [SN 22.85](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
>
> Why now do you assume 'a being'?
>
> Mara, have you grasped a view?
>
> This is a heap of sheer constructions:
>
> Here no being is found.
>
>
> Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
>
> The word 'chariot' is used,
>
> So, when the aggregates are present,
>
> There's the convention 'a being.'
>
>
> It's only suffering that comes to be,
>
> Suffering that stands and falls away.
>
> Nothing but suffering comes to be,
>
> Nothing but suffering ceases.
>
> [SN 5.10](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html)
>
>
>
>
> "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
> seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
> heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
> the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
> yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
> seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
> reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
> cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
> there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
> there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
> two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering)."
>
> [Ud 1.10](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html)
>
>
>
I think this is excellent because it finally tells us what rebirth really is in Buddhism. It's not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)), a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth. |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | Karma (by its nature) is cyclic and repetitive. Think of it like waves: the momentum of a crest creates a fall and produces a trough; the momentum of a trough creates a rise and produces a crest. Is it the same crest?
Hmph.
The eponymous self is a collection of forms — physical forms, emotional forms, mental forms — and these forms all have their own momentum. At any given moment they might seem like something solid and immutable, but that's just a trick of the thinking mind, the way we see a wave roll across the ocean without considering that the water barely moves at all. So if all the forms of this eponymous self fall apart and come together again, what is that? A body breathes in and a body breathes out; is it the same body? A self goes to sleep at night and a self wakes in the morning; is it the same self?
Again, hmph.
We think too much about existences and not enough about momentums. What cycles are producing us? What are we setting in motion? What will be reproduced in our wake? Liberation is all about momentum: about seeing it and guiding it and stilling it. | On the issue of rebirth:
The Buddha taught causality, especially the causality of mental processes. He used inchoate verbs to point to key areas in the causal process: verbs like becoming and birth. He pointed to beginnings because that’s where we can have some influence and control—ending and death are less cooperative. Endings are useful only as a way to measure skill.
Beginning and birth, ending and death, are simply points in causal processes that we are able to focus our attention on. Everything is inconstant. Continuity is a delusion. Rebirth is an incoherent concept.
One noted teacher says the Buddha didn’t use the word “rebirth”, he said, “further becoming” (unskillfulness causing more becoming). Maybe that was the Buddha's way of sidestepping any discussion of the afterlife, something his [Handful of Leaves](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_31.html) teaching seems to imply he wouldn't have tried to teach (or disprove). |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | **Am I missing something?**
Maybe not.
When I first encountered this site I asked a question fairly similar to yours, about rebirth -- [Is rebirth a delusional belief?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3420/254)
The POV of your question is that maybe the Buddha wasn't into the notion; mine was, that maybe Westerners don't understand it, or perhaps that Buddhists understand it to be "a parable for simple village folks" (you might like to read the answers there).
One of the suttas that I think of as characterizing the Buddha's attitude is, [Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet (MN 60)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html). The Translator's Introduction there says,
>
> If one practices the Dhamma, one leads a blameless life in the here-and-now. Even if the afterlife and karmic results do not exist, one has not lost the wager, for the blamelessness of one's life is a reward in and of itself. If there is an afterlife with karmic results, then one has won a double reward: the blamelessness of one's life here and now, and the good rewards of one's actions in the afterlife.
>
>
>
I've seen people on this site warn that a consequence of NOT believing in rebirth is that you/people might misbehave, thinking there's no consequence in the hereafter.
My personal view is that it's wrong or unsafe to deny Buddhist doctrine. Given that some people -- translators who have studied the suttas more thoroughly than I have -- say that it's undeniable that the Buddha taught rebirth, so I wouldn't want to say, "I disbelieve". I think that "disbelief" would be adopting a specific "view" -- which, may itself be a mistake given that there are warnings against grasping views, especially incorrectly.
Still I've seen various interpretations of it, e.g. that "rebirth" happens moment-to-moment; or that it refers to the arising of self-view.
I guess I don't think about it (i.e. the doctrine of rebirth) often; and when I do it seems to have the colour taken out of it when you consider what it means in the light of there being no self-view.
I agree it might have sometimes palliative appeal: which doesn't necessarily even make it factually wrong, e.g. when someone dying says "I will be reborn", meaning as someone/something different -- or referring to a dearly-departed loved one, "he or she will be reborn" -- then I'm not going to say they're wrong (only that the "I" seems to be slippery, situational, or not necessarily personal).
I agree it seems to have social consequences in Hinduism; and its telling Arjuna to kill is something I consider anathema, from a Buddhist context. There may be a "positive" side to that same coin though, for example I've heard a Brahmin say that as a Brahmin it's her duty to be educated -- she worked as a chemist or a doctor or something -- and to understand things like history and so on.
I'm not sure of your saying, incidentally, that the godless Buddhists were exterminated by the caliphs. I posted a different theory [here](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/37575/2703) (on another site), saying that Buddhism 'died out' more gradually and for economic reasons i.e. that they were no longer being supported by the laity.
Without wanting to be dismissive of it (the doctrine of rebirth) I agree it doesn't seem to be to be among the first or core teaching, e.g. from among the first three suttas (i.e. the wheel-turning, fire, and not-self suttas). I suspect people asked the Bhagavā about everything and every belief under the sun, including rebirth, let's just assume he had an enlightened view of that topic. And I think he wasn't entirely dismissive of it. So far as I know it remains a feature of mainstream Theravada, implicit in terms like "once-returner".
---
One more thing: I get the impression from the suttas that the fact of rebirth is meant to be seen (or was seen), not as "palliative" i.e. a comfort, but more like some threat or curse -- e.g. "birth is suffering, death is suffering" from the First Noble Truth. And therefore, escaping samsara (or "the round of rebirth") is a meant to be a powerful motive for practice.
However this (i.e. that rebirth is undesirable) might not be the commonly-held view of the [common worldling or uneducated person](https://suttacentral.net/define/puthujjana).
Still I think that's canonically another reason why rebirth (and believing in rebirth) matters -- i.e. the recollection of death (and rebirth) should occasion some sense of urgency instead of complacency (is that known as "hair on fire" in Zen?) or [Saṃvega](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83vega) in Pali; and dispassion or disenchantment (Pali [nibbidā](https://suttacentral.net/define/nibbid%C4%81) as mentioned in the [Assusutta: Tears (SN 15.3)](https://suttacentral.net/sn15.3/en/sujato). | TL;DR
=====
Denying rebirth-of-self view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth-of-self view after discarding self view is the noble right view. Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
Please also see [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34206/471).
Long answer
===========
Denying rebirth-of-self, while clinging to self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism. This is also the view of annihilationism.
>
> And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,
> nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
> actions. There is no this world, **no next world**, no mother, no father,
> no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
> faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
> after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
> wrong view.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
Holding on to the rebirth-of-self, while clinging to the fetter of self view, is a right view with effluents/ taints.
>
> "And what is the right view **with effluents**, siding with merit,
> resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
> what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
> There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
> are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
> who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
> next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
> is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
> acquisitions.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
Why is this the case? This is because siding with merit, one could use this as skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)), a helpful tool, to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation.
The Buddha is the doctor ([Iti 100](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html#iti-100)) who treats the illness which is suffering (*dukkha*). This is a medicine that he has prescribed.
>
> “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
> householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
> my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
> relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
> good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
> and mind. **But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
> is either completely abandoned or diminished**. It is for the sake of
> this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
> should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
> kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
> resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
> .....
>
>
> “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
> owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
> origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
> the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
> that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
> their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
> kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
> whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ **As he often reflects on
> this theme, the path is generated.** He pursues this path, develops it,
> and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
> and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
>
> [AN 5.57](https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
Once self-view is discarded, rebirth-of-self view will also be discarded. This is the noble Right View.
>
> "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
> transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
> discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
> factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
> the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
> who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
> is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
How do we know that rebirth-of-self view will be discarded? This is the higher teaching for those who have understood anatta, as taught in [MN 38](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi) and [SN 22.85](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi).
Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
>
> “Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after
> paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked
> him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen
> in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is
> this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of
> rebirths, not another’?”
>
>
> “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
> Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
> through the round of rebirths, not another.”
>
>
> “What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
>
>
> “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
> and there the result of good and bad actions.”
>
>
> “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
> that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
> to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
> origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
> misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
> up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
> long time.”
>
> [MN 38](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
>
> “But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
> actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
> understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
> taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
> the body and does not exist after death’?”
>
>
> “Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
> pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
> Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
> made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
>
>
> “If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
> bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
> him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
> would you answer?”
>
>
> “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
> form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
> suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
> Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
> impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
> away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
>
> [SN 22.85](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
>
> Why now do you assume 'a being'?
>
> Mara, have you grasped a view?
>
> This is a heap of sheer constructions:
>
> Here no being is found.
>
>
> Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
>
> The word 'chariot' is used,
>
> So, when the aggregates are present,
>
> There's the convention 'a being.'
>
>
> It's only suffering that comes to be,
>
> Suffering that stands and falls away.
>
> Nothing but suffering comes to be,
>
> Nothing but suffering ceases.
>
> [SN 5.10](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html)
>
>
>
>
> "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
> seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
> heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
> the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
> yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
> seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
> reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
> cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
> there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
> there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
> two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering)."
>
> [Ud 1.10](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html)
>
>
>
I think this is excellent because it finally tells us what rebirth really is in Buddhism. It's not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)), a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth. |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | If we want freedom from suffering (nirvana) and infinite happiness (buddhahood),
then certainly it matters if there is rebirth or not.
In another sense, I can do something much more efficiently if I have comprehensive knowledge. Thus, it is relevant whether there is rebirth or not.
These are (just) 2 reasons why it the question of rebirth matters.
There is a collection of buddhavacanna (words of Buddha) titled "Jataka Tales". They are stories of BUddha's past lives.
Then one of the most important concepts in Buddhism is dependent origination (the 12 links). The way it is presented by Madhyamika school is that a single wheel (wheel of life a.k.a 12 links of dependent origination) require a minimum of 2 lives to be explained properly.
Then Acharya Dharmakirti presents an argument establishing the logical validity of past lives.
I have mentioned 3 facts which should serve to make you reconsider your statement that the Buddha says there is no past life or that it is a way [I am merely paraphrasing of course] of taking about living, as a survival thing.
My penultimate point will be about the problem of karma, as you have mentioned, in its 'psychological flaw'. I only mention here that while we are using the same word (a label, a referent) what AND how Buddhists and non-buddhists understand is quite different. (Not to of course ignore the similarities or much more importantly besmirch a great tradition such as it is).
The final point is with respect to the icocnic phrase of Marx "opiod of the masses". With all due respect to the briliant intellectual, and pragmatic, Marx (whom I admire as a thinker, irrespective of what ideas I agree or disagree with); his understanding of Buddhism is incorrect. 2 reasons should suffice to bring home the point. First, the end goal of Buddhism is liberation. Liberation from what? One of the answers to this what is bondage, freedom from illusion like world. Opiods do, very generally speaking, just the opposite. Second, the way Marx uses religion is much more in line with Abrahamic religions. Coneptually, buddhist does not fit into a categorization of a different conceptual scheme.
I hope this clarifies something. | On the issue of rebirth:
The Buddha taught causality, especially the causality of mental processes. He used inchoate verbs to point to key areas in the causal process: verbs like becoming and birth. He pointed to beginnings because that’s where we can have some influence and control—ending and death are less cooperative. Endings are useful only as a way to measure skill.
Beginning and birth, ending and death, are simply points in causal processes that we are able to focus our attention on. Everything is inconstant. Continuity is a delusion. Rebirth is an incoherent concept.
One noted teacher says the Buddha didn’t use the word “rebirth”, he said, “further becoming” (unskillfulness causing more becoming). Maybe that was the Buddha's way of sidestepping any discussion of the afterlife, something his [Handful of Leaves](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_31.html) teaching seems to imply he wouldn't have tried to teach (or disprove). |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | **Am I missing something?**
Maybe not.
When I first encountered this site I asked a question fairly similar to yours, about rebirth -- [Is rebirth a delusional belief?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3420/254)
The POV of your question is that maybe the Buddha wasn't into the notion; mine was, that maybe Westerners don't understand it, or perhaps that Buddhists understand it to be "a parable for simple village folks" (you might like to read the answers there).
One of the suttas that I think of as characterizing the Buddha's attitude is, [Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet (MN 60)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html). The Translator's Introduction there says,
>
> If one practices the Dhamma, one leads a blameless life in the here-and-now. Even if the afterlife and karmic results do not exist, one has not lost the wager, for the blamelessness of one's life is a reward in and of itself. If there is an afterlife with karmic results, then one has won a double reward: the blamelessness of one's life here and now, and the good rewards of one's actions in the afterlife.
>
>
>
I've seen people on this site warn that a consequence of NOT believing in rebirth is that you/people might misbehave, thinking there's no consequence in the hereafter.
My personal view is that it's wrong or unsafe to deny Buddhist doctrine. Given that some people -- translators who have studied the suttas more thoroughly than I have -- say that it's undeniable that the Buddha taught rebirth, so I wouldn't want to say, "I disbelieve". I think that "disbelief" would be adopting a specific "view" -- which, may itself be a mistake given that there are warnings against grasping views, especially incorrectly.
Still I've seen various interpretations of it, e.g. that "rebirth" happens moment-to-moment; or that it refers to the arising of self-view.
I guess I don't think about it (i.e. the doctrine of rebirth) often; and when I do it seems to have the colour taken out of it when you consider what it means in the light of there being no self-view.
I agree it might have sometimes palliative appeal: which doesn't necessarily even make it factually wrong, e.g. when someone dying says "I will be reborn", meaning as someone/something different -- or referring to a dearly-departed loved one, "he or she will be reborn" -- then I'm not going to say they're wrong (only that the "I" seems to be slippery, situational, or not necessarily personal).
I agree it seems to have social consequences in Hinduism; and its telling Arjuna to kill is something I consider anathema, from a Buddhist context. There may be a "positive" side to that same coin though, for example I've heard a Brahmin say that as a Brahmin it's her duty to be educated -- she worked as a chemist or a doctor or something -- and to understand things like history and so on.
I'm not sure of your saying, incidentally, that the godless Buddhists were exterminated by the caliphs. I posted a different theory [here](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/37575/2703) (on another site), saying that Buddhism 'died out' more gradually and for economic reasons i.e. that they were no longer being supported by the laity.
Without wanting to be dismissive of it (the doctrine of rebirth) I agree it doesn't seem to be to be among the first or core teaching, e.g. from among the first three suttas (i.e. the wheel-turning, fire, and not-self suttas). I suspect people asked the Bhagavā about everything and every belief under the sun, including rebirth, let's just assume he had an enlightened view of that topic. And I think he wasn't entirely dismissive of it. So far as I know it remains a feature of mainstream Theravada, implicit in terms like "once-returner".
---
One more thing: I get the impression from the suttas that the fact of rebirth is meant to be seen (or was seen), not as "palliative" i.e. a comfort, but more like some threat or curse -- e.g. "birth is suffering, death is suffering" from the First Noble Truth. And therefore, escaping samsara (or "the round of rebirth") is a meant to be a powerful motive for practice.
However this (i.e. that rebirth is undesirable) might not be the commonly-held view of the [common worldling or uneducated person](https://suttacentral.net/define/puthujjana).
Still I think that's canonically another reason why rebirth (and believing in rebirth) matters -- i.e. the recollection of death (and rebirth) should occasion some sense of urgency instead of complacency (is that known as "hair on fire" in Zen?) or [Saṃvega](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83vega) in Pali; and dispassion or disenchantment (Pali [nibbidā](https://suttacentral.net/define/nibbid%C4%81) as mentioned in the [Assusutta: Tears (SN 15.3)](https://suttacentral.net/sn15.3/en/sujato). | If we want to eradicate or remove something first we should know and aware about the thing that we wanted to eradicate.
Similarly, Lord buddha taught us to remove or eradicate Sorrow, sadness, stress, whatever the things bring uncomfort bad feelings and keep us happy forever. For that we need to know what are the things that brings us unhappiness or sorrowfulness or mental and physical stress. In Buddhism we called them in One word "Dukkha".
Not only that he understood through his Omniscience wisdom that people have continuous travelling all over the 31 levels [4 Hells, 6 Heavens, Earth, 20 Brahma lokas] due to their own actions called "karma". This journey is called "Samsara". Also, he told us most of the time we were in hells due to bad actions and very rare that we spend our samsara journey as human or Deve or Brahma. This is the kind of Dukka we called "Jathi". Rebirth happening but we did not know of those feelings in this life. Because of that again and again we are doing bad karma which creates our next birth most probably in hell.
That is why he just wanted to stop traveling of this journey and be free forever.
In Buddhism what we experiencing now as "Dukka" little differ than the dukkha we know normally. This is the real explanation of Dukkha.
1. Birth is dukkha,
2. Aging is dukkha,
3. Death is dukkha;
4. Sorrow,
5. Lamentation,
6. Pain,
7. Grief,
8. Despair are dukkhas
9. Association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
10. Separation from the loved is dukkha
11. Not getting what is wanted is dukkha.
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
Buddha taught us to how can we overcome this agony and free for ever from this Dukkha.
For that he recommend us Four Noble truth with Eight fold Path.
Four Noble Truths are:
1. The Noble Truth of Suffering
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
4. The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering
If we take an example:
We can experience these truths, which lie at the heart of the Buddha’s teachings, through direct experience. They can be viewed as:
1. Diagnosis of an illness
2. Prognosis
3. Recovery
4. Medicine to cure the disease.
The first 2 truths deal with the way things are; the last 2 point the way to freedom from suffering.
5. The Noble Truth of Suffering
Besides “suffering,” other translations of the Pali word dukkha include unsatisfactoriness, dis-ease, and instability. All these words point to the fact that no conditioned phenomenon can provide true (lasting) happiness in our lives. The first step in a spiritual life is to look very closely and honestly at our experience of life and see that there is suffering. We tend to overlook or ignore or just blindly react to the unpleasant, so it continually haunts us. Yet although physical suffering is a natural aspect of our lives, we can learn to transcend mental suffering.
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.” The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering.
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
The mind can be purified of all the mental defilements that cause suffering. Nibbana, the ultimate peace, has been compared to the extinction of a three-fold fire of lust, ill-will, and delusion. One who has realised cessation has great purity of heart, ocean-like compassion, and penetrating wisdom.
4. The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering
The Way leading to cessation contains a thorough and profound training of body, speech, and mind. Traditionally it’s outlined as the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Understanding;
2. Right Intention;
3. Right Speech;
4. Right Action;
5. Right Livelihood;
6. Right Effort;
7. Right Mindfulness; and
8. Right Concentration.
On the level of morality (sila), the Path entails restraint and care in speech, action, and livelihood.
The concentration (samadhi) level requires constant effort to abandon the unwholesome and develop the wholesome, to increase mindfulness and clear comprehension of the mind-body process, and to develop mental calm and stability.
The wisdom (panna) level entails the abandonment of thoughts of sensuality, ill will, and cruelty; ultimately it penetrates the true nature of phenomena to see impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and impersonality.
When all 8 factors of the Path come together in harmony to the point of maturity, suffering is transcended. In summary, the Four Noble Truths can be thought of as that which is to be (1) comprehended, (2) abandoned, (3) realized, and (4) developed.
This is the clear precise way to Nibbana. All other context in Buddhism within this and explaining various ways to attain Nibbana. In other words for practising eight fold path Lord buddha taught us 40 activities we called them 4 meditation principles called :Sama Sathalis Karmasthana". All Suttra's were the one's Buddha preached different People, Deva[Gods], Brahma[Supreme Gods], Bhikku[Monks] and etc.to achieved Nibbana.
You can refer these below links to learn more:
1. [A path to Freedom](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html)
2. [A theravada Library](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/index.html)
3. [The Great Higher Buddhism - Abhidhamma](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html)
4. [The Forty Classic Meditation Objects](https://www.dhammatalks.net/samahita/40_Classic_Meditation_Objects.htm)
May you be able to find the way to attain Nibbana!!!
May Triple Gem Bless you!!! |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | If we want to eradicate or remove something first we should know and aware about the thing that we wanted to eradicate.
Similarly, Lord buddha taught us to remove or eradicate Sorrow, sadness, stress, whatever the things bring uncomfort bad feelings and keep us happy forever. For that we need to know what are the things that brings us unhappiness or sorrowfulness or mental and physical stress. In Buddhism we called them in One word "Dukkha".
Not only that he understood through his Omniscience wisdom that people have continuous travelling all over the 31 levels [4 Hells, 6 Heavens, Earth, 20 Brahma lokas] due to their own actions called "karma". This journey is called "Samsara". Also, he told us most of the time we were in hells due to bad actions and very rare that we spend our samsara journey as human or Deve or Brahma. This is the kind of Dukka we called "Jathi". Rebirth happening but we did not know of those feelings in this life. Because of that again and again we are doing bad karma which creates our next birth most probably in hell.
That is why he just wanted to stop traveling of this journey and be free forever.
In Buddhism what we experiencing now as "Dukka" little differ than the dukkha we know normally. This is the real explanation of Dukkha.
1. Birth is dukkha,
2. Aging is dukkha,
3. Death is dukkha;
4. Sorrow,
5. Lamentation,
6. Pain,
7. Grief,
8. Despair are dukkhas
9. Association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
10. Separation from the loved is dukkha
11. Not getting what is wanted is dukkha.
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
Buddha taught us to how can we overcome this agony and free for ever from this Dukkha.
For that he recommend us Four Noble truth with Eight fold Path.
Four Noble Truths are:
1. The Noble Truth of Suffering
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
4. The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering
If we take an example:
We can experience these truths, which lie at the heart of the Buddha’s teachings, through direct experience. They can be viewed as:
1. Diagnosis of an illness
2. Prognosis
3. Recovery
4. Medicine to cure the disease.
The first 2 truths deal with the way things are; the last 2 point the way to freedom from suffering.
5. The Noble Truth of Suffering
Besides “suffering,” other translations of the Pali word dukkha include unsatisfactoriness, dis-ease, and instability. All these words point to the fact that no conditioned phenomenon can provide true (lasting) happiness in our lives. The first step in a spiritual life is to look very closely and honestly at our experience of life and see that there is suffering. We tend to overlook or ignore or just blindly react to the unpleasant, so it continually haunts us. Yet although physical suffering is a natural aspect of our lives, we can learn to transcend mental suffering.
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.” The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering.
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
The mind can be purified of all the mental defilements that cause suffering. Nibbana, the ultimate peace, has been compared to the extinction of a three-fold fire of lust, ill-will, and delusion. One who has realised cessation has great purity of heart, ocean-like compassion, and penetrating wisdom.
4. The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering
The Way leading to cessation contains a thorough and profound training of body, speech, and mind. Traditionally it’s outlined as the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Understanding;
2. Right Intention;
3. Right Speech;
4. Right Action;
5. Right Livelihood;
6. Right Effort;
7. Right Mindfulness; and
8. Right Concentration.
On the level of morality (sila), the Path entails restraint and care in speech, action, and livelihood.
The concentration (samadhi) level requires constant effort to abandon the unwholesome and develop the wholesome, to increase mindfulness and clear comprehension of the mind-body process, and to develop mental calm and stability.
The wisdom (panna) level entails the abandonment of thoughts of sensuality, ill will, and cruelty; ultimately it penetrates the true nature of phenomena to see impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and impersonality.
When all 8 factors of the Path come together in harmony to the point of maturity, suffering is transcended. In summary, the Four Noble Truths can be thought of as that which is to be (1) comprehended, (2) abandoned, (3) realized, and (4) developed.
This is the clear precise way to Nibbana. All other context in Buddhism within this and explaining various ways to attain Nibbana. In other words for practising eight fold path Lord buddha taught us 40 activities we called them 4 meditation principles called :Sama Sathalis Karmasthana". All Suttra's were the one's Buddha preached different People, Deva[Gods], Brahma[Supreme Gods], Bhikku[Monks] and etc.to achieved Nibbana.
You can refer these below links to learn more:
1. [A path to Freedom](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html)
2. [A theravada Library](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/index.html)
3. [The Great Higher Buddhism - Abhidhamma](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html)
4. [The Forty Classic Meditation Objects](https://www.dhammatalks.net/samahita/40_Classic_Meditation_Objects.htm)
May you be able to find the way to attain Nibbana!!!
May Triple Gem Bless you!!! | If we want freedom from suffering (nirvana) and infinite happiness (buddhahood),
then certainly it matters if there is rebirth or not.
In another sense, I can do something much more efficiently if I have comprehensive knowledge. Thus, it is relevant whether there is rebirth or not.
These are (just) 2 reasons why it the question of rebirth matters.
There is a collection of buddhavacanna (words of Buddha) titled "Jataka Tales". They are stories of BUddha's past lives.
Then one of the most important concepts in Buddhism is dependent origination (the 12 links). The way it is presented by Madhyamika school is that a single wheel (wheel of life a.k.a 12 links of dependent origination) require a minimum of 2 lives to be explained properly.
Then Acharya Dharmakirti presents an argument establishing the logical validity of past lives.
I have mentioned 3 facts which should serve to make you reconsider your statement that the Buddha says there is no past life or that it is a way [I am merely paraphrasing of course] of taking about living, as a survival thing.
My penultimate point will be about the problem of karma, as you have mentioned, in its 'psychological flaw'. I only mention here that while we are using the same word (a label, a referent) what AND how Buddhists and non-buddhists understand is quite different. (Not to of course ignore the similarities or much more importantly besmirch a great tradition such as it is).
The final point is with respect to the icocnic phrase of Marx "opiod of the masses". With all due respect to the briliant intellectual, and pragmatic, Marx (whom I admire as a thinker, irrespective of what ideas I agree or disagree with); his understanding of Buddhism is incorrect. 2 reasons should suffice to bring home the point. First, the end goal of Buddhism is liberation. Liberation from what? One of the answers to this what is bondage, freedom from illusion like world. Opiods do, very generally speaking, just the opposite. Second, the way Marx uses religion is much more in line with Abrahamic religions. Coneptually, buddhist does not fit into a categorization of a different conceptual scheme.
I hope this clarifies something. |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | If we want to eradicate or remove something first we should know and aware about the thing that we wanted to eradicate.
Similarly, Lord buddha taught us to remove or eradicate Sorrow, sadness, stress, whatever the things bring uncomfort bad feelings and keep us happy forever. For that we need to know what are the things that brings us unhappiness or sorrowfulness or mental and physical stress. In Buddhism we called them in One word "Dukkha".
Not only that he understood through his Omniscience wisdom that people have continuous travelling all over the 31 levels [4 Hells, 6 Heavens, Earth, 20 Brahma lokas] due to their own actions called "karma". This journey is called "Samsara". Also, he told us most of the time we were in hells due to bad actions and very rare that we spend our samsara journey as human or Deve or Brahma. This is the kind of Dukka we called "Jathi". Rebirth happening but we did not know of those feelings in this life. Because of that again and again we are doing bad karma which creates our next birth most probably in hell.
That is why he just wanted to stop traveling of this journey and be free forever.
In Buddhism what we experiencing now as "Dukka" little differ than the dukkha we know normally. This is the real explanation of Dukkha.
1. Birth is dukkha,
2. Aging is dukkha,
3. Death is dukkha;
4. Sorrow,
5. Lamentation,
6. Pain,
7. Grief,
8. Despair are dukkhas
9. Association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
10. Separation from the loved is dukkha
11. Not getting what is wanted is dukkha.
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
Buddha taught us to how can we overcome this agony and free for ever from this Dukkha.
For that he recommend us Four Noble truth with Eight fold Path.
Four Noble Truths are:
1. The Noble Truth of Suffering
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
4. The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering
If we take an example:
We can experience these truths, which lie at the heart of the Buddha’s teachings, through direct experience. They can be viewed as:
1. Diagnosis of an illness
2. Prognosis
3. Recovery
4. Medicine to cure the disease.
The first 2 truths deal with the way things are; the last 2 point the way to freedom from suffering.
5. The Noble Truth of Suffering
Besides “suffering,” other translations of the Pali word dukkha include unsatisfactoriness, dis-ease, and instability. All these words point to the fact that no conditioned phenomenon can provide true (lasting) happiness in our lives. The first step in a spiritual life is to look very closely and honestly at our experience of life and see that there is suffering. We tend to overlook or ignore or just blindly react to the unpleasant, so it continually haunts us. Yet although physical suffering is a natural aspect of our lives, we can learn to transcend mental suffering.
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering
Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.” The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering.
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering
The mind can be purified of all the mental defilements that cause suffering. Nibbana, the ultimate peace, has been compared to the extinction of a three-fold fire of lust, ill-will, and delusion. One who has realised cessation has great purity of heart, ocean-like compassion, and penetrating wisdom.
4. The Noble Truth of the Way to the Cessation of Suffering
The Way leading to cessation contains a thorough and profound training of body, speech, and mind. Traditionally it’s outlined as the Noble Eightfold Path:
1. Right Understanding;
2. Right Intention;
3. Right Speech;
4. Right Action;
5. Right Livelihood;
6. Right Effort;
7. Right Mindfulness; and
8. Right Concentration.
On the level of morality (sila), the Path entails restraint and care in speech, action, and livelihood.
The concentration (samadhi) level requires constant effort to abandon the unwholesome and develop the wholesome, to increase mindfulness and clear comprehension of the mind-body process, and to develop mental calm and stability.
The wisdom (panna) level entails the abandonment of thoughts of sensuality, ill will, and cruelty; ultimately it penetrates the true nature of phenomena to see impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and impersonality.
When all 8 factors of the Path come together in harmony to the point of maturity, suffering is transcended. In summary, the Four Noble Truths can be thought of as that which is to be (1) comprehended, (2) abandoned, (3) realized, and (4) developed.
This is the clear precise way to Nibbana. All other context in Buddhism within this and explaining various ways to attain Nibbana. In other words for practising eight fold path Lord buddha taught us 40 activities we called them 4 meditation principles called :Sama Sathalis Karmasthana". All Suttra's were the one's Buddha preached different People, Deva[Gods], Brahma[Supreme Gods], Bhikku[Monks] and etc.to achieved Nibbana.
You can refer these below links to learn more:
1. [A path to Freedom](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html)
2. [A theravada Library](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/index.html)
3. [The Great Higher Buddhism - Abhidhamma](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html)
4. [The Forty Classic Meditation Objects](https://www.dhammatalks.net/samahita/40_Classic_Meditation_Objects.htm)
May you be able to find the way to attain Nibbana!!!
May Triple Gem Bless you!!! | On the issue of rebirth:
The Buddha taught causality, especially the causality of mental processes. He used inchoate verbs to point to key areas in the causal process: verbs like becoming and birth. He pointed to beginnings because that’s where we can have some influence and control—ending and death are less cooperative. Endings are useful only as a way to measure skill.
Beginning and birth, ending and death, are simply points in causal processes that we are able to focus our attention on. Everything is inconstant. Continuity is a delusion. Rebirth is an incoherent concept.
One noted teacher says the Buddha didn’t use the word “rebirth”, he said, “further becoming” (unskillfulness causing more becoming). Maybe that was the Buddha's way of sidestepping any discussion of the afterlife, something his [Handful of Leaves](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_31.html) teaching seems to imply he wouldn't have tried to teach (or disprove). |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | **Am I missing something?**
Maybe not.
When I first encountered this site I asked a question fairly similar to yours, about rebirth -- [Is rebirth a delusional belief?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3420/254)
The POV of your question is that maybe the Buddha wasn't into the notion; mine was, that maybe Westerners don't understand it, or perhaps that Buddhists understand it to be "a parable for simple village folks" (you might like to read the answers there).
One of the suttas that I think of as characterizing the Buddha's attitude is, [Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet (MN 60)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html). The Translator's Introduction there says,
>
> If one practices the Dhamma, one leads a blameless life in the here-and-now. Even if the afterlife and karmic results do not exist, one has not lost the wager, for the blamelessness of one's life is a reward in and of itself. If there is an afterlife with karmic results, then one has won a double reward: the blamelessness of one's life here and now, and the good rewards of one's actions in the afterlife.
>
>
>
I've seen people on this site warn that a consequence of NOT believing in rebirth is that you/people might misbehave, thinking there's no consequence in the hereafter.
My personal view is that it's wrong or unsafe to deny Buddhist doctrine. Given that some people -- translators who have studied the suttas more thoroughly than I have -- say that it's undeniable that the Buddha taught rebirth, so I wouldn't want to say, "I disbelieve". I think that "disbelief" would be adopting a specific "view" -- which, may itself be a mistake given that there are warnings against grasping views, especially incorrectly.
Still I've seen various interpretations of it, e.g. that "rebirth" happens moment-to-moment; or that it refers to the arising of self-view.
I guess I don't think about it (i.e. the doctrine of rebirth) often; and when I do it seems to have the colour taken out of it when you consider what it means in the light of there being no self-view.
I agree it might have sometimes palliative appeal: which doesn't necessarily even make it factually wrong, e.g. when someone dying says "I will be reborn", meaning as someone/something different -- or referring to a dearly-departed loved one, "he or she will be reborn" -- then I'm not going to say they're wrong (only that the "I" seems to be slippery, situational, or not necessarily personal).
I agree it seems to have social consequences in Hinduism; and its telling Arjuna to kill is something I consider anathema, from a Buddhist context. There may be a "positive" side to that same coin though, for example I've heard a Brahmin say that as a Brahmin it's her duty to be educated -- she worked as a chemist or a doctor or something -- and to understand things like history and so on.
I'm not sure of your saying, incidentally, that the godless Buddhists were exterminated by the caliphs. I posted a different theory [here](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/37575/2703) (on another site), saying that Buddhism 'died out' more gradually and for economic reasons i.e. that they were no longer being supported by the laity.
Without wanting to be dismissive of it (the doctrine of rebirth) I agree it doesn't seem to be to be among the first or core teaching, e.g. from among the first three suttas (i.e. the wheel-turning, fire, and not-self suttas). I suspect people asked the Bhagavā about everything and every belief under the sun, including rebirth, let's just assume he had an enlightened view of that topic. And I think he wasn't entirely dismissive of it. So far as I know it remains a feature of mainstream Theravada, implicit in terms like "once-returner".
---
One more thing: I get the impression from the suttas that the fact of rebirth is meant to be seen (or was seen), not as "palliative" i.e. a comfort, but more like some threat or curse -- e.g. "birth is suffering, death is suffering" from the First Noble Truth. And therefore, escaping samsara (or "the round of rebirth") is a meant to be a powerful motive for practice.
However this (i.e. that rebirth is undesirable) might not be the commonly-held view of the [common worldling or uneducated person](https://suttacentral.net/define/puthujjana).
Still I think that's canonically another reason why rebirth (and believing in rebirth) matters -- i.e. the recollection of death (and rebirth) should occasion some sense of urgency instead of complacency (is that known as "hair on fire" in Zen?) or [Saṃvega](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83vega) in Pali; and dispassion or disenchantment (Pali [nibbidā](https://suttacentral.net/define/nibbid%C4%81) as mentioned in the [Assusutta: Tears (SN 15.3)](https://suttacentral.net/sn15.3/en/sujato). | On the issue of rebirth:
The Buddha taught causality, especially the causality of mental processes. He used inchoate verbs to point to key areas in the causal process: verbs like becoming and birth. He pointed to beginnings because that’s where we can have some influence and control—ending and death are less cooperative. Endings are useful only as a way to measure skill.
Beginning and birth, ending and death, are simply points in causal processes that we are able to focus our attention on. Everything is inconstant. Continuity is a delusion. Rebirth is an incoherent concept.
One noted teacher says the Buddha didn’t use the word “rebirth”, he said, “further becoming” (unskillfulness causing more becoming). Maybe that was the Buddha's way of sidestepping any discussion of the afterlife, something his [Handful of Leaves](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_31.html) teaching seems to imply he wouldn't have tried to teach (or disprove). |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | TL;DR
=====
Denying rebirth-of-self view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth-of-self view after discarding self view is the noble right view. Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
Please also see [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34206/471).
Long answer
===========
Denying rebirth-of-self, while clinging to self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism. This is also the view of annihilationism.
>
> And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,
> nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
> actions. There is no this world, **no next world**, no mother, no father,
> no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
> faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
> after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
> wrong view.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
Holding on to the rebirth-of-self, while clinging to the fetter of self view, is a right view with effluents/ taints.
>
> "And what is the right view **with effluents**, siding with merit,
> resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
> what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
> There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
> are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
> who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
> next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
> is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
> acquisitions.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
Why is this the case? This is because siding with merit, one could use this as skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)), a helpful tool, to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation.
The Buddha is the doctor ([Iti 100](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html#iti-100)) who treats the illness which is suffering (*dukkha*). This is a medicine that he has prescribed.
>
> “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
> householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
> my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
> relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
> good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
> and mind. **But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
> is either completely abandoned or diminished**. It is for the sake of
> this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
> should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
> kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
> resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
> .....
>
>
> “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
> owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
> origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
> the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
> that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
> their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
> kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
> whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ **As he often reflects on
> this theme, the path is generated.** He pursues this path, develops it,
> and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
> and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
>
> [AN 5.57](https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
Once self-view is discarded, rebirth-of-self view will also be discarded. This is the noble Right View.
>
> "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
> transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
> discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
> factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
> the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
> who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
> is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
>
> [MN 117](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html)
>
>
>
How do we know that rebirth-of-self view will be discarded? This is the higher teaching for those who have understood anatta, as taught in [MN 38](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi) and [SN 22.85](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi).
Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
>
> “Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after
> paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked
> him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen
> in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is
> this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of
> rebirths, not another’?”
>
>
> “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
> Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
> through the round of rebirths, not another.”
>
>
> “What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
>
>
> “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
> and there the result of good and bad actions.”
>
>
> “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
> that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
> to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
> origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
> misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
> up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
> long time.”
>
> [MN 38](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
>
> “But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
> actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
> understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
> taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
> the body and does not exist after death’?”
>
>
> “Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
> pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
> Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
> made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
>
>
> “If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
> bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
> him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
> would you answer?”
>
>
> “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
> form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
> suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
> Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
> impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
> away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
>
> [SN 22.85](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi)
>
>
>
>
> Why now do you assume 'a being'?
>
> Mara, have you grasped a view?
>
> This is a heap of sheer constructions:
>
> Here no being is found.
>
>
> Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
>
> The word 'chariot' is used,
>
> So, when the aggregates are present,
>
> There's the convention 'a being.'
>
>
> It's only suffering that comes to be,
>
> Suffering that stands and falls away.
>
> Nothing but suffering comes to be,
>
> Nothing but suffering ceases.
>
> [SN 5.10](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html)
>
>
>
>
> "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
> seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
> heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
> the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
> yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
> seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
> reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
> cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
> there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
> there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
> two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering)."
>
> [Ud 1.10](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html)
>
>
>
I think this is excellent because it finally tells us what rebirth really is in Buddhism. It's not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just skillful means ([upaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya)), a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth. | On the issue of rebirth:
The Buddha taught causality, especially the causality of mental processes. He used inchoate verbs to point to key areas in the causal process: verbs like becoming and birth. He pointed to beginnings because that’s where we can have some influence and control—ending and death are less cooperative. Endings are useful only as a way to measure skill.
Beginning and birth, ending and death, are simply points in causal processes that we are able to focus our attention on. Everything is inconstant. Continuity is a delusion. Rebirth is an incoherent concept.
One noted teacher says the Buddha didn’t use the word “rebirth”, he said, “further becoming” (unskillfulness causing more becoming). Maybe that was the Buddha's way of sidestepping any discussion of the afterlife, something his [Handful of Leaves](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_31.html) teaching seems to imply he wouldn't have tried to teach (or disprove). |
47,763 | And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras.
Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question.
*(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)*
The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them.
One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions.
Am I missing something? | 2022/09/16 | [
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com",
"https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/24138/"
] | **Am I missing something?**
Maybe not.
When I first encountered this site I asked a question fairly similar to yours, about rebirth -- [Is rebirth a delusional belief?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3420/254)
The POV of your question is that maybe the Buddha wasn't into the notion; mine was, that maybe Westerners don't understand it, or perhaps that Buddhists understand it to be "a parable for simple village folks" (you might like to read the answers there).
One of the suttas that I think of as characterizing the Buddha's attitude is, [Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet (MN 60)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html). The Translator's Introduction there says,
>
> If one practices the Dhamma, one leads a blameless life in the here-and-now. Even if the afterlife and karmic results do not exist, one has not lost the wager, for the blamelessness of one's life is a reward in and of itself. If there is an afterlife with karmic results, then one has won a double reward: the blamelessness of one's life here and now, and the good rewards of one's actions in the afterlife.
>
>
>
I've seen people on this site warn that a consequence of NOT believing in rebirth is that you/people might misbehave, thinking there's no consequence in the hereafter.
My personal view is that it's wrong or unsafe to deny Buddhist doctrine. Given that some people -- translators who have studied the suttas more thoroughly than I have -- say that it's undeniable that the Buddha taught rebirth, so I wouldn't want to say, "I disbelieve". I think that "disbelief" would be adopting a specific "view" -- which, may itself be a mistake given that there are warnings against grasping views, especially incorrectly.
Still I've seen various interpretations of it, e.g. that "rebirth" happens moment-to-moment; or that it refers to the arising of self-view.
I guess I don't think about it (i.e. the doctrine of rebirth) often; and when I do it seems to have the colour taken out of it when you consider what it means in the light of there being no self-view.
I agree it might have sometimes palliative appeal: which doesn't necessarily even make it factually wrong, e.g. when someone dying says "I will be reborn", meaning as someone/something different -- or referring to a dearly-departed loved one, "he or she will be reborn" -- then I'm not going to say they're wrong (only that the "I" seems to be slippery, situational, or not necessarily personal).
I agree it seems to have social consequences in Hinduism; and its telling Arjuna to kill is something I consider anathema, from a Buddhist context. There may be a "positive" side to that same coin though, for example I've heard a Brahmin say that as a Brahmin it's her duty to be educated -- she worked as a chemist or a doctor or something -- and to understand things like history and so on.
I'm not sure of your saying, incidentally, that the godless Buddhists were exterminated by the caliphs. I posted a different theory [here](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/37575/2703) (on another site), saying that Buddhism 'died out' more gradually and for economic reasons i.e. that they were no longer being supported by the laity.
Without wanting to be dismissive of it (the doctrine of rebirth) I agree it doesn't seem to be to be among the first or core teaching, e.g. from among the first three suttas (i.e. the wheel-turning, fire, and not-self suttas). I suspect people asked the Bhagavā about everything and every belief under the sun, including rebirth, let's just assume he had an enlightened view of that topic. And I think he wasn't entirely dismissive of it. So far as I know it remains a feature of mainstream Theravada, implicit in terms like "once-returner".
---
One more thing: I get the impression from the suttas that the fact of rebirth is meant to be seen (or was seen), not as "palliative" i.e. a comfort, but more like some threat or curse -- e.g. "birth is suffering, death is suffering" from the First Noble Truth. And therefore, escaping samsara (or "the round of rebirth") is a meant to be a powerful motive for practice.
However this (i.e. that rebirth is undesirable) might not be the commonly-held view of the [common worldling or uneducated person](https://suttacentral.net/define/puthujjana).
Still I think that's canonically another reason why rebirth (and believing in rebirth) matters -- i.e. the recollection of death (and rebirth) should occasion some sense of urgency instead of complacency (is that known as "hair on fire" in Zen?) or [Saṃvega](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83vega) in Pali; and dispassion or disenchantment (Pali [nibbidā](https://suttacentral.net/define/nibbid%C4%81) as mentioned in the [Assusutta: Tears (SN 15.3)](https://suttacentral.net/sn15.3/en/sujato). | Karma (by its nature) is cyclic and repetitive. Think of it like waves: the momentum of a crest creates a fall and produces a trough; the momentum of a trough creates a rise and produces a crest. Is it the same crest?
Hmph.
The eponymous self is a collection of forms — physical forms, emotional forms, mental forms — and these forms all have their own momentum. At any given moment they might seem like something solid and immutable, but that's just a trick of the thinking mind, the way we see a wave roll across the ocean without considering that the water barely moves at all. So if all the forms of this eponymous self fall apart and come together again, what is that? A body breathes in and a body breathes out; is it the same body? A self goes to sleep at night and a self wakes in the morning; is it the same self?
Again, hmph.
We think too much about existences and not enough about momentums. What cycles are producing us? What are we setting in motion? What will be reproduced in our wake? Liberation is all about momentum: about seeing it and guiding it and stilling it. |
140,211 | I have a simple question:
If I cast a [*nondetection*](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/nondetection) spell on me can I also cast spells like [*detect magic*](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/detect-magic) on myself while I'm under the *nondetection* effect? | 2019/01/30 | [
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/140211",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.stackexchange.com/users/51887/"
] | No, you can't
=============
It says clearly in *nondetection*'s spell description:
>
> The target can't be targeted by **any** divination magic
>
>
>
"Any" includes your own, so no divination spells would affect the target, unless that spell says otherwise.
*Detect magic* is an AOE spell that targets the caster as the point of origin as stated in the rules for targeting:
>
> A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, **or a point of origin** for an area of effect
>
>
>
And thus the spell cannot target the caster. | Of course you can in any world ran in a sensible manner
-------------------------------------------------------
When you cast a buff on yourself, or get a magic item which casts a buff, and the net effect is "oh dear by strict RAW I now can't use beneficial spells" then you have found a loophole.
Any DM worth the title will ignore that loophole and just let you cast detect magic and have it work as normal on anything that isn't you.
The nondetection ability is meant to be so that you can't be detected or seen by divination, not to prevent you from divining information yourself. |
3,251 | Simple question: Should we flag answers that are obviously not answering the question? I don't mean the cases of "question in answer" or "comment in answer", I really mean when question is about X and answer answers Y, where X and Y are completely different.
*(Remark: Some comment treating this is in [this meta post](https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2533/flagging-not-an-answer) but it is about one specific case.)* | 2013/02/08 | [
"https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3251",
"https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://tex.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11002/"
] | I would leave a comment on the answer, explaining why it doesn't answer the question, giving the poster the chance to respond and argue their point/adjust their answer/remove it. If after that you still think the answer is wrong and might be misleading for others, downvote it. That's what the voting system is for. I don't think flagging is the right thing to do in this case. | Emphasis mine:
>
> This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the
> question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question,
> **or deleted altogether**.
>
>
>
So **yes**: If you think that the answer is so horribly wrong that it should be deleted - flag it. |
396,532 | Is there a way to restrict FTPS ports on both the server & client side of the connection?
I've already read [this answer](https://serverfault.com/questions/10807/what-firewall-ports-do-i-need-to-open-when-using-ftps) and I have vsftpd set to restrict passive port usage to a narrow range on the server side. I've verified that this restriction does work -- for the server. However, if the client is behind a firewall itself and is carefully restricting access on that end, the connections fail. Inspecting with tcpdump, it appears that arbitrary high ports on the client side are being used.
SFTP is not an option. (Believe me, I wish it were.) | 2012/06/07 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/396532",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/12212/"
] | In theory yes but I'm not aware of any FTP client software that will allow you to specify the source port and to be honest it'll probably cause more problems than solve if you started start messing with the source ports on a client device. It's really only the destination port that gets adjusted, I've never seen a firewall that locked down ports inside or out based on the source port, it's always the destination
Another reason not too play around with the source port is that it will more than likely get changed when it hits the source clients router/firewall. Most offices/home only have 1 external IP so in order to keep track of connections the internal IPs and source ports are changed by the firewall dynamically, which is commonly referred to as port address translation (PAT) as such even if you did specify the source port on the client there is no guarantee that it'll be the same when it hits the server. | >
> However, if the client is behind a firewall itself and is carefully restricting access on that end, the connections fail.
>
>
>
The client (or their IT dept) would have to allow those ports on their firewall. You can't really do much other than tell them what ports need to be open outbound.
Those high ports on the client are probably just the ephemeral ports on the host trying to make the connection, it's the outbound destination port (the ones you configured on your server side) that are most likely blocked on their firewall for outbound use. |
139,486 | References
==========
First a definition, we'll be using the [wikipedia version of the philosophical movement of transhumanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism). This is the idea that humans will reach technologies that allow them to alter the human frame. There's two major ideas in that people will augment the body through cybernetic prosthetics (cyborgs) or (as we'll be discussing mostly) that people will edit the human genome and create biologically enhanced humans.
Second, a very popular [news article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies) (which I believe is our first steps toward a transhumanist future). Recently, a chinese doctor reportedly had edited the genome of a pair of twins so that they were resistant to HIV. Showing that we are very near the technologies described by transhumanists and the problems those technologies create. This stirred up a veritable firestorm of backlash from scientists the world over and the Chinese government which has sanctioned the researcher since. And this is the foundation of the question.
Background
==========
In a not so distant future, the technology to clean the human genome of disease exists. It spawns the logical leap that you can improve the human frame (in any number of ways from intelligence, charisma, strength, etc.) But as humans are ought to do there is resistance against this idea. Anyone who is a known subject of these treatments is discriminated against. Violence is uncommon but not unheard of against people like this. And a common legal argument exists that since these beings aren't technically human (having been altered to a state of extra-human status) that human protections shouldn't be granted to them (although they have to follow all human laws).
**So what laws would need to exist (and be enforced broadly) or need to be created to support altered humans in the United States?**
There is an additional criteria in this question. A lot of the backlash was based on ethical concerns and not legal matters in our real world example. So (if possible) how could ethics issues be resolved with these laws?
***Just some ethics issues to consider.***
Right to consent: Does a fetus have rights to not consent to alterations to its genome? Does the parent's rights as medical proxy supersede that? Seeing as this technology is currently being used in this way, this seems likely to appear as an issue.
Human alteration: Is it proper to alter the human body at all? You'll find a fair few that believe it's entirely unethical to alter the human structure.
Eugenics: Transhumanism can be easily associated with the negative sides of eugenics. After all, cleaning the human genome can turn into getting rid of the unwanted traits of society even if they aren't flaws. | 2019/02/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/139486",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/57129/"
] | People will get used to it.
---------------------------
I know this is not the answer you are looking for, but to me it seems likely things would just work themselves out. This kind of divide would not even be the greatest social divide to date.
There would be some conflict in the beginning, but this would not be an issue for long because of **2 likely outcomes**:
1. **Everyone becomes a designer baby:**
Costs decrease exponentially and now everyone can afford gene therapy. [For this we can use genome sequencing cost by year, as an example of how fast these technologies become affordable](https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/). So we have a new technology that can make your baby beautiful, super intelligent, super athletic, super whatever, *do you use it*? Most people will want the best for their children, so it will be widely adopted. **In this scenario everyone is super, so no one is super**.
Will there still be people that are unhappy? Yes, for example those that cant afford transhumanism or the better perks of it. However remember that even today people are already not born equal. Some are born poor and some are born rich. We already have great divides that people tolerate.
Finally there is a very important situation you have not thought about. With Gene therapy and viral vectors, you can make designer people *even after they are adults*. So like people today think "I am just not rich, yet, but give me some time and I will be", people who are not enhanced yet will just think "I am not enhanced, yet, but give me some time and I will be".
This is all scenario one, where everyone embraces transhumanism for selfish reasons, rather than rejecting it.
2. **We pass laws for equality using the model of the American Civil Rights Movement:**
If there is really a talent divide that leads to population segregation, the laws that can handle this situation will probably be of the same flavor as those that solved (/are solving) racial segregation.
*Jobs*: Hiring quotas. We need 3 normal people for every super human we hire.
*Rights*: Superhumans have the same rules to follow.
*Schools*: Superhumans and humans must go the same schools and learn the same curriculums.
*Economics*: Superhumans must pay more taxes, proportional to their enhancement advantage.
[See a comprehensive list of anti discrimination acts, for ideas of what to adapt to transhumans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts).
**How to orchestrate conflict:**
If you want there to be real conflict between superhumans and humans, you need to create a scenario where the amount of possible superhumans is limited; is small enough that everyone can think of them as outsiders; and have mass propaganda about how transhumans are taking all the jobs/wealth/women whatever. This is a case getting the population riled up, and not necessarily with facts.
However in our own reality there is no reason to think that there would be this kind of problem. First because gene editing is not going to run out. Second because the first people that are going to be able to afford transhumanism are going to be rich. Rich people are already influential, insulated from the general population, and can stay out of the spotlight if they want. Plus transhumans can simply deny they are transhuman. If they look like normal people, no one will think differently. | A law that extends the present/existing protections and rights of men to all humans.
Something like this:
As of [date], all the existing protections and rights benefiting men, without exception, should be extended, automatically and without discretion, to all members of the human species, without discrimination as to gender, sexual orientation, genetic manipulations, bionic components/alterations. |
139,486 | References
==========
First a definition, we'll be using the [wikipedia version of the philosophical movement of transhumanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism). This is the idea that humans will reach technologies that allow them to alter the human frame. There's two major ideas in that people will augment the body through cybernetic prosthetics (cyborgs) or (as we'll be discussing mostly) that people will edit the human genome and create biologically enhanced humans.
Second, a very popular [news article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies) (which I believe is our first steps toward a transhumanist future). Recently, a chinese doctor reportedly had edited the genome of a pair of twins so that they were resistant to HIV. Showing that we are very near the technologies described by transhumanists and the problems those technologies create. This stirred up a veritable firestorm of backlash from scientists the world over and the Chinese government which has sanctioned the researcher since. And this is the foundation of the question.
Background
==========
In a not so distant future, the technology to clean the human genome of disease exists. It spawns the logical leap that you can improve the human frame (in any number of ways from intelligence, charisma, strength, etc.) But as humans are ought to do there is resistance against this idea. Anyone who is a known subject of these treatments is discriminated against. Violence is uncommon but not unheard of against people like this. And a common legal argument exists that since these beings aren't technically human (having been altered to a state of extra-human status) that human protections shouldn't be granted to them (although they have to follow all human laws).
**So what laws would need to exist (and be enforced broadly) or need to be created to support altered humans in the United States?**
There is an additional criteria in this question. A lot of the backlash was based on ethical concerns and not legal matters in our real world example. So (if possible) how could ethics issues be resolved with these laws?
***Just some ethics issues to consider.***
Right to consent: Does a fetus have rights to not consent to alterations to its genome? Does the parent's rights as medical proxy supersede that? Seeing as this technology is currently being used in this way, this seems likely to appear as an issue.
Human alteration: Is it proper to alter the human body at all? You'll find a fair few that believe it's entirely unethical to alter the human structure.
Eugenics: Transhumanism can be easily associated with the negative sides of eugenics. After all, cleaning the human genome can turn into getting rid of the unwanted traits of society even if they aren't flaws. | 2019/02/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/139486",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/57129/"
] | People will get used to it.
---------------------------
I know this is not the answer you are looking for, but to me it seems likely things would just work themselves out. This kind of divide would not even be the greatest social divide to date.
There would be some conflict in the beginning, but this would not be an issue for long because of **2 likely outcomes**:
1. **Everyone becomes a designer baby:**
Costs decrease exponentially and now everyone can afford gene therapy. [For this we can use genome sequencing cost by year, as an example of how fast these technologies become affordable](https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/). So we have a new technology that can make your baby beautiful, super intelligent, super athletic, super whatever, *do you use it*? Most people will want the best for their children, so it will be widely adopted. **In this scenario everyone is super, so no one is super**.
Will there still be people that are unhappy? Yes, for example those that cant afford transhumanism or the better perks of it. However remember that even today people are already not born equal. Some are born poor and some are born rich. We already have great divides that people tolerate.
Finally there is a very important situation you have not thought about. With Gene therapy and viral vectors, you can make designer people *even after they are adults*. So like people today think "I am just not rich, yet, but give me some time and I will be", people who are not enhanced yet will just think "I am not enhanced, yet, but give me some time and I will be".
This is all scenario one, where everyone embraces transhumanism for selfish reasons, rather than rejecting it.
2. **We pass laws for equality using the model of the American Civil Rights Movement:**
If there is really a talent divide that leads to population segregation, the laws that can handle this situation will probably be of the same flavor as those that solved (/are solving) racial segregation.
*Jobs*: Hiring quotas. We need 3 normal people for every super human we hire.
*Rights*: Superhumans have the same rules to follow.
*Schools*: Superhumans and humans must go the same schools and learn the same curriculums.
*Economics*: Superhumans must pay more taxes, proportional to their enhancement advantage.
[See a comprehensive list of anti discrimination acts, for ideas of what to adapt to transhumans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts).
**How to orchestrate conflict:**
If you want there to be real conflict between superhumans and humans, you need to create a scenario where the amount of possible superhumans is limited; is small enough that everyone can think of them as outsiders; and have mass propaganda about how transhumans are taking all the jobs/wealth/women whatever. This is a case getting the population riled up, and not necessarily with facts.
However in our own reality there is no reason to think that there would be this kind of problem. First because gene editing is not going to run out. Second because the first people that are going to be able to afford transhumanism are going to be rich. Rich people are already influential, insulated from the general population, and can stay out of the spotlight if they want. Plus transhumans can simply deny they are transhuman. If they look like normal people, no one will think differently. | Standard Anti-discrimination Laws
---------------------------------
Your question is "So what laws would need to exist (and be enforced broadly) or need to be created to support altered humans in the United States?" The answer is to simply make them a protected category, like gender, sexuality, or religion.
The one issue is that enhancements can create significant differences between the transhumans and the regular humans. In this way, it is similar to disabilities, but reversed. Since your question is just about protecting them, however, I will not address it in this answer. The only thing that would be necessary is so some sort of analogue of the United States "Americans with Disabilites Acts" for disadvantages caused by the enhancements, or for enhancements that went wrong. |
139,486 | References
==========
First a definition, we'll be using the [wikipedia version of the philosophical movement of transhumanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism). This is the idea that humans will reach technologies that allow them to alter the human frame. There's two major ideas in that people will augment the body through cybernetic prosthetics (cyborgs) or (as we'll be discussing mostly) that people will edit the human genome and create biologically enhanced humans.
Second, a very popular [news article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies) (which I believe is our first steps toward a transhumanist future). Recently, a chinese doctor reportedly had edited the genome of a pair of twins so that they were resistant to HIV. Showing that we are very near the technologies described by transhumanists and the problems those technologies create. This stirred up a veritable firestorm of backlash from scientists the world over and the Chinese government which has sanctioned the researcher since. And this is the foundation of the question.
Background
==========
In a not so distant future, the technology to clean the human genome of disease exists. It spawns the logical leap that you can improve the human frame (in any number of ways from intelligence, charisma, strength, etc.) But as humans are ought to do there is resistance against this idea. Anyone who is a known subject of these treatments is discriminated against. Violence is uncommon but not unheard of against people like this. And a common legal argument exists that since these beings aren't technically human (having been altered to a state of extra-human status) that human protections shouldn't be granted to them (although they have to follow all human laws).
**So what laws would need to exist (and be enforced broadly) or need to be created to support altered humans in the United States?**
There is an additional criteria in this question. A lot of the backlash was based on ethical concerns and not legal matters in our real world example. So (if possible) how could ethics issues be resolved with these laws?
***Just some ethics issues to consider.***
Right to consent: Does a fetus have rights to not consent to alterations to its genome? Does the parent's rights as medical proxy supersede that? Seeing as this technology is currently being used in this way, this seems likely to appear as an issue.
Human alteration: Is it proper to alter the human body at all? You'll find a fair few that believe it's entirely unethical to alter the human structure.
Eugenics: Transhumanism can be easily associated with the negative sides of eugenics. After all, cleaning the human genome can turn into getting rid of the unwanted traits of society even if they aren't flaws. | 2019/02/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/139486",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/57129/"
] | The law: There is no difference when facing the law.
Solved.
The problem you have is that people are a\*holes. What make homosexual baby different from hetero one? What make dark skin baby different from the one that have reddish tint? What made the difference that homosexual adults couldn't marry? That a clerk didn't issued certificate even when she was obliged to do so by law. People being a\*\*holes.
What make people who wear glasses different from those who wear contacts or those who refuse to correct their eyesight or those who take laser surgery? After all it is **human alteration**.
Why parents have power over their babies that allow them to agree on surgeries in the womb. That let them circumcise the newborn. After all it is **Right to consent**. | A law that extends the present/existing protections and rights of men to all humans.
Something like this:
As of [date], all the existing protections and rights benefiting men, without exception, should be extended, automatically and without discretion, to all members of the human species, without discrimination as to gender, sexual orientation, genetic manipulations, bionic components/alterations. |
139,486 | References
==========
First a definition, we'll be using the [wikipedia version of the philosophical movement of transhumanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism). This is the idea that humans will reach technologies that allow them to alter the human frame. There's two major ideas in that people will augment the body through cybernetic prosthetics (cyborgs) or (as we'll be discussing mostly) that people will edit the human genome and create biologically enhanced humans.
Second, a very popular [news article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies) (which I believe is our first steps toward a transhumanist future). Recently, a chinese doctor reportedly had edited the genome of a pair of twins so that they were resistant to HIV. Showing that we are very near the technologies described by transhumanists and the problems those technologies create. This stirred up a veritable firestorm of backlash from scientists the world over and the Chinese government which has sanctioned the researcher since. And this is the foundation of the question.
Background
==========
In a not so distant future, the technology to clean the human genome of disease exists. It spawns the logical leap that you can improve the human frame (in any number of ways from intelligence, charisma, strength, etc.) But as humans are ought to do there is resistance against this idea. Anyone who is a known subject of these treatments is discriminated against. Violence is uncommon but not unheard of against people like this. And a common legal argument exists that since these beings aren't technically human (having been altered to a state of extra-human status) that human protections shouldn't be granted to them (although they have to follow all human laws).
**So what laws would need to exist (and be enforced broadly) or need to be created to support altered humans in the United States?**
There is an additional criteria in this question. A lot of the backlash was based on ethical concerns and not legal matters in our real world example. So (if possible) how could ethics issues be resolved with these laws?
***Just some ethics issues to consider.***
Right to consent: Does a fetus have rights to not consent to alterations to its genome? Does the parent's rights as medical proxy supersede that? Seeing as this technology is currently being used in this way, this seems likely to appear as an issue.
Human alteration: Is it proper to alter the human body at all? You'll find a fair few that believe it's entirely unethical to alter the human structure.
Eugenics: Transhumanism can be easily associated with the negative sides of eugenics. After all, cleaning the human genome can turn into getting rid of the unwanted traits of society even if they aren't flaws. | 2019/02/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/139486",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/57129/"
] | The law: There is no difference when facing the law.
Solved.
The problem you have is that people are a\*holes. What make homosexual baby different from hetero one? What make dark skin baby different from the one that have reddish tint? What made the difference that homosexual adults couldn't marry? That a clerk didn't issued certificate even when she was obliged to do so by law. People being a\*\*holes.
What make people who wear glasses different from those who wear contacts or those who refuse to correct their eyesight or those who take laser surgery? After all it is **human alteration**.
Why parents have power over their babies that allow them to agree on surgeries in the womb. That let them circumcise the newborn. After all it is **Right to consent**. | Standard Anti-discrimination Laws
---------------------------------
Your question is "So what laws would need to exist (and be enforced broadly) or need to be created to support altered humans in the United States?" The answer is to simply make them a protected category, like gender, sexuality, or religion.
The one issue is that enhancements can create significant differences between the transhumans and the regular humans. In this way, it is similar to disabilities, but reversed. Since your question is just about protecting them, however, I will not address it in this answer. The only thing that would be necessary is so some sort of analogue of the United States "Americans with Disabilites Acts" for disadvantages caused by the enhancements, or for enhancements that went wrong. |
139,486 | References
==========
First a definition, we'll be using the [wikipedia version of the philosophical movement of transhumanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism). This is the idea that humans will reach technologies that allow them to alter the human frame. There's two major ideas in that people will augment the body through cybernetic prosthetics (cyborgs) or (as we'll be discussing mostly) that people will edit the human genome and create biologically enhanced humans.
Second, a very popular [news article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies) (which I believe is our first steps toward a transhumanist future). Recently, a chinese doctor reportedly had edited the genome of a pair of twins so that they were resistant to HIV. Showing that we are very near the technologies described by transhumanists and the problems those technologies create. This stirred up a veritable firestorm of backlash from scientists the world over and the Chinese government which has sanctioned the researcher since. And this is the foundation of the question.
Background
==========
In a not so distant future, the technology to clean the human genome of disease exists. It spawns the logical leap that you can improve the human frame (in any number of ways from intelligence, charisma, strength, etc.) But as humans are ought to do there is resistance against this idea. Anyone who is a known subject of these treatments is discriminated against. Violence is uncommon but not unheard of against people like this. And a common legal argument exists that since these beings aren't technically human (having been altered to a state of extra-human status) that human protections shouldn't be granted to them (although they have to follow all human laws).
**So what laws would need to exist (and be enforced broadly) or need to be created to support altered humans in the United States?**
There is an additional criteria in this question. A lot of the backlash was based on ethical concerns and not legal matters in our real world example. So (if possible) how could ethics issues be resolved with these laws?
***Just some ethics issues to consider.***
Right to consent: Does a fetus have rights to not consent to alterations to its genome? Does the parent's rights as medical proxy supersede that? Seeing as this technology is currently being used in this way, this seems likely to appear as an issue.
Human alteration: Is it proper to alter the human body at all? You'll find a fair few that believe it's entirely unethical to alter the human structure.
Eugenics: Transhumanism can be easily associated with the negative sides of eugenics. After all, cleaning the human genome can turn into getting rid of the unwanted traits of society even if they aren't flaws. | 2019/02/19 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/139486",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/57129/"
] | A law that extends the present/existing protections and rights of men to all humans.
Something like this:
As of [date], all the existing protections and rights benefiting men, without exception, should be extended, automatically and without discretion, to all members of the human species, without discrimination as to gender, sexual orientation, genetic manipulations, bionic components/alterations. | Standard Anti-discrimination Laws
---------------------------------
Your question is "So what laws would need to exist (and be enforced broadly) or need to be created to support altered humans in the United States?" The answer is to simply make them a protected category, like gender, sexuality, or religion.
The one issue is that enhancements can create significant differences between the transhumans and the regular humans. In this way, it is similar to disabilities, but reversed. Since your question is just about protecting them, however, I will not address it in this answer. The only thing that would be necessary is so some sort of analogue of the United States "Americans with Disabilites Acts" for disadvantages caused by the enhancements, or for enhancements that went wrong. |
290,674 | Why is it that the incoming radiation is spread over an area of a disc = πr^2 rather than half the surface area of the earth? | 2016/11/03 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290674",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/131620/"
] | The Earth intercepts an amount of solar radiation equivalent to that falling on a disc with its same radius, facing the Sun, but the Earth itself is (roughly) spherical, so that radiation will spread over half its surface area. | The shadow of the Earth indicates the light area that it absorbs. The shadow is a disk. Remember that light that strikes at an angle (like sunlight that strikes the Earth at dawn or dusk) is less intense. |
290,674 | Why is it that the incoming radiation is spread over an area of a disc = πr^2 rather than half the surface area of the earth? | 2016/11/03 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290674",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/131620/"
] | The Earth intercepts an amount of solar radiation equivalent to that falling on a disc with its same radius, facing the Sun, but the Earth itself is (roughly) spherical, so that radiation will spread over half its surface area. | First assume the light source is far enough away that all light rays are parallel. Then the shadow would be the disk you refer to. This means that that much light struck the Earth. However, that light is not distributed evenly over the lit half of the Earth. (That is why we have seasons). |
187,936 | I wrote:
>
> As XX pointed out, either of this mechanism is possible. So, at this point, we can’t be sure **which one is the case** in our work.
>
>
>
I didn't find many results of "which one is the case" on google! So, it made me wonder if it is an idiomatic phrase to use? | 2018/12/08 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/187936",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/11569/"
] | The goal of adverb placement is not always to place it as close as possible to the verb it modifies. For example, it would be completely reasonable to say, "Currently, I work as a soccer coach." Moving the adverb to the front of the sentence could be useful for the broader piece of prose, especially if the surrounding sentences all started with the personal pronoun "I."
If these were the two options on the ACT, the first would be less ambiguous. However, it is hard for me to imagine these both being options on the ACT. | The first is structured more naturally; the second puts a lot of emphasis on the word “considerably,” which is fine if that’s the point. |
512,967 | Is the phrase ‘serve you heart and soul’ grammatical? And what does it mean?
If the phrase becomes ‘serve your heart and soul’ or ‘serve you with heart and soul’, does it still make sense and what meaning does it carry? | 2019/09/18 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/512967",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/362000/"
] | We have several expressions and collocations that function even when they lack a preposition to define how the second noun phrase relates to the first one.
For instance, **wait on (someone) hand and foot** is well attested. [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wait%20on%20(someone)%20hand%20and%20foot) defines the idiom:
>
> : to provide everything that someone needs or wants : to act as a servant to (someone)
>
>
>
Sure, for technical clarity one could add a preposition like **with**, but it breaks the immediacy of the idiom. Instead, "hand and food" has an adverbial sense to it even without the preposition, as it explains the manner in which someone performs an action:
>
> She waited on her children hand and foot.
>
>
> She waited on her children with hand and foot.
>
>
>
---
Similarly, **heart and soul** is a common expression. It can serve as a noun phrase ("My heart and soul went into this"), but in this instance it is an adverbial meaning *completely* or *wholly*. If one puts their heart and soul into something, they are putting everything important into it. Again, [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heart%20and%20soul):
>
> : without reservations : completely, wholly count on me to help heart and soul
>
>
>
Merriam-Webster claims this is an adverb. Adverb, adverbial - when used with verb phrases that take an object, **heart and soul** modifies how the verb should be understood. So the expression can be used with several verbs:
>
> His first letters from there are very contented and he **devotes himself heart and soul** to his work, especially the practical part of it ... (*[The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh](https://books.google.com/books?id=M8fABAAAQBAJ&pg=PT18&lpg=PT18&dq=%22devotes%20himself%20heart%20and%20soul%22&source=bl&ots=tYWQXe773q&sig=ACfU3U0tHJN9O4Wr6SOb-hm54e_evgupKA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiku4vI1trkAhURna0KHbpyBzMQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22devotes%20himself%20heart%20and%20soul%22&f=false)*, 2011)
>
>
> That gentle Palamon, your own true knight, / Who **loves and serves you, heart and soul and might** (*[Canterbury Tales](https://books.google.com/books?id=Ek_-lNfzGUcC&pg=PA85&dq=%22serves%20you%20heart%20and%20soul%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKwJXw1trkAhVLA6wKHblDDg4QuwUwAXoECAMQBA#v=onepage&q=%22serves%20you%20heart%20and%20soul%22&f=false)*, trans. Nevill Coghill).
>
>
> In her mortification Varvara Petrovna **threw herself heart and soul** into the “new ideas,” and began giving evening receptions. ([*Complete Novels of Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Unabridged)*](https://books.google.com/books?id=r1RjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT3987&lpg=PT3987&dq=%22threw%20herself%20heart%20and%20soul%22&source=bl&ots=FkvVUlmU0v&sig=ACfU3U0btUqupaMFbAi7KDu4WHZQ1BfMow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivgP6n19rkAhVSR60KHVjUAN8Q6AEwBnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22threw%20herself%20heart%20and%20soul%22&f=false), trans. Constance Garnett).
>
>
>
Similarly, **serve you heart and soul** means to serve you wholeheartedly or wholly. | The phrase *[with all my] heart and soul* means *with complete dedication*, so 'serve *your* heart and soul' does not make sense. |
497,873 | "From Burgin, where lanes of traffic in each direction are separated by a median, motorists will be able to make a right turn onto the bridge, and a **right off** the bridge."
Having a look in the above sentence what I found from Merriam Webster is right off = right away but things just differ in another sentence which is also closed to above one.
"To a Muggle, there's nothing better than the smell of a fresh Harry Potter book **right off** the shelf."
But, the second sentence does not make any sense applying the meaning as "right away". Can anyone clarify the whole thing? | 2019/05/09 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/497873",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/347782/"
] | You're going between 3 (!) distinct expressions that look similar but are functioning differently.
**First**, in the relevant [Merriam-Webster entry](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20off#examples), here is the example sentence:
>
> he had just gotten married when he was shipped **right off** to war
>
>
>
*Right off* is an adverb that describes when or how he was shipped to war: *[right away](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20away)* or immediately.
However, neither of the two sentences found "on the web" under the Merriam-Webster definition fit this usage. The text under these sentences explains that these are selected automatically and not by editors:
>
> These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'right off.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors.
>
>
>
They allow you to send feedback with a link under the disclaimer. I suggest you do so. In brief, here's what's going on with those "on the web" sentences.
So, **second**, in this example,
>
> From Burgin, where lanes of traffic in each direction are separated by a median, motorists will be able to make a right turn onto the bridge, and a **right off** the bridge.
>
>
>
the presence of the article *a* leads one to read *a right* as a noun ([Merriam-Webster "right," noun, def. 5e](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right)) indicating a right turn and *off the bridge* as a prepositional phrase indicating further information about the direction.
**Third**, in this sentence,
>
> To a Muggle, there's nothing better than the smell of a fresh Harry
> Potter book **right off** the shelf.
>
>
>
*right* ([Merriam Webster "right," adv., passim](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right)) is an adverb meaning something like "directly" or "immediately," and "off the shelf" denotes where the book came from. "Right off the shelf" is also a common expression (see [Google Books](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&biw=1920&bih=901&tbm=bks&ei=dEbUXOD3A4-l_QbJkaGIDQ&q=%22right%20off%20the%20shelf%22&oq=%22right%20off%20the%20shelf%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299k1l2.796.1196.0.1365.2.2.0.0.0.0.48.87.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.87....0.FdHTqDfhQI8)) that connotes immediacy and easy access from a retail shelf. | The word "right" has many meanings, and your examples touch on several of them ([Dictionary](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/right)).
As an adjective in the first sentence ("a right turn") it means, of course, "on the right-hand side."
As a noun, "right" can mean the right-hand part, side, or direction when paired with a definite article ("the right"), or a right turn with an indefinite article ("a right"). That is how it is used in the latter part of the first sentence ("**a** right off the bridge"). The clue here is the indefinite article "a" which indicates the use of a noun. This is not a use of the idiomatic phrase "right off," but rather a noun ("a right") followed by a prepositional phrase as a modifier ("off the bridge").
"Right" can also be used as an adverb to mean "completely" ("I fell right off my chair") or "directly" ("I came right home"). In the phrase "a book right off the shelf" it means directly, as a book taken directly off the shelf. In other words, the author is referring to the smell of the book immediately (directly) after taking it off the shelf. |
133,410 | I have an HP Stream 7 that I'm not using here (since I've bought my Asus T100), and I was thinking about putting an Android to run, instead of the Windows OS. I know that is possible, but my question is: is it viable? Has someone already tested this using the same model? Does it have any problems with drivers, or something that Android does not recognize? If it works, I'll definitely give it a shot. | 2016/01/05 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/133410",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/72428/"
] | After a little bit of work, I was able to run an Android live version at the HP Stream 7. Unfortunately, it's a little bit buggy, mainly because there is no drivers available for the device. I will make some researches on, to see what I can find. Thanks for the answer | It's months later, I can add a new ponderance to your problem and the solution.
All Android OS on any device is really a Java Virtual Machine.
Download for Linux, Windows, Mac.... the Android SDK you can build from almost any version, to almost any hardware. You will have to read, read, read. |
133,410 | I have an HP Stream 7 that I'm not using here (since I've bought my Asus T100), and I was thinking about putting an Android to run, instead of the Windows OS. I know that is possible, but my question is: is it viable? Has someone already tested this using the same model? Does it have any problems with drivers, or something that Android does not recognize? If it works, I'll definitely give it a shot. | 2016/01/05 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/133410",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/72428/"
] | After a little bit of work, I was able to run an Android live version at the HP Stream 7. Unfortunately, it's a little bit buggy, mainly because there is no drivers available for the device. I will make some researches on, to see what I can find. Thanks for the answer | no you cant, its just impossible. Drivers are a huge problem as android os needs not available on the stream 7 |
133,410 | I have an HP Stream 7 that I'm not using here (since I've bought my Asus T100), and I was thinking about putting an Android to run, instead of the Windows OS. I know that is possible, but my question is: is it viable? Has someone already tested this using the same model? Does it have any problems with drivers, or something that Android does not recognize? If it works, I'll definitely give it a shot. | 2016/01/05 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/133410",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/72428/"
] | Drivers are the largest issue, trying this. LUbuntu (ubuntu lite) or XUbuntu (runs x11 gui manager, even lighter) BUT, you'll need to know the CPU type on your tablet. Most all 'nix' software is ported to run on x386 (aka Intel Atom) processor. The ARM architecture is more of a challenge. NOOBS the standard Raspberry Pi image, gives you a 50/50 chance.! IMHO Some of the ARM xuntu distributions would probably run fine. You'll have to read on those OS and Platforms. The new Allwinner Tech ARM CPU's are forcing their way into being the ARM standard. you'll then have to worry about drivers, & not be afraid of downloading and installing APK files... good luck, keep us posted. I have a couple allwinner white box tablets, that bricked themselves, it would be nice to have them run "something" , even if it's a remote video cam to watch the kid go in/out of the house! | It's months later, I can add a new ponderance to your problem and the solution.
All Android OS on any device is really a Java Virtual Machine.
Download for Linux, Windows, Mac.... the Android SDK you can build from almost any version, to almost any hardware. You will have to read, read, read. |
133,410 | I have an HP Stream 7 that I'm not using here (since I've bought my Asus T100), and I was thinking about putting an Android to run, instead of the Windows OS. I know that is possible, but my question is: is it viable? Has someone already tested this using the same model? Does it have any problems with drivers, or something that Android does not recognize? If it works, I'll definitely give it a shot. | 2016/01/05 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/133410",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/72428/"
] | Drivers are the largest issue, trying this. LUbuntu (ubuntu lite) or XUbuntu (runs x11 gui manager, even lighter) BUT, you'll need to know the CPU type on your tablet. Most all 'nix' software is ported to run on x386 (aka Intel Atom) processor. The ARM architecture is more of a challenge. NOOBS the standard Raspberry Pi image, gives you a 50/50 chance.! IMHO Some of the ARM xuntu distributions would probably run fine. You'll have to read on those OS and Platforms. The new Allwinner Tech ARM CPU's are forcing their way into being the ARM standard. you'll then have to worry about drivers, & not be afraid of downloading and installing APK files... good luck, keep us posted. I have a couple allwinner white box tablets, that bricked themselves, it would be nice to have them run "something" , even if it's a remote video cam to watch the kid go in/out of the house! | no you cant, its just impossible. Drivers are a huge problem as android os needs not available on the stream 7 |
90,056 | I picked up 5lbs of mussels today for dinner and didn’t realize until I got home that they never put them on ice for transport. It’s was about 1.5 hours between purchase and the time I put them in my fridge. They were in an air conditioned vehicle the whole time except for about 20 minutes when I ran into the grocery store. The car did heat up then.
When I got home and realized there was no ice I called the market for advise and they said toss them, they probably died. In an attempt to avoid driving almost an hour to get more I dropped them in water to see if they floated or sunk and I saw a number of them swimming and moving. I assumed they weren’t dead at that point and went to wash each individually to inspect them. The vast majority were tightly closed, with only about 20 mussels of the 5 lbs slightly open. There was also one middle that was wide open but snapped shut when i put water on it. (Again, I’m assuming that’s definitely alive.)
After finding the vast majority still tightly closed, I called the market back and they were very unhelpful. The manager said she sticks by her original statement that they are probably dead, but if they were tightly closed they would probably be ok.
So, I need advise, I don’t want to make our dinner guests sick, but I’m also hesitant to make the 1 hour drive (one way) to pick up more mussels. Should I just chalk it up to a loss and do a different dinner? Or am I totally safe to serve them???? | 2018/05/29 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67394/"
] | The mussels are most likely fine.
1. If they are visibly alive, it means that they spent the drive in an environment which was not harmful enough for them to die.
2. Even if some of them died during the drive it must have taken them some time to die. They spent the rest of the time in an air-conditioned car. Even if they died very soon after departure, they only spent an hour or so in conditions which were still okay for some of them to survive.
Do not listen to roetnig's advice about closed mussels. It is a well-known myth that they are necessarily bad. Wikipedia article on Mussels [says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussel#As_food):
>
> Mussel shells usually open when cooked, revealing the cooked soft parts. Historically, it has been believed that after cooking all the mussels should have opened and those that have not are not safe to eat and should be discarded. However, according to marine biologist Nick Ruello, this advice may have arisen from an old, poorly researched cookbook's advice, which has now become an assumed truism for all shellfish. Ruello found 11.5% of all mussels failed to open during cooking, but when forced open, 100% were "both adequately cooked and safe to eat."
>
>
>
The article linked on Wikipedia is not a scientific paper though. I hope someone will do a more thorough analysis of closed mussels and their safety, but the popular rule of thumb seems to be pretty false. | Mussels close themself tight when out of the water. Once boiled they open.
If you have any mussels open when out of the water, discard them.
If you have any mussels tightly closed once boiled, discard them. |
492,130 | Since the voltage in a coil is proportional to the number of turns, the ratio of voltages is equal to the ratio of turns.
So if you need a big increase in voltage, what stops you from having one turn on the primary (instead of a bunch) and then many more on the secondary. Or is this actually a thing?
We wouldn't need as big transformers if so, assuming the current reduction is irrelevant. All I can think of is some kind of power loss or current not being induced. | 2019/07/17 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/492130",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/236795/"
] | Imagine that the secondary isn't connected to anything and isn't pulling any power.
What keeps the primary current from being infinite? It's just a wire, connected across a voltage source, right?
The answer is the inductance of the primary: It impedes the AC current from the AC voltage source. Even when the current in the secondary is zero, there's an *inductive* current in the primary. You want to keep this small, so you want the inductance of the primary to be large (or at least as large as economically possible) so you use multiple turns in the primary to get the inductance up. | The transformer with too small inductance can not work normally, the primary is basically equal to shortcut circuit if the number of turns is too small. |
31,108 | What will be the formatted csv to add the email's on email automation, If possible provide the provide the example of related csv | 2022/02/23 | [
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/31108",
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com",
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/11475/"
] | You can try below things
1. Put Sitecore cache on particular component.
2. Check if unnecessary JS and CSS files rendered on page, tried to render those in
optimize format. It will help you to improve page performance
3. Render images according to container size from server side by setting up height
and width parameter on image.
4. Move all JS files at bottom on page. | Try to see Sitecore logs for any errors on that specific page load. Otherwise if possible use db backup in dev env and debug the renderings associated with your placeholder "homecontent" to see which line of code is causing delay/issue and take action accordingly. |
31,108 | What will be the formatted csv to add the email's on email automation, If possible provide the provide the example of related csv | 2022/02/23 | [
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/questions/31108",
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com",
"https://sitecore.stackexchange.com/users/11475/"
] | You can try below things
1. Put Sitecore cache on particular component.
2. Check if unnecessary JS and CSS files rendered on page, tried to render those in
optimize format. It will help you to improve page performance
3. Render images according to container size from server side by setting up height
and width parameter on image.
4. Move all JS files at bottom on page. | There are number of reason when a page takes time to load, so first need to analyze its cause.
* you can check your website page speed online e.g. using site <https://pagespeed.web.dev/> , it will also suggest you the resolution
* for media - You can use CDN to serve the request or cache the components
* you can also optimize image using tool like Dianoga
* Minimize your JS and CSS files and it will be good if you only load required jss/css for the page
* you can also use lazyloading on images
-Check Network tab and see which part of page is taking more time to load.
First apply all these check then it will give you fair idea for next step. |
115,391 | I find that a lot of times, when using Community Quick Play, I end up being pushed into a server with many bots, and no real players.
Playing a game using "Find a Game" works fine, but Community Quickplay is one I frequent the most.
How can avoid these bot-ridden servers? | 2013/04/28 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/115391",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/18916/"
] | There is no real way to avoid getting into games with bots when you use the quickplay/matchmaking options. Browsing for games manually is the only way to assure you get into a game with real people (or playing competitive). | I kind of agree with the other people. You pretty much NEED to either manually go through the games to get in a server with challenging real people or get in game with dogwater bots. They should soon add an option in which it says if we want bots or not. Like if we are trying to practice aim then we can turn it on, If we are trying to do a challenge or face real people, We turn it off. |
228,554 | In Android 10, if you take a photo with the stock camera/photos app (which identifies itself as either "Camera" or "Photos" in the app switcher¹) and then view it afterwards, one of the "buttons" is a trash can. If you tap it, the phone prompts you with,
>
> Move to trash? It will be removed from all folders.
>
> [Trashcan] Move to trash
>
>
>
Where is the "trash" that this is being moved to, and how do I access it?
(The device is a Pixel 3a purchased directly from Google, so it should be free of the sort of junk many carriers load onto phones.)
¹The app whose icon is:
 | 2020/08/13 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/228554",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/330361/"
] | According to [How can i find my recycle bin on Android? - Google Photos Community](https://support.google.com/photos/thread/91704?hl=en)
>
> ... trash bin and the files inside it are **not actually present on your Android device**, which is why you can't find the files.
>
>
>
(Emphasis added)
By implication, they are stored on cloud and that is where you restore them from if needed. You can locate them at <https://photos.google.com/trash> as mentioned in [How to recovery the google photos deleted from trash - Google Photos Community](https://support.google.com/photos/thread/406055?hl=en).
I guess if you turn off sync for photos, deleted photos should be directly deleted without moving to Trash and obviously you won't find them at the location linked above. | >
> Where is the "trash" that this is being moved to, and how do I access it?
>
>
>
Latest version of Photos App, *Version 5.71.0.416067338*:
**Photos App -> Library -> Trash** |
2,437,479 | I am a PHP, VB.NET programmer and i like to build websites. I am good at coding but have never done website designing.
Please suggest me some good study resource on Photoshop and flash website design. I have recently made few templates on photoshop but don't know how to code them for valid HTML-CSS.
Please let me know which is the best method to design website template e.g. Photoshop, DreamWeaver etc.
Also provide links to good study and practice resource for the same. Thanks in advance. | 2010/03/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2437479",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/292832/"
] | [Psdtuts](http://psd.tutsplus.com/)
[Smashing magazine](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/)
[Six revisions](http://sixrevisions.com/)
[Nettuts](http://nettuts.com)
These are some that spring to mind. They cover webdesign and development through showcases and tutorials. They also have alot of coverage on frameworks, either mvc style or pure design frameworks like blueprint css and grid 960.
You'll have to search the tutorials on Psdtuts and Nettuts, but there are more than a couple of tutorials for cutting up psds there.
Hope that gets you started. | The only thing I have to suggest that hasn't been suggested in the prior post is:
<http://www.webstandards.org/>
This link will help you understand best practices in web design.
Although I like Adobe CS3, I don't like to use the design view - I like the code view. It's too easy to become sloppy using a GUI editor, IMO.
The most difficult thing I have encountered about web design is scope creep. Clients want to pay for a mobile home, but move into a mansion. |
2,437,479 | I am a PHP, VB.NET programmer and i like to build websites. I am good at coding but have never done website designing.
Please suggest me some good study resource on Photoshop and flash website design. I have recently made few templates on photoshop but don't know how to code them for valid HTML-CSS.
Please let me know which is the best method to design website template e.g. Photoshop, DreamWeaver etc.
Also provide links to good study and practice resource for the same. Thanks in advance. | 2010/03/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2437479",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/292832/"
] | [Psdtuts](http://psd.tutsplus.com/)
[Smashing magazine](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/)
[Six revisions](http://sixrevisions.com/)
[Nettuts](http://nettuts.com)
These are some that spring to mind. They cover webdesign and development through showcases and tutorials. They also have alot of coverage on frameworks, either mvc style or pure design frameworks like blueprint css and grid 960.
You'll have to search the tutorials on Psdtuts and Nettuts, but there are more than a couple of tutorials for cutting up psds there.
Hope that gets you started. | You may be interested in [this tutorial](http://line25.com/tutorials/how-to-code-up-a-web-design-from-psd-to-html) from Line25.
HTH |
2,437,479 | I am a PHP, VB.NET programmer and i like to build websites. I am good at coding but have never done website designing.
Please suggest me some good study resource on Photoshop and flash website design. I have recently made few templates on photoshop but don't know how to code them for valid HTML-CSS.
Please let me know which is the best method to design website template e.g. Photoshop, DreamWeaver etc.
Also provide links to good study and practice resource for the same. Thanks in advance. | 2010/03/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/2437479",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/292832/"
] | [Psdtuts](http://psd.tutsplus.com/)
[Smashing magazine](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/)
[Six revisions](http://sixrevisions.com/)
[Nettuts](http://nettuts.com)
These are some that spring to mind. They cover webdesign and development through showcases and tutorials. They also have alot of coverage on frameworks, either mvc style or pure design frameworks like blueprint css and grid 960.
You'll have to search the tutorials on Psdtuts and Nettuts, but there are more than a couple of tutorials for cutting up psds there.
Hope that gets you started. | To design a best template for the website, you should go with the Dreamweaver. It is the best software for designing a professional template for your website. For that, you need to learn basic HTML and then you can easily merge it with PHP or .Net. Create an excellent design for the website. |
87,656 | I have a script project I've been managing with Git. Besides two main branches, several minor branches have been introduced over time to cover minor features, tweaks or temporary changes. Some of these branches are nearing end-of-life, and I won't be updating them any more.
What's the different philosophies for handling branches like this? Should they be removed, or left in the repository unmaintained? If I do, won't I end up with a cluttered repository? | 2011/06/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/87656",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/26272/"
] | Personally I delete a branch once it is no longer needed. As long as all of its commits have been merged into other still existing branches, there is no harm in deleting it. If you want you can create a tag on that branch before you delete it so you can more easily recreate the branch if you ever need it again. | Delete the branch when:
* A merge has been made into master/whatever.
* Your little experiment (where you thought you could do something really smart) goes wrong. |
87,656 | I have a script project I've been managing with Git. Besides two main branches, several minor branches have been introduced over time to cover minor features, tweaks or temporary changes. Some of these branches are nearing end-of-life, and I won't be updating them any more.
What's the different philosophies for handling branches like this? Should they be removed, or left in the repository unmaintained? If I do, won't I end up with a cluttered repository? | 2011/06/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/87656",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/26272/"
] | Personally I delete a branch once it is no longer needed. As long as all of its commits have been merged into other still existing branches, there is no harm in deleting it. If you want you can create a tag on that branch before you delete it so you can more easily recreate the branch if you ever need it again. | I don't ever leave old branches lying around. Unless I'm positive that I'm going to go back and use a branch, it gets trashed after a few days of disuse. If I suspect that I may want to go back to a branch at some future point, I tag the commit and delete the branch. |
87,656 | I have a script project I've been managing with Git. Besides two main branches, several minor branches have been introduced over time to cover minor features, tweaks or temporary changes. Some of these branches are nearing end-of-life, and I won't be updating them any more.
What's the different philosophies for handling branches like this? Should they be removed, or left in the repository unmaintained? If I do, won't I end up with a cluttered repository? | 2011/06/28 | [
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/87656",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com",
"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/26272/"
] | Delete the branch when:
* A merge has been made into master/whatever.
* Your little experiment (where you thought you could do something really smart) goes wrong. | I don't ever leave old branches lying around. Unless I'm positive that I'm going to go back and use a branch, it gets trashed after a few days of disuse. If I suspect that I may want to go back to a branch at some future point, I tag the commit and delete the branch. |
413 | 1 Peter 3:18-22 ([ESV](http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%203/)):
>
> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which **he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
>
>
>
Thanks to the line in the [Apostle's Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that reads, "He descended into hell;", some commentators interpret the phrase "he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" to mean that Jesus went to hell (or the underworld or Hades) after his crucifixion and before his resurrection. Other phrases (e.g., "right hand of God") reinforce the connection.
But is that what Peter intended us to understand by this phrase? If not, what does it mean? | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/413",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/68/"
] | Yes, that is one interpretation of this text.
Another interpretation is that he descended into a temporary holding place for the dead, which was also paradise. This interpretation is a mix of the verse you site above along with this one:
>
> [Luke 23:43 (KJV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:43&version=KJV)
>
> And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
>
>
>
This was spoken by Jesus to the thief on the cross. This verse shows that Jesus went to "paradise" after he died. The 1 Peter 3 verse shows that Jesus went to "proclaim to the spirits in prison". People mix these two ideas to come up with a temporary holding place, which is also paradise.
That interpretation (temporary paradise) along with the idea that Jesus descended into Hell are the two interpretations of the text. | When Jesus died on the cross, his body physically expired. His heart stopped beating and he physically died.
His humanity did not go into heaven--that is, not until three days later. So what happened after his death is that his body went into the grave, and his immaterial being went to the place where the righteous had then rested -- i.e., the place of rest within the underworld of Hades.
Peter is very explicit that the body of Jesus went into the grave, and that his immaterial being, which Peter calls the "soul" ([Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB)) went into Hades. Peter mentions the event a second time to provide emphasis ([Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB)).
Why did not the PERSON go to heaven?
Well, the divine nature of the person did return to his Father ([Jn 23:46](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+23:46&version=NASB)). But his human nature could not go to heaven, because his eternal life (divine nature) was separated from his body through death. Thus his humanity entered both the grave (material humanity - "body") according to [Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB) and well as entered Hades (immaterial humanity - "soul") according to [Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB).
In other words, his eternal life did not reunite with his body until Sunday morning -- the day of the resurrection.
So the body of the PERSON was broken. That is, eternal life (divine nature) was separated from his humanity. His humanity was further subdivided since his soul was separated from his body ([Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB) and [Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB)). That is, his soul was in Hades and his body was in the tomb.
To put it another way, the PERSON subsisted in two natures, and these two natures were split apart when he died on the cross. The humanity was further divided (broken) by the separation of soul (to Hades) and body (to the tomb).
So to summarize, in eternity past his divine nature was sired from the Father (the Old English word here is "begotten" -- that is, the PERSON was begotten by the Father) according to [John 1:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:1-3&version=NASB) and [1 John 1:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John+1:1-3&version=NASB). This occurred before the world existed ([John 17:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17:5&version=NASB)). When Mary was later pregnant in Bethlehem, the PERSON then took on human nature, and so the PERSON was born a "second" time with respect to human nature; thus the PERSON subsisted in two natures, which were subsequently split when he died on the cross.
The most remarkable evidence of this venture into Hades is the parallel to the liberation from Egypt. Jesus is the greater Moses. His blood is the paschal lamb that redeems those who are slaves of sin (Egypt). He leads the captives free like Moses. He subsequently renders the powers of sin (Egypt) powerless through the "water" of his eternal life, which goes straight to the Promised Land.
The chart below depicts the illustration.
Please note that **Hades = Sheol**.
He was in the grave three days and three nights; and of course that was the amount of time that transpired when the Israelites escaped Egypt. Fifty days later, the Old Covenant was given at Sinai; fifty days later the New Covenant was given at Pentecost. The parallels are remarkable.
So the soul of the humanity of Jesus was in Hades (also called Sheol) after his death on the cross. He led the Old Testament believers out of the Paradise of Hades and into the Paradise of Heaven according to [Ephesians 4:8-10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4:8-10&version=NASB) in addition to [Romans 10:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10:7&version=NASB). These verses from Romans and Ephesians indicate that it was Jesus in the lower parts of the earth or abyss. So Hades was an actual area of confinement deep in the earth, since Old Testament saints did not have the gift of eternal life, thus they "retired" to the rest of the underworld after death; but it was a confinement related to spiritual death, and thus the parallel to Egypt, since it is sin which binds us. (The story of the rich man and Lazarus in [Luke 16:19-31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16:19-31&version=NASB) provides a glimpse of this two-compartmented area of the underworld.) So the humanity of the PERSON was the first to emerge (be born) out of spiritual death, and so he is the "firstborn" from the dead ([Rev 1:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1:5&version=NASB)). By inaugurating the New Covenant "through his blood" ([Luke 22:20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22:20&version=NASB)), he now makes eternal life available to all who believe in him so that they will be able to go directly into heaven ([John 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:16&version=NASB) and [John 3:36](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:36&version=NASB)). There is therefore no more place of rest in the underworld after death for the righteous. Our place of rest is our inheritance in heaven ([1 Pet 1:3-5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter+1:3-5&version=NASB)), where he lives today. |
413 | 1 Peter 3:18-22 ([ESV](http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%203/)):
>
> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which **he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
>
>
>
Thanks to the line in the [Apostle's Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that reads, "He descended into hell;", some commentators interpret the phrase "he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" to mean that Jesus went to hell (or the underworld or Hades) after his crucifixion and before his resurrection. Other phrases (e.g., "right hand of God") reinforce the connection.
But is that what Peter intended us to understand by this phrase? If not, what does it mean? | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/413",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/68/"
] | Yes, that is one interpretation of this text.
Another interpretation is that he descended into a temporary holding place for the dead, which was also paradise. This interpretation is a mix of the verse you site above along with this one:
>
> [Luke 23:43 (KJV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:43&version=KJV)
>
> And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
>
>
>
This was spoken by Jesus to the thief on the cross. This verse shows that Jesus went to "paradise" after he died. The 1 Peter 3 verse shows that Jesus went to "proclaim to the spirits in prison". People mix these two ideas to come up with a temporary holding place, which is also paradise.
That interpretation (temporary paradise) along with the idea that Jesus descended into Hell are the two interpretations of the text. | If we are using the Apostles Creed to justify Jesus preaching to 'the dead' while he is 'in the grave', the creed is either not aligned with scripture or we are reading more of it than it intends.
>
> ...was crucified, died, and was buried;
>
>
>
>
> he descended to the dead.
>
>
>
>
> On the third day he rose again;
>
>
>
**Now let the biblical text speak for itself. 1 Pet 3:18-20**
Peter IS an apostle, he has written (what we have accepted as) God's inspired word.
>
> For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah...
>
>
>
* Christ completely died (his spirit returned to the Father Luke 23:46)
* *After 3 days* he is raised IN THE SPIRIT by his Father/God - at this point he is made alive again.
* 'IN WHICH'... in this spirit *in which* he is made alive he preached to the spirits
So he cannot have preached while dead, because he had not been made alive in the spirit - which happened *after* the 3 days and nights.
Side note, he is not preaching to dead people, but spirits perhaps fallen angels
>
> For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 1 Pet 2:4
>
>
> |
413 | 1 Peter 3:18-22 ([ESV](http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%203/)):
>
> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which **he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
>
>
>
Thanks to the line in the [Apostle's Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that reads, "He descended into hell;", some commentators interpret the phrase "he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" to mean that Jesus went to hell (or the underworld or Hades) after his crucifixion and before his resurrection. Other phrases (e.g., "right hand of God") reinforce the connection.
But is that what Peter intended us to understand by this phrase? If not, what does it mean? | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/413",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/68/"
] | Yes, that is one interpretation of this text.
Another interpretation is that he descended into a temporary holding place for the dead, which was also paradise. This interpretation is a mix of the verse you site above along with this one:
>
> [Luke 23:43 (KJV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023:43&version=KJV)
>
> And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
>
>
>
This was spoken by Jesus to the thief on the cross. This verse shows that Jesus went to "paradise" after he died. The 1 Peter 3 verse shows that Jesus went to "proclaim to the spirits in prison". People mix these two ideas to come up with a temporary holding place, which is also paradise.
That interpretation (temporary paradise) along with the idea that Jesus descended into Hell are the two interpretations of the text. | ### Does Peter suggest Jesus “descended into hell”?
1 Peter 3:19, 20
>
> **19** And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison, **20** who had formerly been disobedient when God was patiently waiting in Noah’s day, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water. (NWT)
>
>
>
As the context indicates, Jesus was preaching to the angels that had forsaken their heavenly abode to dwell with and marry women.
So where are these angels? 2 Peter 2:4 gives us a clearer picture, but to understand its meaning let's look at the original Greek:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EUFiF.png)
[BibleHub](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/2-4.htm)
Here Peter mentions "having cast [them] down to Tartarus". So what is Tartarus? In the entry for [ταρταρόω (tartaroó 5020)](https://biblehub.com/greek/5020.htm), Strong's describes it as:
>
> [In Greek mythology, Tartarus was a "place of punishment under the earth, to which, for example, the Titans were sent" (Souter).]
>
>
>
Greeks would have easily understood its meaning from their mythology. But what about us? How do we understand this *Tartarus*?
The *Insight on the Scriptures* article ["Tartarus"](https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=1200004329&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=6) brings out the following:
>
> From these texts it is evident that Tartarus is a *condition* rather than a particular location, inasmuch as Peter, on the one hand, speaks of these disobedient spirits as being in “pits of dense darkness,” while Paul speaks of them as being in “heavenly places” from which they exercise a rule of darkness as wicked spirit forces. (2Pe 2:4; Eph 6:10-12) The dense darkness similarly is not literally a lack of light but results from their being cut off from illumination by God as renegades and outcasts from his family, with only a dark outlook as to their eternal destiny.
>
>
>
So Jesus did not go to Hell, or [Hades](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001803), to preach to these "spirits in prison" but it was after his resurrection that he was to proclaim a message of victory over them.
>
> For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh **but made alive in the spirit**.–1 Peter 3:18 (NWT) [bold mine]
>
>
>
>
> Commenting on this text, *Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words* says: “In I Pet. 3:19 the probable reference is, not to glad tidings (which there is no real evidence that Noah preached, nor is there evidence that the spirits of antediluvian people are actually ‘in prison’), but to the act of Christ after His resurrection in proclaiming His victory to fallen angelic spirits.” (1981, Vol. 3, p. 201) [["What was the objective of Jesus' preaching 'to the spirits in prison'? *Insight on the Scriptures*]](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003544#h=24:0-26:0)
>
>
> |
413 | 1 Peter 3:18-22 ([ESV](http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%203/)):
>
> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which **he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
>
>
>
Thanks to the line in the [Apostle's Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that reads, "He descended into hell;", some commentators interpret the phrase "he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" to mean that Jesus went to hell (or the underworld or Hades) after his crucifixion and before his resurrection. Other phrases (e.g., "right hand of God") reinforce the connection.
But is that what Peter intended us to understand by this phrase? If not, what does it mean? | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/413",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/68/"
] | Wayne Grudem wrote a rather thorough article on this subject for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, in 1991. The article can be found online:
[He Did Not Descend Into Hell: A Plea for Following Scripture Instead of the Apostles' Creed](http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/34/34-1/34-1-pp103-113_JETS.pdf)
I believe the article is also reproduced as an appendix to his *Systematic Theology*.
The article discusses two things primarily:
* A textual criticism approach to the creed itself, tracing its gradual development
* The exegesis of the various passages that come to bear on this concept
Obviously, from the title of the article, you can see the he concludes that the text does *not* refer to descent into hell. But regardless if you agree with his conclusions, he provides, again, a quite thorough discussion. | When Jesus died on the cross, his body physically expired. His heart stopped beating and he physically died.
His humanity did not go into heaven--that is, not until three days later. So what happened after his death is that his body went into the grave, and his immaterial being went to the place where the righteous had then rested -- i.e., the place of rest within the underworld of Hades.
Peter is very explicit that the body of Jesus went into the grave, and that his immaterial being, which Peter calls the "soul" ([Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB)) went into Hades. Peter mentions the event a second time to provide emphasis ([Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB)).
Why did not the PERSON go to heaven?
Well, the divine nature of the person did return to his Father ([Jn 23:46](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+23:46&version=NASB)). But his human nature could not go to heaven, because his eternal life (divine nature) was separated from his body through death. Thus his humanity entered both the grave (material humanity - "body") according to [Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB) and well as entered Hades (immaterial humanity - "soul") according to [Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB).
In other words, his eternal life did not reunite with his body until Sunday morning -- the day of the resurrection.
So the body of the PERSON was broken. That is, eternal life (divine nature) was separated from his humanity. His humanity was further subdivided since his soul was separated from his body ([Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB) and [Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB)). That is, his soul was in Hades and his body was in the tomb.
To put it another way, the PERSON subsisted in two natures, and these two natures were split apart when he died on the cross. The humanity was further divided (broken) by the separation of soul (to Hades) and body (to the tomb).
So to summarize, in eternity past his divine nature was sired from the Father (the Old English word here is "begotten" -- that is, the PERSON was begotten by the Father) according to [John 1:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:1-3&version=NASB) and [1 John 1:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John+1:1-3&version=NASB). This occurred before the world existed ([John 17:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17:5&version=NASB)). When Mary was later pregnant in Bethlehem, the PERSON then took on human nature, and so the PERSON was born a "second" time with respect to human nature; thus the PERSON subsisted in two natures, which were subsequently split when he died on the cross.
The most remarkable evidence of this venture into Hades is the parallel to the liberation from Egypt. Jesus is the greater Moses. His blood is the paschal lamb that redeems those who are slaves of sin (Egypt). He leads the captives free like Moses. He subsequently renders the powers of sin (Egypt) powerless through the "water" of his eternal life, which goes straight to the Promised Land.
The chart below depicts the illustration.
Please note that **Hades = Sheol**.
He was in the grave three days and three nights; and of course that was the amount of time that transpired when the Israelites escaped Egypt. Fifty days later, the Old Covenant was given at Sinai; fifty days later the New Covenant was given at Pentecost. The parallels are remarkable.
So the soul of the humanity of Jesus was in Hades (also called Sheol) after his death on the cross. He led the Old Testament believers out of the Paradise of Hades and into the Paradise of Heaven according to [Ephesians 4:8-10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4:8-10&version=NASB) in addition to [Romans 10:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10:7&version=NASB). These verses from Romans and Ephesians indicate that it was Jesus in the lower parts of the earth or abyss. So Hades was an actual area of confinement deep in the earth, since Old Testament saints did not have the gift of eternal life, thus they "retired" to the rest of the underworld after death; but it was a confinement related to spiritual death, and thus the parallel to Egypt, since it is sin which binds us. (The story of the rich man and Lazarus in [Luke 16:19-31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16:19-31&version=NASB) provides a glimpse of this two-compartmented area of the underworld.) So the humanity of the PERSON was the first to emerge (be born) out of spiritual death, and so he is the "firstborn" from the dead ([Rev 1:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1:5&version=NASB)). By inaugurating the New Covenant "through his blood" ([Luke 22:20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22:20&version=NASB)), he now makes eternal life available to all who believe in him so that they will be able to go directly into heaven ([John 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:16&version=NASB) and [John 3:36](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:36&version=NASB)). There is therefore no more place of rest in the underworld after death for the righteous. Our place of rest is our inheritance in heaven ([1 Pet 1:3-5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter+1:3-5&version=NASB)), where he lives today. |
413 | 1 Peter 3:18-22 ([ESV](http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%203/)):
>
> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which **he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
>
>
>
Thanks to the line in the [Apostle's Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that reads, "He descended into hell;", some commentators interpret the phrase "he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" to mean that Jesus went to hell (or the underworld or Hades) after his crucifixion and before his resurrection. Other phrases (e.g., "right hand of God") reinforce the connection.
But is that what Peter intended us to understand by this phrase? If not, what does it mean? | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/413",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/68/"
] | Wayne Grudem wrote a rather thorough article on this subject for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, in 1991. The article can be found online:
[He Did Not Descend Into Hell: A Plea for Following Scripture Instead of the Apostles' Creed](http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/34/34-1/34-1-pp103-113_JETS.pdf)
I believe the article is also reproduced as an appendix to his *Systematic Theology*.
The article discusses two things primarily:
* A textual criticism approach to the creed itself, tracing its gradual development
* The exegesis of the various passages that come to bear on this concept
Obviously, from the title of the article, you can see the he concludes that the text does *not* refer to descent into hell. But regardless if you agree with his conclusions, he provides, again, a quite thorough discussion. | If we are using the Apostles Creed to justify Jesus preaching to 'the dead' while he is 'in the grave', the creed is either not aligned with scripture or we are reading more of it than it intends.
>
> ...was crucified, died, and was buried;
>
>
>
>
> he descended to the dead.
>
>
>
>
> On the third day he rose again;
>
>
>
**Now let the biblical text speak for itself. 1 Pet 3:18-20**
Peter IS an apostle, he has written (what we have accepted as) God's inspired word.
>
> For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah...
>
>
>
* Christ completely died (his spirit returned to the Father Luke 23:46)
* *After 3 days* he is raised IN THE SPIRIT by his Father/God - at this point he is made alive again.
* 'IN WHICH'... in this spirit *in which* he is made alive he preached to the spirits
So he cannot have preached while dead, because he had not been made alive in the spirit - which happened *after* the 3 days and nights.
Side note, he is not preaching to dead people, but spirits perhaps fallen angels
>
> For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 1 Pet 2:4
>
>
> |
413 | 1 Peter 3:18-22 ([ESV](http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%203/)):
>
> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which **he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
>
>
>
Thanks to the line in the [Apostle's Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that reads, "He descended into hell;", some commentators interpret the phrase "he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" to mean that Jesus went to hell (or the underworld or Hades) after his crucifixion and before his resurrection. Other phrases (e.g., "right hand of God") reinforce the connection.
But is that what Peter intended us to understand by this phrase? If not, what does it mean? | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/413",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/68/"
] | Wayne Grudem wrote a rather thorough article on this subject for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, in 1991. The article can be found online:
[He Did Not Descend Into Hell: A Plea for Following Scripture Instead of the Apostles' Creed](http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/34/34-1/34-1-pp103-113_JETS.pdf)
I believe the article is also reproduced as an appendix to his *Systematic Theology*.
The article discusses two things primarily:
* A textual criticism approach to the creed itself, tracing its gradual development
* The exegesis of the various passages that come to bear on this concept
Obviously, from the title of the article, you can see the he concludes that the text does *not* refer to descent into hell. But regardless if you agree with his conclusions, he provides, again, a quite thorough discussion. | ### Does Peter suggest Jesus “descended into hell”?
1 Peter 3:19, 20
>
> **19** And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison, **20** who had formerly been disobedient when God was patiently waiting in Noah’s day, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water. (NWT)
>
>
>
As the context indicates, Jesus was preaching to the angels that had forsaken their heavenly abode to dwell with and marry women.
So where are these angels? 2 Peter 2:4 gives us a clearer picture, but to understand its meaning let's look at the original Greek:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EUFiF.png)
[BibleHub](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/2-4.htm)
Here Peter mentions "having cast [them] down to Tartarus". So what is Tartarus? In the entry for [ταρταρόω (tartaroó 5020)](https://biblehub.com/greek/5020.htm), Strong's describes it as:
>
> [In Greek mythology, Tartarus was a "place of punishment under the earth, to which, for example, the Titans were sent" (Souter).]
>
>
>
Greeks would have easily understood its meaning from their mythology. But what about us? How do we understand this *Tartarus*?
The *Insight on the Scriptures* article ["Tartarus"](https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=1200004329&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=6) brings out the following:
>
> From these texts it is evident that Tartarus is a *condition* rather than a particular location, inasmuch as Peter, on the one hand, speaks of these disobedient spirits as being in “pits of dense darkness,” while Paul speaks of them as being in “heavenly places” from which they exercise a rule of darkness as wicked spirit forces. (2Pe 2:4; Eph 6:10-12) The dense darkness similarly is not literally a lack of light but results from their being cut off from illumination by God as renegades and outcasts from his family, with only a dark outlook as to their eternal destiny.
>
>
>
So Jesus did not go to Hell, or [Hades](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001803), to preach to these "spirits in prison" but it was after his resurrection that he was to proclaim a message of victory over them.
>
> For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh **but made alive in the spirit**.–1 Peter 3:18 (NWT) [bold mine]
>
>
>
>
> Commenting on this text, *Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words* says: “In I Pet. 3:19 the probable reference is, not to glad tidings (which there is no real evidence that Noah preached, nor is there evidence that the spirits of antediluvian people are actually ‘in prison’), but to the act of Christ after His resurrection in proclaiming His victory to fallen angelic spirits.” (1981, Vol. 3, p. 201) [["What was the objective of Jesus' preaching 'to the spirits in prison'? *Insight on the Scriptures*]](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003544#h=24:0-26:0)
>
>
> |
413 | 1 Peter 3:18-22 ([ESV](http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%203/)):
>
> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which **he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
>
>
>
Thanks to the line in the [Apostle's Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that reads, "He descended into hell;", some commentators interpret the phrase "he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" to mean that Jesus went to hell (or the underworld or Hades) after his crucifixion and before his resurrection. Other phrases (e.g., "right hand of God") reinforce the connection.
But is that what Peter intended us to understand by this phrase? If not, what does it mean? | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/413",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/68/"
] | When Jesus died on the cross, his body physically expired. His heart stopped beating and he physically died.
His humanity did not go into heaven--that is, not until three days later. So what happened after his death is that his body went into the grave, and his immaterial being went to the place where the righteous had then rested -- i.e., the place of rest within the underworld of Hades.
Peter is very explicit that the body of Jesus went into the grave, and that his immaterial being, which Peter calls the "soul" ([Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB)) went into Hades. Peter mentions the event a second time to provide emphasis ([Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB)).
Why did not the PERSON go to heaven?
Well, the divine nature of the person did return to his Father ([Jn 23:46](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+23:46&version=NASB)). But his human nature could not go to heaven, because his eternal life (divine nature) was separated from his body through death. Thus his humanity entered both the grave (material humanity - "body") according to [Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB) and well as entered Hades (immaterial humanity - "soul") according to [Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB).
In other words, his eternal life did not reunite with his body until Sunday morning -- the day of the resurrection.
So the body of the PERSON was broken. That is, eternal life (divine nature) was separated from his humanity. His humanity was further subdivided since his soul was separated from his body ([Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB) and [Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB)). That is, his soul was in Hades and his body was in the tomb.
To put it another way, the PERSON subsisted in two natures, and these two natures were split apart when he died on the cross. The humanity was further divided (broken) by the separation of soul (to Hades) and body (to the tomb).
So to summarize, in eternity past his divine nature was sired from the Father (the Old English word here is "begotten" -- that is, the PERSON was begotten by the Father) according to [John 1:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:1-3&version=NASB) and [1 John 1:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John+1:1-3&version=NASB). This occurred before the world existed ([John 17:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17:5&version=NASB)). When Mary was later pregnant in Bethlehem, the PERSON then took on human nature, and so the PERSON was born a "second" time with respect to human nature; thus the PERSON subsisted in two natures, which were subsequently split when he died on the cross.
The most remarkable evidence of this venture into Hades is the parallel to the liberation from Egypt. Jesus is the greater Moses. His blood is the paschal lamb that redeems those who are slaves of sin (Egypt). He leads the captives free like Moses. He subsequently renders the powers of sin (Egypt) powerless through the "water" of his eternal life, which goes straight to the Promised Land.
The chart below depicts the illustration.
Please note that **Hades = Sheol**.
He was in the grave three days and three nights; and of course that was the amount of time that transpired when the Israelites escaped Egypt. Fifty days later, the Old Covenant was given at Sinai; fifty days later the New Covenant was given at Pentecost. The parallels are remarkable.
So the soul of the humanity of Jesus was in Hades (also called Sheol) after his death on the cross. He led the Old Testament believers out of the Paradise of Hades and into the Paradise of Heaven according to [Ephesians 4:8-10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4:8-10&version=NASB) in addition to [Romans 10:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10:7&version=NASB). These verses from Romans and Ephesians indicate that it was Jesus in the lower parts of the earth or abyss. So Hades was an actual area of confinement deep in the earth, since Old Testament saints did not have the gift of eternal life, thus they "retired" to the rest of the underworld after death; but it was a confinement related to spiritual death, and thus the parallel to Egypt, since it is sin which binds us. (The story of the rich man and Lazarus in [Luke 16:19-31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16:19-31&version=NASB) provides a glimpse of this two-compartmented area of the underworld.) So the humanity of the PERSON was the first to emerge (be born) out of spiritual death, and so he is the "firstborn" from the dead ([Rev 1:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1:5&version=NASB)). By inaugurating the New Covenant "through his blood" ([Luke 22:20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22:20&version=NASB)), he now makes eternal life available to all who believe in him so that they will be able to go directly into heaven ([John 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:16&version=NASB) and [John 3:36](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:36&version=NASB)). There is therefore no more place of rest in the underworld after death for the righteous. Our place of rest is our inheritance in heaven ([1 Pet 1:3-5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter+1:3-5&version=NASB)), where he lives today. | If we are using the Apostles Creed to justify Jesus preaching to 'the dead' while he is 'in the grave', the creed is either not aligned with scripture or we are reading more of it than it intends.
>
> ...was crucified, died, and was buried;
>
>
>
>
> he descended to the dead.
>
>
>
>
> On the third day he rose again;
>
>
>
**Now let the biblical text speak for itself. 1 Pet 3:18-20**
Peter IS an apostle, he has written (what we have accepted as) God's inspired word.
>
> For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah...
>
>
>
* Christ completely died (his spirit returned to the Father Luke 23:46)
* *After 3 days* he is raised IN THE SPIRIT by his Father/God - at this point he is made alive again.
* 'IN WHICH'... in this spirit *in which* he is made alive he preached to the spirits
So he cannot have preached while dead, because he had not been made alive in the spirit - which happened *after* the 3 days and nights.
Side note, he is not preaching to dead people, but spirits perhaps fallen angels
>
> For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 1 Pet 2:4
>
>
> |
413 | 1 Peter 3:18-22 ([ESV](http://www.esvbible.org/search/1%20Peter%203/)):
>
> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which **he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
>
>
>
Thanks to the line in the [Apostle's Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that reads, "He descended into hell;", some commentators interpret the phrase "he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" to mean that Jesus went to hell (or the underworld or Hades) after his crucifixion and before his resurrection. Other phrases (e.g., "right hand of God") reinforce the connection.
But is that what Peter intended us to understand by this phrase? If not, what does it mean? | 2011/10/24 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/413",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/68/"
] | When Jesus died on the cross, his body physically expired. His heart stopped beating and he physically died.
His humanity did not go into heaven--that is, not until three days later. So what happened after his death is that his body went into the grave, and his immaterial being went to the place where the righteous had then rested -- i.e., the place of rest within the underworld of Hades.
Peter is very explicit that the body of Jesus went into the grave, and that his immaterial being, which Peter calls the "soul" ([Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB)) went into Hades. Peter mentions the event a second time to provide emphasis ([Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB)).
Why did not the PERSON go to heaven?
Well, the divine nature of the person did return to his Father ([Jn 23:46](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+23:46&version=NASB)). But his human nature could not go to heaven, because his eternal life (divine nature) was separated from his body through death. Thus his humanity entered both the grave (material humanity - "body") according to [Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB) and well as entered Hades (immaterial humanity - "soul") according to [Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB).
In other words, his eternal life did not reunite with his body until Sunday morning -- the day of the resurrection.
So the body of the PERSON was broken. That is, eternal life (divine nature) was separated from his humanity. His humanity was further subdivided since his soul was separated from his body ([Acts 2:27](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:27&version=NASB) and [Acts 2:31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2:31&version=NASB)). That is, his soul was in Hades and his body was in the tomb.
To put it another way, the PERSON subsisted in two natures, and these two natures were split apart when he died on the cross. The humanity was further divided (broken) by the separation of soul (to Hades) and body (to the tomb).
So to summarize, in eternity past his divine nature was sired from the Father (the Old English word here is "begotten" -- that is, the PERSON was begotten by the Father) according to [John 1:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:1-3&version=NASB) and [1 John 1:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John+1:1-3&version=NASB). This occurred before the world existed ([John 17:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17:5&version=NASB)). When Mary was later pregnant in Bethlehem, the PERSON then took on human nature, and so the PERSON was born a "second" time with respect to human nature; thus the PERSON subsisted in two natures, which were subsequently split when he died on the cross.
The most remarkable evidence of this venture into Hades is the parallel to the liberation from Egypt. Jesus is the greater Moses. His blood is the paschal lamb that redeems those who are slaves of sin (Egypt). He leads the captives free like Moses. He subsequently renders the powers of sin (Egypt) powerless through the "water" of his eternal life, which goes straight to the Promised Land.
The chart below depicts the illustration.
Please note that **Hades = Sheol**.
He was in the grave three days and three nights; and of course that was the amount of time that transpired when the Israelites escaped Egypt. Fifty days later, the Old Covenant was given at Sinai; fifty days later the New Covenant was given at Pentecost. The parallels are remarkable.
So the soul of the humanity of Jesus was in Hades (also called Sheol) after his death on the cross. He led the Old Testament believers out of the Paradise of Hades and into the Paradise of Heaven according to [Ephesians 4:8-10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4:8-10&version=NASB) in addition to [Romans 10:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10:7&version=NASB). These verses from Romans and Ephesians indicate that it was Jesus in the lower parts of the earth or abyss. So Hades was an actual area of confinement deep in the earth, since Old Testament saints did not have the gift of eternal life, thus they "retired" to the rest of the underworld after death; but it was a confinement related to spiritual death, and thus the parallel to Egypt, since it is sin which binds us. (The story of the rich man and Lazarus in [Luke 16:19-31](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16:19-31&version=NASB) provides a glimpse of this two-compartmented area of the underworld.) So the humanity of the PERSON was the first to emerge (be born) out of spiritual death, and so he is the "firstborn" from the dead ([Rev 1:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1:5&version=NASB)). By inaugurating the New Covenant "through his blood" ([Luke 22:20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22:20&version=NASB)), he now makes eternal life available to all who believe in him so that they will be able to go directly into heaven ([John 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:16&version=NASB) and [John 3:36](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:36&version=NASB)). There is therefore no more place of rest in the underworld after death for the righteous. Our place of rest is our inheritance in heaven ([1 Pet 1:3-5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter+1:3-5&version=NASB)), where he lives today. | ### Does Peter suggest Jesus “descended into hell”?
1 Peter 3:19, 20
>
> **19** And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison, **20** who had formerly been disobedient when God was patiently waiting in Noah’s day, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water. (NWT)
>
>
>
As the context indicates, Jesus was preaching to the angels that had forsaken their heavenly abode to dwell with and marry women.
So where are these angels? 2 Peter 2:4 gives us a clearer picture, but to understand its meaning let's look at the original Greek:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EUFiF.png)
[BibleHub](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/2-4.htm)
Here Peter mentions "having cast [them] down to Tartarus". So what is Tartarus? In the entry for [ταρταρόω (tartaroó 5020)](https://biblehub.com/greek/5020.htm), Strong's describes it as:
>
> [In Greek mythology, Tartarus was a "place of punishment under the earth, to which, for example, the Titans were sent" (Souter).]
>
>
>
Greeks would have easily understood its meaning from their mythology. But what about us? How do we understand this *Tartarus*?
The *Insight on the Scriptures* article ["Tartarus"](https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=1200004329&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=6) brings out the following:
>
> From these texts it is evident that Tartarus is a *condition* rather than a particular location, inasmuch as Peter, on the one hand, speaks of these disobedient spirits as being in “pits of dense darkness,” while Paul speaks of them as being in “heavenly places” from which they exercise a rule of darkness as wicked spirit forces. (2Pe 2:4; Eph 6:10-12) The dense darkness similarly is not literally a lack of light but results from their being cut off from illumination by God as renegades and outcasts from his family, with only a dark outlook as to their eternal destiny.
>
>
>
So Jesus did not go to Hell, or [Hades](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001803), to preach to these "spirits in prison" but it was after his resurrection that he was to proclaim a message of victory over them.
>
> For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh **but made alive in the spirit**.–1 Peter 3:18 (NWT) [bold mine]
>
>
>
>
> Commenting on this text, *Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words* says: “In I Pet. 3:19 the probable reference is, not to glad tidings (which there is no real evidence that Noah preached, nor is there evidence that the spirits of antediluvian people are actually ‘in prison’), but to the act of Christ after His resurrection in proclaiming His victory to fallen angelic spirits.” (1981, Vol. 3, p. 201) [["What was the objective of Jesus' preaching 'to the spirits in prison'? *Insight on the Scriptures*]](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003544#h=24:0-26:0)
>
>
> |
7,822,182 | I have some Xcode (iPhone/iPad) development on the horizon and will also be doing a bit of Eclipse (Java) and .NET development in between. Since I'll be running a VM for the Windows stuff, I think a Macbook Pro is the way to go.
What I am wondering is, does the 13" Pro have enough screen real estate to make development at least a little enjoyable? I looked at the AIR and whilst it has better resolution than the 13" Pro, it of course lacks in terms of RAM etc. As a consultant I will probably be carrying this thing around quite a lot, so would rather not go with the 15".
I will be adding the SSD option to the Pro.
Any advice much appreciated. | 2011/10/19 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7822182",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/874876/"
] | While it certainly is possible and still enjoyable (my experience is with NetBeans) to work on a 13" MBP (at 1280x800) it does get a little constrained at times. The NetBeans interface was been cleaned up a lot and works quite nicely, but sometimes still suffers, like Eclipse, of having too many little tool windows (eg. project navigation, function/class explorer etc) which quickly clutter up the display.
It is known that programmers can never have enough screen real estate and it really is more pleasant to work with a bigger screen (I used to have a 15" MBP, when I upgraded, I was constrained by the wallet :( ). While 13" certainly is more portable, I found the 15" be be quite light compared to PCs of the same size (most of the time), and it wasn't painful to carry around.
My current ideal (i.e. what I am lusting after) is a 15" matte 1680x1050 MBP. If you're not going to have a large n external display handy often, I think the more screen estate you can gather, the more you should take. | I recently switched from a 15" MBP to a 13" MBA and really enjoy it. SSD is absolutely key, so good thing that you're adding it.
I'd be reticent to go with any lower resolution than the 15" MBP / 13" MBA offers personally. So if you want to go with the Pro, stick with the 15". Screen real estate gets to be a little tight when debugging in either Eclipse or Visual Studio. I imagine it would be really cumbersome to work with on the 13" MBP.
As mentioned, the question may get more feedback on the other SE sites. Good luck with your purchase! |
59,138,245 | I am new to Oracle databases. I have installed DBeaver (never used this before too) to connect to the database.
I have created a connection (which I believe is called database) and now I am able to see the database tables and everything. How do I take the backup of the Oracle Database in DBeaver so I can use it locally for test purposes before making any change on live database?
I can't find any option to take the backup of connection/database. | 2019/12/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/59138245",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4847780/"
] | To do a proper backup of your Oracle Database, you should use the oracle provided utility, Recovery Manager. It's a command line interface that's called from your DB server shell prompt via 'RMAN'
You can also use Data Pump to export all or part of a database that can be used to import to another database...not really used for recovery of an existing database.
I'm not aware of your tool having interfaces for either of these Oracle features.
You might not need a backup at all for your needs, take a look at [Oracle Flashback Technology](https://www.oracle.com/database/technologies/high-availability/flashback.html). | DBeaver does not support oracle database export import. See details here:
<https://dbeaver.com/docs/wiki/Backup-Restore/>
You need to run the ***sqlplus*** tool to create a folder where oracle is going to import/export database dumps. Login should happen as sys as sysdba and enter the password you previously entered during database server installation. Example:
**sqlplus sys/[your password] as sysdba**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iVwFl.png)
After you successfully logged into sqlplus run the following command (don't forget to set to a different folder that you prefer to use):
**create or replace directory DATA\_PUMP\_DIR as 'D:\Database Backups';**
Once this is done exit from sqlplus and enter the following command into the command line (again no sqlplus should be used here)
**expdp sys/[your password]@localhost:1521/[listener name] file=your-database-dump-file.dmp owner=[your schema]**
Once this is done and finished you can zip your database dump if you would like to upload it somewhere else. (I had 9 GB dump and the zipped size was 1.6 GB) |
9,729 | I really like the theme of desktop site:
The mobile site, on the other hand. Well, it is clean, and exceptionally generic shade of blue and gray:
---
Would it be possible to, perhaps, just fix the color theme of mobile site to match the desktop version? Maybe even some font changes? That shouldn't be more than a few lines changed in CSS, right?
At least I find the difference jarring enough to make this meta post, and I might not be the only one who would enjoy a bit more personality :-D | 2020/02/10 | [
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9729",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11358/"
] | The mobile version of the site won't be improved
------------------------------------------------
On the main meta, there was a [post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/343179/404165) by a staff member stating that there are plans to abandon the mobile version of the site in the future:
>
> We are actively working on the responsive design that works on both desktop and mobile, based on screen size. Once that is finished and perfected, mobile web will be slated for complete removal. While we still fix vital bugs for mobile web, you shouldn't expect any new features to be built for it.
>
>
>
Try the Desktop version of the site instead
-------------------------------------------
I already have [another answer](https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8971/33707) detailing how to switch to the responsive desktop version on a mobile browser that you can check by selecting the "full site" option. This version has the same overall theme as the desktop site (after all it is the desktop site, just responsive to fit a smaller screen). I recommend giving it a try.
This version is not without its issues but given the above quote on the direction that the stack is taking, reporting any problems with the full site version when viewed on a smaller screen seems more likely to have an effect as this is the version that is being worked on. | The “mobile” version of the website—the blue-and-white version that doesn't have our site theme—is not getting updated. It's deprecated and it's slated for completed removal ([staff post here](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/343179/152515)).
This is because the main site itself—the themed version—is now mobile friendly. If it isn't already showing up that way you need to enable this behaviour:
1. Make sure you're on the desktop version of the site. If necessary, leave the blue-and-white mobile version by hitting the “full site” link in the footer.
2. Scroll down to the footer again.
3. Find the “Enable Responsiveness” link in the first section of the footer.
4. Hit that and wait for the page to reload.
The main site should then look like this on your phone. *This* is the current mobile view of the site.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F3Lks.png) |
43,043 | Just after Captain America's shield was introduced in *Captain America: The First Avenger*, Peggy Carter shot few bullets at it which created few minor distortions on it.
From [Adamantium](https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Adamantium#Proto-Adamantium) page of Marvel.Wikia,
>
> **Proto-Adamantium**
>
> This is the original Adamantium created by Dr. MacLain. Proto-Adamantium is the official name for the metal that **makes up Captain America's Shield**. It has never been recreated and is **the absolute most invulnerable item in all of existence**.
>
>
>
From [Captain America's Shield](https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Captain_America%27s_Shield) page of Marvel.Wikia:
>
> The true shield was once slightly dented by an enraged Odinforce empowered Thor, using Mjolnir, but he later reconciled and pounded out the small dent.
>
>
>
How were few bullets able to dent Captain America's shield then? | 2013/10/25 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/43043",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/931/"
] | I can think of two answers, one in-movie, and one out.
In-movie answer: The bullets don't actually damage the shield. What you're seeing there is just lead from the bullets smeared on the shield. It'll probably polish off with a little effort.
Outside-movie answer: The filmmaker didn't know about (or possibly care much about) the established mythology of the shield.
I really think that's not supposed to be seen as "damage" to the shield. | ### The bullets didn't damage the shield. They couldn't. But you have to understand everything from the movies and the comic canon are not quite the same.
**In order of relevance:**
The shield you see in Marvel Cinematic Universe's Captain America, and the object from Marvel Earth-616 are not the same device.
* The MCU shield is composed of a Vibranium-alloy, which appears to act as a very strong version of titanium with the added ability to absorb kinetic energy and vibrations, hence the bullets strike the shield and fall to the ground beneath it, exactly as they should.
* The shield has to be considered an alloy because if it was pure Vibranium there would have been NO SOUND as the bullet struck the shield. (this was probably not done because of the cognitive dissonance it might cause in a audience without any scientific training. They expect to hear the bullets striking the shield, so they do.) We forgive Stark for playing fast and loose with the language when he says it's pure vibranium...
* The Shield from the MCU should not be anywhere near as indestructible as the one from the canon Marvel Universe, lacking the Adamantium mixture, but should be strong enough to handle most things the MCU can throw at it. It has shown it was able to handle a casual strike from Mjolnir without taking any damage.
**As to the "damage" from the bullets. From the screenshot obtained from your video, the shield may be marked by residue from the bullets striking the shield but it appears unaffected in any other way.**
 |
81,412 | Is there some special video setting so you can spot invisible, cloaked or burrowed units, like Observers, DTs, or Infestors easier or better?
I find it very difficult to see where those invisible units are, but there are some pros like MKP that can spot an Observer that does not even move.
Could it have to do with their graphics setting? | 2012/08/22 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/81412",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/10933/"
] | Playing on the lowest video settings (everything on low) allows for easier distinction of the blur that the cloaked units generate. Higher video settings enhances the background terrain making it harder to see the blur.
All cloaked units distort the graphics a little bit, even burrowed moving infestors/roaches will show up as slightly darker spots on the terrain.
The amount that the players play train their eyesight to recognize these blurs to instantly spot that their screen looks just a little bit off is an indicator for them to scan and kill the Observer/DT, etc.
Here's a clip showing the Infestor/Roach movement: | No settings can make it easy to detect burrowed or invisible units, especially if they're still. Very experienced players are more likely to discover them for a few reasons:
* They have a good feel for where observers, DTs, etc are likely to show up
* They know that a given cloaked unit is likely on the field due to scouting the enemy base (i.e. Robotics Facility
* Enemy movement of visible units often gives away the presence of invisible ones.
* They've used their graphics settings for a long time and know the map terrain very well, so they'll notice more easily when something's not quite right on the screen.
I'm sure a professional player can give half a dozen other reasons. The point is, some settings may be better for certain people than others for detecting cloaked units, but most of it is experience. |
81,412 | Is there some special video setting so you can spot invisible, cloaked or burrowed units, like Observers, DTs, or Infestors easier or better?
I find it very difficult to see where those invisible units are, but there are some pros like MKP that can spot an Observer that does not even move.
Could it have to do with their graphics setting? | 2012/08/22 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/81412",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/10933/"
] | Playing on the lowest video settings (everything on low) allows for easier distinction of the blur that the cloaked units generate. Higher video settings enhances the background terrain making it harder to see the blur.
All cloaked units distort the graphics a little bit, even burrowed moving infestors/roaches will show up as slightly darker spots on the terrain.
The amount that the players play train their eyesight to recognize these blurs to instantly spot that their screen looks just a little bit off is an indicator for them to scan and kill the Observer/DT, etc.
Here's a clip showing the Infestor/Roach movement: | While this isn't so much of a help with spotting cloaked units, the graphics settings do have an effect on the appearance of the cloaked units that you own or are detecting with another unit. I believe on higher graphics settings (medium or better) they have kind of a teal, shiny look to them, while on the lowest graphics settings they're simply transparent. |
173,558 | If we have for example 3x16bit shift registers connected in series, can we clock 48 bits of data through one shift register at once and then latch all of them to output data registers, LATCH CLK and OE pins are shared.
If my thinking is not right, please explain how data clock works when shift registers are in series. | 2015/06/02 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/173558",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
] | You are correct. So long as the Dout of the first shift-register is routed into the Din of the 2nd, and then from 2nd into 3rd, and as you say have Latch, Clock & OE of all 3 connected together & into your MCU (or whatever you're driving them with), then you can clock in 48 bits, and then latch & OE them all at once. What ever was in the 3 registers originally 'disappears' (virtually 'falls out the end' of the 3rd shift-register's Dout pin) SO LONG as you clock in all 48 bits.
Alternatively, you can choose not to clock all 48 bits, for example in a LED display - with this technique you can achieve 'sliding' effects without having to re-clock all the 48 bits (followed by Latch & OE) over & over. You can clock just a single new bit in (which pushes the 48th bit out the far end never to be seen again), and then whatever was originally in the 48 bits shifts over 1 bit - whatever 'pattern' that might be shifts over 1 bit, & a new bit is added. I'm probably not explaining it very well, but just give it a try, you can't hurt anything :) | Yes.
Doing so will simply shift the output from the first register to the input from the next register. This is broadly used on projects where there is a lack of output pins, so that the shift registers can be used as extra output pins.
Also, some shift registers can be used as I/O or input pins, you would then connect the last shift registers' output to your MCU and clock them through.
There also are I/O expanders (/extenders?), I'm not quite sure in which way they differ from shift registers.
Some also have an "interrupt" pin, which will signal when one of the registers' input changes, making them more efficient in usage (not having to clock them through to check if something has changed)
Shift registers usage (and chaining) is usually easily explained in tutorials on led cubes (the bigger ones).
[Daisy chain shift registers](https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=daisy%20chain%20shift%20registers)
[I/O expanders](https://www.google.nl/?gws_rd=ssl#q=i/o%20expander) |
16,527 | I live in a house owned 50/50 by a brother and sister. The sister has moved out so it's just myself and her brother and she has asked me to pay rent just to her and her brother to receive nothing as he is still living in the house. Is this legal? | 2012/08/20 | [
"https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/16527",
"https://money.stackexchange.com",
"https://money.stackexchange.com/users/7013/"
] | There are two possibilities here. One is that the brother and sister have done a deal where the brother gets to live in the house rent free (because he owns part of it - essentially he's paying rent to himself) and the sister gets your rent paid to her as income (for owning a house she doesn't live in). That's pretty normal and makes a lot of sense. The second possibility is that there is some kind of argument going on between the brother and sister.
It's easy to discover which. Go to the brother and say "your sister asked me to pay all the rent to her - is this OK with you?". If he says "yes" it's the first case. Relax and enjoy the new space in your house, and pay the rent to the sister. If he says "No, what the hell?" then it's the second case. Start looking for a new place immediately, and in the meantime pay the rent exactly as you were doing before. | You're in big trouble here. Do you have a signed lease? If so - act as agreed in the lease. If you don't have a signed lease - then you should move out ASAP or get one. Otherwise, you'll find yourself in a cross-fire between the arguing siblings.
Legal? Laws of men have nothing to do with it. Its the laws of nature. When family is in a feud - get as far as you can.
If you can talk to the brother and get him agree to the arrangement, you might get out of the situation unharmed. |
27,323 | On Justin Sandercoe's site he recommends a [flute book](http://www.justinguitar.com/en/RE-000-Recommended.php) for guitarists, this caught my eye:
>
> Why a flute book? because most sight reading books for guitar are
> written for guitarists and are either **in position** or are mind numbing
> boring random notes and scales. This book is full of short beautiful
> melodies by the greatest composers so the reading is actually fun! As
> well as that the melodies are real, not exercises so you get "real"
> experience of reading real melodies. They are also **not in position** so
> you get used to **choosing a position** to read in. There are many time
> signatures covered too - so you can develop that skill.
>
>
>
I've never heard of the phrase "in position" or "not in position", can someone explain what it means exactly? | 2015/01/02 | [
"https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/27323",
"https://music.stackexchange.com",
"https://music.stackexchange.com/users/15313/"
] | In playing string instruments, the term "Position" refers to the placement of the left hand along the fretboard/fingerboard. Different instruments might number them differently, but with guitar, I think its the number of the fret that your index finger is would be stopping. So when your fingers are in the "usual" place, at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th frets, you are in "first position" (or more accurately, your hand is in first position). When you move up the neck, you are playing in a higher position (seconds, third, etc..., for each next fret higher).
As a side note, even in guitars, the word position can be used in slightly different ways (using different numbering schemes). See here for much more details: [I don't understand scale positions](https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/17746/i-dont-understand-scale-positions).
I think what this advice is saying is that guitar practice books are often written with these mechanical aspects in mind, and either are written in such a way as to take advantage of your hands being in a certain position, and/or have the position actually marked on the music. By suggesting flute melodies, where no positions were even considered when written, the guitarist must decide which position to play in while reading the music, thus giving them more practice in learning an additional aspect of guitar playing (and one which the author apparently feels is neglected). | Having just dug out the flute book in question from my archives (!), it seems like not a bad idea. The first few tunes can be played using open strings and not moving too far up the neck. On guitars, once one learns that there are two octaves available without moving up or down more than 4 or 5 frets, one can play most, if not all of a particular tune in that position. E.g. in A major, start on the 6th string, fret 5, and all the notes you'll need are between fret 4 and fret 7, but some tunes may go higher, and then one may use the next 'position' up.
The idea is good, given that a flute is played at actual pitch, whereas a guitar sounds an octave lower than read. This isn't a problem. The downside is that the lowest note a flute plays is the B found on 5th string, 2nd fret/ 6th string, 7th fret. So one can't practise reading and playing notes lower than this from dedicated flute music.
So, to answer, one needs to look at the whole tune, check highest and lowest notes to be played, and decide where on the guitar is the optimum fret place to play, without having to slide up or down at all, if possible, and generally it is more than a possibility. Obviously, it's o.k. to move to another position for part or all of a tune, maybe to generate a change in tone, using thicker strings, further up the neck, for instance.
So, the term doesn't really refer to the scored music - far more to where a guitarist will want/need to play it. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.