The Dudeism Forum

Okay, this is the new topic. Everything got fucked up in a previous thread, so we're branching it off here due to popular request. See below for link to original topic.

Are you happy now, you crazy fucks? ;)

Old thread: http://dudeism.com/smf/index.php?topic=2576.msg22298#msg22298

ah shit... i clicked back and forth... this is the continuing "direction of dudeism", right?  ???

and yes, forumdude, i'm a happy crazy fuck!  ;D

Yeah, that's fine. I think it was also about whether or not people can have titles and also whether or not Rev. Ed is a genius or the antichrist. ;)

well... while rev. ed is obviously fond of pontificating ( :-* ), he's hardly the antichrist... unless there's something about that strange 666 mark on the back of his head that i'm missing?

;D heeheehee  ;D

The Anti Christ surely isn't so sensitive! Actually ????? ;)

ok... so there were several things going on... and this discussion bridged from comments regarding titles and their usage, and how it should relate to the larger issue of organizing and expanding dudeism as a religion.  have i got it right so far?

Is this...Is this the fire breathing penguins thread? 8)

Troll! :(

But that's just like my opinion dude.... ;)

I would personally watch out for anything a fire breathing penguin has to say... I mean, they're cool and everything, but when they open their mouths...

Mayhem! ;)

...well... everyone must have gone off to bed... except for drunken caesar dude, stumbling around his flat. look out for that lamp CD!  ;D

i suppose in a perfect forum, we should've continued this thread under the auspice of "moving dudeism forward", rather than make forumdude branch us off... but i'm here, so i'll take the high dive...

so... dudeism is described as "the world's slowest growing religion", and offered as an alternative to the big money religions in a recent CNN article (see link below). a good summary of the church of the latter-day dude, really, and interesting to me because i hadn't really bothered to check out the background of the church until recently. i mean, it's just like, a cool place to hang out and chat, am i right? (for the record, i have spent time at dudeism.com and reading at dudespaper.com , lest you think i'm a complete knucklehead, liking the sound of my own typing fingers)  ;)

several things have been chasing themselves around my head this last week, in regards to where this is all going. i knew that dudeism was a philosophy and a lifestyle, but i hadn't really grasped the "religion" aspect... or maybe i had just ignored it, i don't know. what i have realized though, with all the fuss that ensued this week, is that coining this movement as a "religion", for me, presents some problems.

as cckeiser opined in some other thread, does the world really need another fucked up "religion" to fight over? particularly one that superimposes a christian-style framework over it's members, however lightly? even with the inclusion of tao practices and beliefs, the danger remains, imo (brought over from the other thread):

"...i'm not arguing against the natural growth process, but i do see a potential danger in emulating western-style christian organizational structures, albeit tongue in cheek, admittedly; calling someone an "archdude" or "rev" or even "dudely lama" is funny... until the humor aspect is lost, and people start taking it seriously..."

and it will be taken seriously at some point, complete with ranks and titles and the power and duties that it entails, because that's the nature of organizational structures... and as cakes pointed out, the use of titles and all that follows, even in jest (and i am guilty of this as well, in referring to myself as a goddess-- which incidentally trumps all you mere earthly mortals) is by its very nature, undudely.

i understand what you guys were saying about, "...hey, we're all dudes here...", and "... don't put much stock in it, it's all in fun...", and "...no dude is ranked higher than another...", but... but... you can't have it both ways. and really, it's fine, if that's what the majority of dudes decide they need to organize and move on, because some of us will peacefully, and without rancor, quietly choose another path.

and just in case you missed the apocalyptic warnings, the fire-breathing penguins have infiltrated the very highest levels of government, and are responsible for the high levels of agent orange in our corn supply.  ;)

8) as ever dudes, abide  8)


article link:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/3yEP3F/www.cnngo.com/bangkok/life/doctrine-chiang-mais-church-latter-day-dude-explained-206793

Quote from: Caesar dude on August 27, 2011, 06:47:30 PM
The Anti Christ surely isn't so sensitive! Actually ????? ;)

I'd rather be a sensitive fellow when it comes to personal attacks than the archangel of retribution ;)

I think a lot of us have shown some bad sides in the wake of all this turbulance.  And, congratualtions, the test results are in and apparently, we're all human afterall :D

Oh, and just because I have red hair, does not mean I'm the antichrist.  It means I'm a disciple of the egyptian god of corruption, Set.  Get your facts right, haters :P

*cough cough* Moving to the serious side of the topic.

Ok, I understand people's grievances with the titles issue now.  I've heard a lot for the counter argument.  I've heard a lot for the other side too, and I'm still a fence-sitter on this one.

I'm not pro-titles, like I said, I don't have one, I don't want one and I've never been offered one.  In fact, I think only 3 people have, to my knowledge. I now understand that people see it as a potential minefield for the future, and I had not considered that, because I'd taken the more "fuck it" attitude, and simply not cared (hence my stance in the Levelling article that titles just plain didn't matter.

For an egalitarian society to truly work there must be complete, unequivocal levelling in process, and that includes the right to call yourself whatever you wish.  But, after reading said concerns, I'll concede that some names are affixed with connotations that are not easy to shrug off.  I had not considered this, and I apologise if it might have seemed like my "fuck it" stance was somehow invalidating your concerns, this was my bad for not taking the issue seriously, even though it's obvious, in the wake of the meltdown on this topic that it's very emotive to some people.

So, if people really believe this will be an issue, I say let's agree that any form of title that implies some sort of higherachy should be frowned upon, and certainly none given.  I'm sure people like Rev Andrea F, the archdude of Italy won't be griping, he's one of the coolest, most downtoearth people around, and never really uses his title anyway.  Once again, I'm sure GMS isn't really attached to his title, he's much the same.  Neither use the title, but if even owning it is a potential issue, I'm willing to bet they'll both give them up to smooth things out.

Like I said, we all get to be called Rev, if we want, and if not, then surely it won't matter that someone else is called it.  If it's an issue to take these titles (I mean, I'm not beholden to mine, I'm just not into using an old nickname like rhed or TwoBands or something like that, but it's not out of the question for me to change my forum name if it's an issue.  I'm not out to ruffle feathers, and if I am, I'll change my forum ID, no sweat.

Which leads to the structure... Once again, I hear the concerns, but I don't see anyone, not a single person, in favour of a structure (Christian or otherwise).

I see the biggest issue in calling ourselves a religion to simply be the perception in the West of what a religion is.  These concepts of structure and rigidity and disrespect for others and imposition... I don't recognise these.  Maybe it's because the people that take umbridge are, as I mostly see, Americans, and you guys seem to have had a very different experience to us Brits when it comes to religion.  I see that we have it easy compared to the deluge of undudely religious behaviour you guys have to put up with.  CC's tale about his family and local community made me sad, as I'd hate to be made to feel like that all the time.  Makes me feel damned lucky.

However, in spite of that, I still believe this to be a religion, but we're more for the eastern thing, the uncompramised first drafts of Taosim and Buddhism.  The more perfect model is one of my favourite religions and one I intend to write about more (look out for the second parts of the "Spiritual Bungalow trilogy of articles), and that is Sikhism.

Sikhism has zero structure and zero inequality.  They are complete egalitarians who have no "clergy" of any kind, and whose rituals bring people together, as equals.  Men, women, young, old.  All can take turns reading from the sacred script, all sit equally on the floor, all partake of the same simple, humble meal.  I love Sikhism, and I love Dudeism, and that's because Dudeism(or Abidism) takes the flow of the Tao, the good-naturedness of the Buddhas and the equality of the Sikhs as well as the laidback groove of the Rastafarians, the open forum philosophy of the ancient Greeks and so much more.

I can't express how much I love what we have here, and my own personal beef is merely with the fact that the Lebowskiian side of Dudeism is not in keeping with the egalitarian ideals that are closest to my heart.  I don't want a religion that has too much focus on single white males.  And that's my only gripe.  Apart from that, I'm so, sooo grateful to be part of this, and to be accepted, and to make so many friends, and to have the ear of the community, and to be an ear in return.

I don't think I can make my position clearer that I don't want anything to change that means structure and inequality.  All along I've been an advocate of MORE equality by laying off on the Lebowski image somewhat.  I don't see how anyone could say I was doing otherwise, but, maybe I'm not always so clear.  I do waffle, that's true ;D

Yours abidingly,
Ed
AKA, the Antidude ;)

I had the name Reverend Dog which was just amusing to me for personal family reasons. Not wishing to seem mightier than thou & in the good spirit that wanders aimlessly around this forum ...

I shall henceofrth from this moment be named SpaceDog. So there.

Ok, seeing as Jay's taken the plunge and renamed himself, ignore the wishwashiness from my last post, I'll change mine as well.

Back to being known, clandestinely, as TwoBands :)

Whoa, it did happen.

Quote from: Dirty Hippie on August 28, 2011, 07:48:37 AM
Whoa, it did happen.

Yeah, your coffee intake is fine, my friend ;)

Quote...well... everyone must have gone off to bed... except for drunken caesar dude, stumbling around his flat. look out for that lamp CD! 

How did you know!!!!???? Ialways sumble over that bloody lamp! And yep one oat soda too many on school night!

Love and peace dudes.

well stated, you ginger horseman of the apocalypse  ;)

well, i hardly know where to begin  ???

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 04:49:13 AM
...I see the biggest issue in calling ourselves a religion to simply be the perception in the West of what a religion is....

yes, because religion is particularly hard to define (even in the court of international law), and usually, in a nutshell, generally contains one or more theistic components. i know and understand that other non-theistic philosophical/spiritual belief systems are often referred to as "religions" for ease of reference, but aren't they really "practices", rather than "religions"? i'm not down with the implication that i'm a god-worshipper, though i fully respect other people's rights and wishes to do so  ;) it's the old "philosophy vs. religion" debate, i'm afraid... and at some point, religions move from trying to interpret and understand the founders' original epiphanies, to practicing mindless rituals designed to emulate the original moment of enlightenment... which leads me to the next point...

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 04:49:13 AM
I can't express how much I love what we have here, and my own personal beef is merely with the fact that the Lebowskiian side of Dudeism is not in keeping with the egalitarian ideals that are closest to my heart.  I don't want a religion that has too much focus on single white males.

i know, dude... i love it here too... and i'd like to take this moment to throw an ether kiss and hug to all of the dudes that have made my time here special-- you know who you are... everyone! xox  :-*

i think the elephant in the closet here is that we are not going to be able to successfully separate lebowskiism from dudeism, without losing a lot of what attracts people to it in the first place. and let's face it... some of the lebowski stuff is really fun, from the language, to the mode of dress, not to mention zesty coitus! and really... the rug that ties it all together...but, in present form, really is a refuge for dudes of the male persuasion. speaking for myself, i've always been somewhat of an anomaly... but most females aren't going to be attracted to dudeism in its present form... and i'm not sure how to address that. it's really not enough to make the official statement (paraphrased), "...we are encouraging the use of the term 'dude' as non-gender specific..."  this is an area where we really need to put on our thinking caps, and dig hard.

i realize the dudely lama saw the movie as an inspiration for this belief system... so how much of it can really be let go, with the basic precepts still making sense?

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 04:49:13 AM
Which leads to the structure... Once again, I hear the concerns, but I don't see anyone, not a single person, in favour of a structure (Christian or otherwise).

that's because here, on the boards, we're not, in my opinion (apologies, if i'm speaking out of turn for someone). and yet, the idea of dudeism, so far, has basically been taken and superimposed onto an existing organized religious framework, both eastern and western (and there's where the titles thing rankled); and that's a real shame, because i feel like we have the opportunity to break some new ground here. that's not to say that we shouldn't build on the knowledge of what's come before, but as you pointed out somewhere, a rose by any other name still costs a fucking fortune when you get it from the florist!  ;D

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 04:49:13 AM
I don't think I can make my position clearer that I don't want anything to change that means structure and inequality.  All along I've been an advocate of MORE equality by laying off on the Lebowski image somewhat.  I don't see how anyone could say I was doing otherwise, but, maybe I'm not always so clear. 

i think you have been clear on this, but it doesn't seem to generate a lot of buzz or discussion (and if you are referring to cakes' post regarding "keeping your heads in the sand", this is an example, imo, of his idea not being clearly expressed, as he was pointing out a systemic problem). so, what's that saying about us as a collective group? that we can't be arsed to get past, "...if it ain't broke, don't fix it..." mentality? we can't really shy away from tough issues by saying, "aw, fuck it. let's go bowling", as a way to deal with everything... i mean, would you go bowling if your house was burning down, for example?  ;) much as one would like to, it's not always an appropriate response.

i'll post more later-- time to fix brekkie for the kids.

peace and abidance friends and loved ones!

Quote from: Caesar dude on August 28, 2011, 08:28:50 AM

Quote...well... everyone must have gone off to bed... except for drunken caesar dude, stumbling around his flat. look out for that lamp CD! 

How did you know!!!!???? Ialways sumble over that bloody lamp! And yep one oat soda too many on school night!

Love and peace dudes.

hahahaha-- i love how conjunctions cease to exist when one is trying to drunk-type!  ;D

Er, problem, I've been revgms longer than I have been a Dudeist, my friends have been calling me Rev for years, not reverend, just rev.

Other nick names that I have gathered are;

Gary the Gray, my wife has called me that for years
Uncle Graybeard, that's from my nephews
Guru Gary, my wife's friends

So what happened? I am ready for a new nickname, so I asks Duder, "hey I needs a new nickname, here's what others have applied", see above. He says"how about Archdudeship of Maine or New England"(I used NE cuz I really cover 4 out of 6 states, I travel alot).

But even then I am looking at lots of work changing my handle all over the web, particularly at the CN.

Yeah I need moar coffee before I finish this thought, brb.

Quote from: revgms on August 28, 2011, 10:42:22 AM
Er, problem, I've been revgms longer than I have been a Dudeist, my friends have been calling me Rev for years, not reverend, just rev.

Other nick names that I have gathered are;

Gary the Gray, my wife has called me that for years
Uncle Graybeard, that's from my nephews
Guru Gary, my wife's friends

So what happened? I am ready for a new nickname, so I asks Duder, "hey I needs a new nickname, here's what others have applied", see above. He says"how about Archdudeship of Maine or New England"(I used NE cuz I really cover 4 out of 6 states, I travel alot).

But even then I am looking at lots of work changing my handle all over the web, particularly at the CN.

Yeah I need moar coffee before I finish this thought, brb.

revgms, don't be hasty! as has also been pointed out, names are who we are-- it's how "titles" are applied and enforced that seems to be the debatable point.  ;D

Quote from: revgms on August 28, 2011, 10:42:22 AM
Er, problem, I've been revgms longer than I have been a Dudeist, my friends have been calling me Rev for years, not reverend, just rev.

Other nick names that I have gathered are;

Gary the Gray, my wife has called me that for years
Uncle Graybeard, that's from my nephews
Guru Gary, my wife's friends

Well, I kinda like those names, but still, I wouldn't worry about the name revgms there, Gary.

I think it's the use of the term Archdudeship which is causing the issues, which you've not yet done (apart from letting us know you had it, that is, you've never used it that I've seen).

I was simply moving myself away from the title reverend, as was Jason.

Like I said, I'm not keen on moving away from my own name, as I like being me, not a self-applied nickname, here in the Dudeist circles.  I'm not beholden to the term Rev, but, if it's going to cause issues, well... I dropped it.

You've got more of a right to use rev in your name, as it's a nickname, mine was just a tag to denote I'm an ordained Dudeist.  But the ordination thing seems to be making waves as well...

I'm just playing it safe.  Of course, it takes seconds to change it back if people would prefer I put my name back as they recognise it.  It's no bother either way.

So don't worry, be revgms, that's you, man :D

Oh, yeah.... Busmum... right...

We're playing Long Post Pingpong :P

First off, thanks for recognising my clarity, it just seems as though my message kept getting garbled, from how responses seemed to come out (and not just Cakey, he was a special case ;))

Secondly, my personal definition of a religion is simply:  A fundamental belief int he way things are.

So, from my perspective, any true belief is a religion.  Philosophy can be just a musing, unless you hold the thought as true to your understanding.  I believe in Dudeism and the Dude Way, so to me, it's a religion, and it's that simple.  Yeah, laws and scholars and such like to make it more complicated and such, but they can't invalidate my beliefs, only refuse to recognise them themselves (IMHO).

I know that's not the commonly held definition of a religion, but it's my simple manta of the subject :)

Thirdly, I still think we can build something unique, even if we use things that other people have hit on in the past.  Another reason I want to move away from parodies and move more into an organic flow of evolving discussions on these things until we can find something good we can agree on.  Hard thing to achieve, I know, but, I'm patient (and have low expectations ;)).

And as for Lebowski, it's not about removing it, it's about not playing up to it so much.  We could no more remove it and lock it in a cupboard (with the elephant) that we could with the Tao, or Zen.  I just think the image needs a trim and we need to make sure people don't think that what we are is all about it.  We want Lebowskiists to be themselves, but to let us be who we are, which is a broader thing altogether.  This isn't a demand from me to rip stuff out, it's about how to smoothly flow down stream and leave a few silty deposits along the way that we don't need to carry with us :)

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 11:25:12 AM
Oh, yeah.... Busmum... right...

We're playing Long Post Pingpong :P

i know we are, and i apologise to the ones who are probably sitting there thinking, "get the fuck over it, already!" i know i haven't been too given to deep, philosophical posts here, mainly sticking to humor and the like, but there's no time like the present, i suppose.  ;)

i understand your personal point  :D twobandsrevedcsensitivegingerantichrist :D , about what constitutes a religion and what it means to you; i also understand that "religion" is also a broader term used to represent a belief system, even one without dieties, so i'm not splitting hairs there.

brought over from the other thread:

Quote from: forumdude on August 23, 2011, 03:57:51 PM
...Still, it is something to consider [titles] - at the moment Dudeism doesn't require any hierarchy. But if it grows, it might. Just the nature of the beast. I don't mean that anyone would be any duder than anyone else, only that if we have people setting up local congregations then the buck should probably stop somewhere...

i think it's all well and good for us to continue the flow (even if it's mostly just us 2 blatherers  :D ), but i'm pretty interested in knowing what the DL is thinking about all this as well. i mean really... regardless of what we think, it's really a moot point, if the founder of this particular "religion" has a different vision in mind.  is there something (recent) out there that i've missed, that precipitated this whole discussion? if, so, i welcome the enlightenment.  ;D

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 11:25:12 AM
Thirdly, I still think we can build something unique, even if we use things that other people have hit on in the past. 

definitely-- i don't advocate reinventing the wheel; i'm an avid recycler.

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 11:25:12 AM
And as for Lebowski, it's not about removing it, it's about not playing up to it so much.  We could no more remove it and lock it in a cupboard (with the elephant) that we could with the Tao, or Zen.  I just think the image needs a trim and we need to make sure people don't think that what we are is all about it.  We want Lebowskiists to be themselves, but to let us be who we are, which is a broader thing altogether.  This isn't a demand from me to rip stuff out, it's about how to smoothly flow down stream and leave a few silty deposits along the way that we don't need to carry with us :)

hahaha-- yes, we are making the same argument. and what, specifically, do you think might qualify as a silty deposit?  ;)

of course, it nearly goes without saying that any belief system contains components that we as individuals simply don't relate to, and so discard and/or ignore, while still participating in that system. to that degree, i've been a dude, or perhaps an abideist, for longer than the coens have been making movies, as i suspect many of us here have.

i honestly with there were a way to speak in realtime, as a group... my wrists are killing me!  ::)

xox abide, my fellow dudes xox

"...Those ordinary struggles are the practice, in the midst of which we come to understand and appreciate the meaning of life..."

http://www.tricycle.com/ordinary-struggles

yeah mang!

Busmum ^

I agree

That is all.




Oh, no, wait, you asked about silt...  Well, that was what I was hoping to be discussed, alas, it never really happened.  The biggest thing I saw that was an issue was that despite the Dudeism.com website being about the wider ethos, the banner at the top of my broswer said we were the "religion of the big lebowski".  Now that, is misleading silt :)  That's a start, the one footstep that leads to a thousand-league journey...

I am thinking there are two ways that Dudeism expresses it's self, hermetic Dudeism living a Dudeist life, and Engaged Dudeism promoting a Dudeist life.

Even the Sikhs have the Khalsa, their form of Engaged Sikhism. Further they have recognized Gurus, though they now only recognize the Book as Guru.

Not everybody who bowls is in a league, but they are all bowling.

That's another thing, instead of "religious" iconography and structure, why not mimic bowling structure, leagues, teams and trainers, something along those lines? Everyone's a "bowler", but rolling with different styles.

Not a manifesto, just out loud thinking. First rule, don't panic.

So, what is wrong with using your real name dudes?
I never did like the anonymous nicknames...too easy to misbehave.
I just figured I would just be me. But I have used my cck initials as a shorthand on the MOTU board...i've since gone back to using  cckeiser. 8)

GaryMartinSilvia, GMS.

I use the revgms handle every where except gaming, there I am Knuckles McGhee, or McCoy if it is an alt toon. Currently Knuckles McCoy with the Preatorian Guard, New Conglomerate on Planetside, feel free to find me and take your shot, lol.

To me nicknames/titles are abbreviated conversations, they tell a story and give an impression of who you are talking to.

Quote from: revgms on August 28, 2011, 01:32:59 PM
I am thinking there are two ways that Dudeism expresses it's self, hermetic Dudeism living a Dudeist life, and Engaged Dudeism promoting a Dudeist life.

Very true.  Although I've covered the issue of living as a dude (that is to say, more like THE Dude) and living a normal life in a dudely fashion, I'd not really covered those dual aspects.  I guess I tend to treat them as one, myself, but to some they can be very far apart, yet still linked.  Inner-estin!

Quote from: revgms on August 28, 2011, 01:32:59 PM
Even the Sikhs have the Khalsa, their form of Engaged Sikhism. Further they have recognized Gurus, though they now only recognize the Book as Guru.

Ah, a fellow appreciator of Sikhism, or just a massively knoweldgeable feller? :)

This is true.  But we recognise Great Dudes.  These are are gurus and our buddhas, the things we aspire to be.  And yes, they have a holy tome that is now THE Guru which sits higher than others.  I'm not so down with the praise of a book, but I feel it's more a praise of the ideal.  Still, I'd be more down with dudes exemplafying the ideal of dudeism, and therefor we're all equal to the ideal even.

Quote from: revgms on August 28, 2011, 01:32:59 PM
Not everybody who bowls is in a league, but they are all bowling.

That's another thing, instead of "religious" iconography and structure, why not mimic bowling structure, leagues, teams and trainers, something along those lines? Everyone's a "bowler", but rolling with different styles.

Not a manifesto, just out loud thinking. First rule, don't panic.

Heh, the bowling model isn't so bad.  I do love our yin-yang ball symbol.
I'm not sold on it, but it's a good start to get the ball rolling (as it were).  I've not got any real ideas myself, so someone needed to start this with a valid suggestion ;)

Quote from: revgms on August 28, 2011, 01:32:59 PM
Not a manifesto, just out loud thinking. First rule, don't panic.

keep it up dude!  ;D

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
So, what is wrong with using your real name dudes?
I never did like the anonymous nicknames...too easy to misbehave.

Yeah, I'm kinda wanting my name back... feels wrong after 2 years being just Rev. Ed (with or without the C) :P

So, we're agreed, the Rev. part isn't an issue?  I'll just promise to not become Grand Wizard Ed or anything like that, k? ;D

I just tried something...hope no one noticed...if you wish I can create a whole new Board at the bottom and title it Abideism (Abiding without Lebowski).
I can also make you the Moderator if you like.

Let me know and I'll fly it past Ollie to see if it's ok with him.

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
So, what is wrong with using your real name dudes?

well... technically nothing... until some internet freak tracks you down and commits mayhem on your ass... which happened to me once  :o

web-handles are safer, in that respect...

and ed, you should be called anything you want xxx

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 01:54:41 PM

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
So, what is wrong with using your real name dudes?
I never did like the anonymous nicknames...too easy to misbehave.

Yeah, I'm kinda wanting my name back... feels wrong after 2 years being just Rev. Ed (with or without the C) :P

So, we're agreed, the Rev. part isn't an issue?  I'll just promise to not become Grand Wizard Ed or anything like that, k? ;D

And what is wrong with Ed Churchman? Do you really need the rev? I mean I don't care, but it's a hold over to a very undude and Fascist religion...
Dudeism is something New...Lets not hang onto the past...but create the new.

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 01:56:36 PM
I just tried something...hope no one noticed...if you wish I can create a whole new Board at the bottom and title it Abideism (Abiding without Lebowski).
I can also make you the Moderator if you like.

Let me know and I'll fly it past Ollie to see if it's ok with him.

i think that's a great idea, cc  8) especially since the concept of abiding seems to fit what some of us are questing on.

thanks dude!

Quote from: Busmum on August 28, 2011, 01:59:11 PM

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
So, what is wrong with using your real name dudes?

well... technically nothing... until some internet freak tracks you down and commits mayhem on your ass... which happened to me once  :o

web-handles are safer, in that respect...

and ed, you should be called anything you want xxx

Grand Archdruid Ed it is then ;)

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 01:56:36 PM
I just tried something...hope no one noticed...if you wish I can create a whole new Board at the bottom and title it Abideism (Abiding without Lebowski).
I can also make you the Moderator if you like.

Let me know and I'll fly it past Ollie to see if it's ok with him.

I'm intrigued.  Is this a proposition for staring a sub-genre of topics within Dudeism, or specifically for subjects on the matter of moving Dudeism towards Abidism, like these sorts of discussions we're having on titles, terms and whathaveyou?

I guess I'm for either, but more the latter than the former.  I'm more for evolution than sub-branching :)

I mentioned that one of the regulars from the CN had the FBI show up at his door because of an internet vandal. And right now we are under attack by two nasty trolls. I wouldn't expect much of that here, but some people are real paraquats sometimes, and when they find our little community it could get ugly.

We will want a good moderator team when such an eventuality strikes.

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 02:00:18 PM

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 01:54:41 PM

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
So, what is wrong with using your real name dudes?
I never did like the anonymous nicknames...too easy to misbehave.

Yeah, I'm kinda wanting my name back... feels wrong after 2 years being just Rev. Ed (with or without the C) :P

So, we're agreed, the Rev. part isn't an issue?  I'll just promise to not become Grand Wizard Ed or anything like that, k? ;D

And what is wrong with Ed Churchman? Do you really need the rev? I mean I don't care, but it's a hold over to a very undude and Fascist religion...
Dudeism is something New...Lets not hang onto the past...but create the new.

my nickname around the web (and most pubs) has been "barley, goddess of beer" (a movement dedicated to promoting the peaceful consumption of mother's milk-- the fruit of the barley)... which i modified a bit in my signature here... so i adopted one of my other monikers, to avoid certain implications and such...

what was i saying?  ::)

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 02:00:18 PM
And what is wrong with Ed Churchman? Do you really need the rev? I mean I don't care, but it's a hold over to a very undude and Fascist religion...
Dudeism is something New...Lets not hang onto the past...but create the new.

Well, I actually started as just that "Ed Churchman", but it felt a little uptight and pretentious compared to people with nicknames and "personas", so I loosened up and just chopped it down to be a more "dudely" version of myself than.  To be honest, I don't like the length of my name either, and god-damn it, it's got Chruch in it, it doesn't help my case any ;)

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 02:11:50 PM
... and god-damn it, it's got Chruch in it, it doesn't help my case any ;)

:D ha :D ha :D ha :D

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 02:11:50 PM
and god-damn it, it's got <Church> in it, it doesn't help my case any ;)

Yep...I had taken notice...just figured you were predestined...lets not forget...lets not forget...my middle name is Christian! ;D
I was pretty well fucked from day one. 8)

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 02:18:16 PM

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 02:11:50 PM
and god-damn it, it's got Chruch in it, it doesn't help my case any ;)

Yep...I had taken notice...just figured you were predestined...lets not forget...lets not forget my middle name is Christian! ;D
I was pretty well fucked from day one. 8)

LMAO... now, that sort laughter can gets me once in a while... oh dear.  My condolances!

Well, I dunno... I guess I can fudge something together that's me but without any church or rev-based connotations!

I'm just conscious that when I use RHED (from Ed R H Churchman) that it's also a contraction of Red-head.  And using ERHC is an annogram of Cher!!

CC, we were both born to lose! :'(

;)

Quote from: Twobands on August 28, 2011, 02:23:02 PM


CC, we were both born to lose! :'(

;)

I'm not going down without a fight! 8)

Ed man take your name back...I can't be doing with this twobands business! I keep wanting to welcome the new dude!:)

Quotelets not forget my middle name is Christian!

That made me spill my tea....poor you! :)

Peace dudes (whatever you call yourselves) ..... btw shouldn't this be on the Dudeist names thread? Just saying!!!  ;D

Ok dudes, I have asked Forumdude to set up the Abideism board and have Ed as Moderator since it was mostly his idea.
Any other thoughts dudes?

Quote from: cckeiser on August 28, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
So, what is wrong with using your real name dudes?
I never did like the anonymous nicknames...too easy to misbehave.
I just figured I would just be me. But I have used my cck initials as a shorthand on the MOTU board...i've since gone back to using  cckeiser. 8)

Only from the trolls methinks ...
& I wish I'd been called SpaceDog. If only Frank Zappa had been my dad ...
Space is well groovy. I'd like to hang out in a nebula someday drinking some moondust tea.

On the old religion vs philosophy thang, I thinks that a major difference is the reliance of religions more on symbols than philosophy.
Dudeism certainly has both visual & idiomatic ones in aces.

*blink*  Me?  I thought you were talking to Busmum!

Responsibility... ungainful employment as a professional troll *wheeze*

Well, err... ok, I'll try not to abuse my power *figner hovers of the ban button indescrimately*  Heh, heh..... heh

Yours abidingly,

Ed (once again)

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on August 28, 2011, 02:41:09 PM
*blink*  Me?  I thought you were talking to Busmum!

Responsibility... ungainful employment as a professional troll *wheeze*

Well, err... ok, I'll try not to abuse my power *figner hovers of the ban button indescrimately*  Heh, heh..... heh

Yours abidingly,

Ed (once again)

lol... and i thought he meant both of us *blushing in idiot embarrassment*  ::)

i'm glad you took your name back... but i could've gotten into "GingerEdRev" too...  ;) ;) ;)

Quote from: Caesar dude on August 28, 2011, 02:26:16 PM
Ed man take your name back...I can't be doing with this twobands business! I keep wanting to welcome the new dude!:)

Different name, same stupid face ;D

Quote from: Busmum on August 28, 2011, 02:49:11 PM
lol... and i thought he meant both of us *blushing in idiot embarrassment*  ::)

i'm glad you took your name back... but i could've gotten into "GingerEdRev" too...  ;) ;) ;)

Well, a pair of idiots is more comically stable than just one idiot (Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy, Bush and Blair...)

And, yeah, well, I could have gone with TheBeard, but... I try not to build my entire persona on it :P

Quote from: SpaceDog on August 28, 2011, 02:31:53 PM
I wish I'd been called SpaceDog. If only Frank Zappa had been my dad ...
Space is well groovy. I'd like to hang out in a nebula someday drinking some moondust tea.

On the old religion vs philosophy thang, I thinks that a major difference is the reliance of religions more on symbols than philosophy.
Dudeism certainly has both visual & idiomatic ones in aces.

Zappa, yeah, he'd have been a great dad.  I could have been born Floogle Starman Zappa, or something stupid, and learned to live with it :P

On the serious note (yeah, I found one!)...
Your right, there's definitely a symbolism and metaphor that doesn't figure as much in philosophy which is more direct, or simile.  I think symbolism is fine as long as people know what it's all about, but invariably most don't... which is actually the subject of my next article which I finally got around to submitting - Mything the Point.  I explained it to Olly last week and he already started using the phrase, heh.

Anywho, I think that's why symbolism that we adopt, if any, like the yin-yang bowling ball, should either be clear-cut or meaningless and held as such.  We don't want too much to go into things like the abundance of effigies that are made of The Dude.  I mean, it's cool to illustrate a point, but in the end, it is misleading symbolism, unless we're really going down the route of The Dude being out messiah... which we aren't...

I think I'm going to take for forum break for 18 hours or so, this 12-hour shift I've just finished has mushed my brain, especially as I spent all day on here :P

Quote from: thinkingdude on August 28, 2011, 07:47:39 PM
All "work" and no "play" makes jack a dull dude.
~thinkingdude

???

I've read all this thread posts and the related one and probably I've too many strands in this dude heads, nevertheless I'd like to add a couple of thoughts.

Religion or philosophy issue. Well, for me they are the same, I don't have any problem with these words and use them without problems. Is Dudeism a religion? Yes Is Dudeism a Philosophy? Yes Is Dudeism Spiritual? Yes And a lot more Probably it's my fault but I don't see any problem in Dudeism being a Religion, what's the point about it? What's the problem?

Organization. When things get big they need to be organized, or everything gets fucked up and anarchy spreads everywhere. Organization can be as simple as possible because we know what happens when things get complicated. So Dudeism will surely need to be organized, loosely but clearly and this is the job of the dudely llama, he knows what to do and given that he's not a fu****ng amateur and always open to discussion and advices he will surely do the right thing. The same goes for the ArchDudeship.

Titles. Well, what's the problem with them? Dudeism is a religion and cult ministers have titles be it Rev. or Priest or Monk or whatever. Again, what's the problem? This is a f*****ng religion and that's the way religions are organized with priests, revs and so on. If this is not your thought why joining a religion? If I remember well on the first page of the website it's clearly said the world slowest growing religion. Or something like that. Now, given that I've a title I'm not the right person to talk about it. As Rev.Ed wisely said I almost never use my title but I will later on when I'll begin the road to get Dudeism recognized in Italy. Is it my title important for me? Yes it is because it has been given to me by someone much wiser than I am and it's a kind of recognition from him. Will I give it back if asked by the dudely llama? Of course, at the end he already know who I am and I am the one who makes the title, it's not the title who makes me, if I've expressed the concept correctly. Anyway I think imho that questioning titles like dudely llama and archdudeship is, well, not only very undude but in a way offensive to them. If someone doesn't dig their styles there is always the possibility to get an internet domain and start your own thing, good luck. Said differently, how many dudes are there around like Christian who organized Dudestock? Up to now he would be the only one who could have a permanent title whatever he does, because he rolls strikes, and he minds. And given that he's done everything for free what's wrong in giving him a title to show that his style is dug? Sorry ArchDudeship of York if I used you as an example but you're really a good man and thorough. :) Then Rev.Ed keep your title, it's well deserved.

Democracy. As everyone knows we are all either dudeists or dudeist priests and we are really equal to each other. Nevertheless there is a difference between being a dudeist and being a dudeist priest. We are not a movie cult, we are not an internet fan club, we are a serious religion aiming to help people to leave a better, less stressed life. Or at least that's how I see Dudeism. To do this and play on a fair ground with other religions and eventually have official recognition somewhere we need a democratic hierarchy based on dudely llama opinion. He is a human being as I am but as regards Dudeism he's much beyond me and I'm cool with it, that's why he is the dudely llama and I'm not. Democracy but organized. To explain the concept differently: everyone in the world saw vapor coming out the tea pot but only Watt was able to see it in a different way and created vapor powered machines. Was he a human being as everyone else? Yes, but he was also different from everyone else. That's why he's still on books.

I'm at the end of my first half liter of beer so probably I'll begin blathering, forgive me dudes. :)

Christian/Anti-religion thing. Well, it seems to me that this is a kind of very uptight behavior which makes us to seem much more rigid than some catholics or hebrew or muslim sects, and that's profoundly undude. When we begin to have categories or boundaries we begin to do what others did. Are we going to begin flaming people because they don't see things as we do? Are we going to have a dudely Inquisition? Because that's were we're going to. In Italy there are, according to what they write on my website, catholic dudes and christian dudes and I find it fu****ng cool and a demonstration that Dudeism is the religion for everyone and every time and every place. And this is what really makes us different from every other religion or whatever, we accept everyone provided they are dude. Isn't it cool?


Hoping that I've not offended anyone or begun another fire dudes, this is just my opinion and sometime I'm a f****ng moron.

Anyway, as regards titles, I find extremely cool that I can go to a Catholic Cardinal and say: "Hey man, we are compeers." And he can't say that I'm wrong, even according to his own idea of compeers. Far out!  ;D  ;D  ;D

Man, it's good to have you back, O Great Spirit Monk ;D

You make a lot of good points, and the gods all know I've said so damned much these past two weeks, so I'm not gonna chime in too much.

I think you brought up something I did, which I will touch upon, though...

Quote from: Andrea Da Fino on August 30, 2011, 01:08:37 PM
If someone doesn't dig their styles there is always the possibility to get an internet domain and start your own thing, good luck.

(Now, I hope no one takes that snippet out of context, there was a lot more around it that wasn't relevant to what I had to say, make sure you read AF's whole post up there :))

There is a question of how much we bend the philosophy to the people who are in the community, and how much do we insist on keeping our philosophy firm inspite of the wishes of the community?  Kind of linked to the thread I started here: http://dudeism.com/smf/index.php?topic=2613.0

Although we're not of firm beliefs carved into mountains, we do have some solid principles at heart, at the very core of Dudeism.  It's all very well for any of us to turn up and say "ah, but...", but if we make a move against the heart of Dudeism, is it still Dudeism?  If people don't agree with some of those principals, do we bend to them or do we say "Hey, we love you being here, but maybe you'd fit in better elsewhere if you don't agree with us on this.  I'm not sure you're going to be happy in the longrun".

There is a whole, whole, whole lot to Dudeism that's not generally covered in day-to-day chat on the forum, hence why I didn't really get stuck in here for almost a year, instead concentrating on writing for the Dudespaper.  But, since the Dudeism tour at the beginning of the month, it really invigorated me!  What I'd seen, heard and discussed was really throwing rock in my mind, and I wanted to keep discussing them , so I headed here.

Thing was, most people didn't really want to discuss what I did (what is now going on over at the Abideism boards), so there was a bit of an upheaval, and we've lost a couple of people who decided that they didn't agree and went (sadly not so quietly, but, hey-ho, such is the way of online forums, so people say).  Seems the forum tends to be less about the whole of Dudeism and more about breeze-shooting.  Which is fine, because we have so many different boards set up to do all-sorts.  But I think, if you just want to shoot the breeze, fine, carry on, and let people discuss on the other boards.

At the end of the day, no one is going to ask anyone to leave (unless you've really crossed the line and pissed on everybody's rug).  But, if people want to leave because they're not happy with what Dudeism is in its entirety... door is open, sad to see you go, but if you're not happy here, don't beat yourself, or anyone else up over it.

Dang, another long one.  Good job I only went on that one point, eh? ;D

Quote from: Busmum on August 27, 2011, 10:27:46 PM
several things have been chasing themselves around my head this last week, in regards to where this is all going. i knew that dudeism was a philosophy and a lifestyle, but i hadn't really grasped the "religion" aspect... or maybe i had just ignored it, i don't know. what i have realized though, with all the fuss that ensued this week, is that coining this movement as a "religion", for me, presents some problems.

GOOS, I was thinking over your comment in the quote above and in particular where you say "i knew that dudeism was a philosophy and a lifestyle, but i hadn't really grasped the "religion" aspect..." and it sparked me to offer a few comments and a few things that are just like my opinion, man..........

If Dudeism was a religion I would bail on it faster than lightening; dead religion, or religion that is stiff, rigid and stinking with rules and regulations is not my bag either. All that type of religion does is create slaves to other people's control. We certainly have enough of that in the world to last for millennial!

Dudeism, on the other hand, strikes me as a possible foundation in a person's life to help them develop their own path with perhaps the aid of some concepts, perhaps some guidance, maybe some dude like experiences of others (the dudely group mind) and what is becoming a wealth of material available for a person to use while walking their own path.

Dudeism, IMHO, could be seen as providing quality and worthy building materials for a person to avail themselves of used to construct a unique reality, life style and path, etc. different from others who embrace dudeism. By doing so they add to the ever growing body of people who are molding and creating a dynamic fluid philosophy of life. If you think about it, how could it be any other way? We are all unique and no matter how hard we try, we will end up being unique dudeists.

I think that dudeism's job (one job at least) is to help each person be what they can be, help each person find their own path as a dude and by doing so enrich the ever growing reality of dudeism. In other words, dudeism is a work in progress being built by everyone who joins in and adds their uniqueness.

Each time a new person jumps in the dudeism hot tub the celebration is enhanced and changed. As dudeists, we definitely need to embrace change or dudeism will soon be just another dead religion unable to relate to the needs of people and the world around it.

If you will notice, when the major religions of the world began (most of them) they were alive, growing, dealing with birth pains and the reality of the world around them. But, as soon as they became stiff, rigid, authoritarian AND GOD FORBID "complete," that is to say no new concepts permitted, they began to solidify into a set code of beliefs, creeds and rules and in some cases religious battles between sects; they died and retreated behind walls barricading themselves and their captives behind those walls for safety.

Dudeism, on the other hand, should help people grow, not force them into a set of ideas that just don't fit their own personal path.

If every dude is the same, then we are boring, dead and just another mindless religion. But, if dudeism embraces all of its people and all that they are, then we will be wiser, stronger (strong in the sense of really having something to offer the world, not strength as seen in money rich religious organizations), infinitely more creative and much much deeper! Not to mention, enjoyable!

I think that dudeism should merely provide a solid but ever growing basic foundation for each person to build on. If that is done, dudeism will remain relative, energetic and alive to people who embrace it, and capable of offering help in living the life!

All, of course, IMHO.

DB, I take my hat off to you.  In fact, I've got about half a dozen, so I'll put a few more on and take them off also!

There was not a single part of what you just said that I don't agree with :)

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on August 30, 2011, 04:27:28 PM

Quote from: Busmum on August 27, 2011, 10:27:46 PM
several things have been chasing themselves around my head this last week, in regards to where this is all going. i knew that dudeism was a philosophy and a lifestyle, but i hadn't really grasped the "religion" aspect... or maybe i had just ignored it, i don't know. what i have realized though, with all the fuss that ensued this week, is that coining this movement as a "religion", for me, presents some problems.

GOOS, I was thinking over your comment in the quote above and in particular where you say "i knew that dudeism was a philosophy and a lifestyle, but i hadn't really grasped the "religion" aspect..." and it sparked me to offer a few comments and a few things that are just like my opinion, man..........

If Dudeism was a religion I would bail on it faster than lightening; dead religion, or religion that is stiff, rigid and stinking with rules and regulations is not my bag either. All that type of religion does is create slaves to other people's control. We certainly have enough of that in the world to last for millennial!

Dudeism, on the other hand, strikes me as a possible foundation in a person's life to help them develop their own path with perhaps the aid of some concepts, perhaps some guidance, maybe some dude like experiences of others (the dudely group mind) and what is becoming a wealth of material available for a person to use while walking their own path.

Dudeism, IMHO, could be seen as providing quality and worthy building materials for a person to avail themselves of used to construct a unique reality, life style and path, etc. different from others who embrace dudeism. By doing so they add to the ever growing body of people who are molding and creating a dynamic fluid philosophy of life. If you think about it, how could it be any other way? We are all unique and no matter how hard we try, we will end up being unique dudeists.

I think that dudeism's job (one job at least) is to help each person be what they can be, help each person find their own path as a dude and by doing so enrich the ever growing reality of dudeism. In other words, dudeism is a work in progress being built by everyone who joins in and adds their uniqueness.

Each time a new person jumps in the dudeism hot tub the celebration is enhanced and changed. As dudeists we definitely need to embrace change or dudeism will soon be just another dead religion unable to relate to the needs of people and the world around it.

If you will notice, when the major religions of the world began (most of them) they were alive, growing, dealing with birth pains and the reality of the world around them. But, as soon as they became stiff, rigid, authoritarian AND GOD FORBID "complete," that is to say no new concepts permitted, they began to solidify into a set code of beliefs, creeds and rules and in some cases religious battles between sects; they died and retreated behind walls barricading themselves and their captives behind those walls for safety.

Dudeism, on the other hand, should help people grow, not force them into a set of ideas that just don't fit their own personal path.

If every dude is the same, then we are boring, dead and just another mindless religion. But, if dudeism embraces all of its people and all that they are, then we will be wiser, stronger (strong in the sense of really having something to offer the world, not strength as seen in money rich religious organizations), infinitely more creative much much deeper! Not to mention, enjoyable!

I think that dudeism should merely provide a solid but ever growing basic foundation for each person to build on. If that is done, dudeism will remain relative, energetic and alive to people who embrace it, and capable of offering help in living the life!

All, of course, IMHO.

Testify Brother...TESTIFY! ;D
This should be Nailed to the Door of Dudeism.

Thankee DidgitalBuddha...Thankee. 8)

@Rev. Ed C   and   @cckeiser ........

Thanks dudes! I guess that was my two dudely cents tossed in  for the day.   :)

** Almost forgot to add...

On the topic of "identity," in particular of the identity of Dudeism. Some people may feel insecure with the idea of Dudeism being ever changing, or fluid, embracing many many ideas, or constructing Dudeism from so many angles. But I think that comes partially from the idea that Dudeism has to be an institution or a recognizable "brand" or no one will know what they are getting into, or as a dudeist they will not feel part of something solid and substantial. Something "real." Something they can point to and say "that's what I'm all about" and I now feel secure being part of the group. Nothing could be farther from the truth!

Dudeism is not something a person joins, or converts to. It is, however, something that a dude adds to their reality. That is to say are you a Baptist? Far out, be a Baptist dude. Are you a Socialist? Far out, be a Socialist dude. Are you an Atheist? Far out, be an Atheist dude. Are you a House Maker, far out, be a House Maker dude. Are you a Catholic, Buddist, Hippy, Business man, Cop?.....well, you get the point.

Dudeism shouldn't be looking for "converts," but it should be looking for people who want to join in and add Dudeism to their experiences, and hopefully add their experiences to Dudeism.

Who knows, maybe someday a dude will be elected to Congress, or other law making bodies worldwide, maybe we will see Baptist dude minsters or Buddhist priests dudes. Or maybe someday  a representative of worldwide Dudeism will address the UN. As a "dudeist?" Maybe, and that would be far out, but also as a person who had added Dudeism to their life's experiences and is now sharing that experience with the world around them. Anything is possible!

I'm not putting down the need for some structure, you see some of that structure here on the board, but as in any structure, it needs to be re-built now and then, modified and added to in order to grow.

Quote from: cckeiser on August 30, 2011, 04:47:41 PM
Testify Brother...TESTIFY! ;D
This should be Nailed to the Door of Dudeism.

Thankee DidgitalBuddha...Thankee. 8)

Now he's testified twice!

What makes a prophet?  Is is passion and conviction?

Yup, that and a pair of testaments!

"Dudeism is not something a person joins, or converts to. It is, however, something that a dude adds to their reality. That is to say are you a Baptist? Far out, be a Baptist dude. Are you a Socialist? Far out, be a Socialist dude. Are you an Atheist? Far out, be an Atheist dude. Are you a House Maker, far out, be a House Maker dude. Are you a Catholic, Buddist, Hippy, Business man, Cop?.....well, you get the point."

That's why Dudeism is the religion for this time and place, everyone from almost any background can be a dude if he lives a dudely life, or at least if he tries to to the best of his possibilities. We are not, if I've understood it well, an Atheistic movement or an Anti-Religions movement, something like everyone else is stupid and only we are intelligent.

Do you follow the three tenets? Then you're a dude. You don't? Then you're not a dude even if you always wear a robe and smoke pot all day long. This applies to everything like titles, organization, the role of TBL (or Po), etc.
I think Dudeism is like water, throw it in any container and it will always remain water. But it won't be coke or wine or whatever. Water is and water will be. At least imho that's how I see it.

We are here in this private residence forum to dudely discuss whatever comes to our mind in a dudely way, and this means that no one should think to have the definite truth, well, except the dudely llama who often talks with the Stranger.

Btw, as regards the need of "strict" rules carved into stone, or basic religious laws which regulate our beloved religion. I think they are needed, even if just in the form of something like: "If you follow these three simple tenets youre a dude, if not you're not, sorry."
I mean, I'm against rules and toward freedom like everyone else here but a certain organization is needed and not something that can be easily changed, otherwise with time it could happen that following some, hard core idea of dudeism we end up being an undudely religion. Just a question on this: what would Dudeism do and go if something happens to the dudely llama? OK, everything goes into the hands of the ArchDudeship as the number 2 but is it enough? And then?

Much better if the dudely llama lays down the simple rules of Dudeism organization at least for those who think that Dudeism is a religion. Those who prefer the path of being dudely hermits would be cool anyway. It might be that I'm too serious about it but as they say in USA better safe than sorry. When I'll hopefully be in Dudervana I don't like the idea of seeing Dudeism transformed in something else like what happened to Taoism after the departure of Lao Tze, who probably said fuck it anyway.  8)

The beauty of Dudeism is in its three tenets and a couple of other rules of behavior, so it's easy to remember how to be a dudely dude. The same can be done about its organization as a religion. Because this is a religion and we are all Priests, or Rev, or Brothers and Sisters Shamus.

We could simply have "rules" or something like that with the same approach used for the forum. I mean there are some rules on the forum, this is not Nam, so the same principle applies to Dudeism as a religion, as regards hierarchy, titles, organization..... It only has to be contained in a single sheet of paper written with a 12 font, otherwise it would be exhausting to memorize it.

Just another thought on titles, f**k it today I have too much free time.

I have a friend who calls himself Rev.Ed, and I find this cool. I have a friend who calls himself The Grand Old Dude of York, and I find this cool too. And I have a friend who calls himself Meekon5 and I find this cool too again. Am I wrong or is it that I've got a problem and find too many things cool? Or that's pretty dudely to let people choose their own fu***ng name freely?

Btw I've luckily a lot of friends but I took these three as they are a good example for my point of view on titles. And remember that Meekon is also a Pope, so don't mess with him.  ;D

I'll say it again: what's the real problem with titles? Isn't it some kind of real reactionaries thing?

My opinion, and this is really carved into stone, is that there can be people with a name like xyz who consider themselves real dudes but are in reality a mixture of real reactionaries and nihilists much more similar to the sheriff of malibu or of nottingham and people with big names who are down to earth and really cool dudes. One example over all the dudely llama and the archdudeship.

And if you've gone around the forum for a while you know I'm pretty right.

Quote from: Andrea Da Fino on August 31, 2011, 03:18:02 AM
"Dudeism is not something a person joins, or converts to. It is, however, something that a dude adds to their reality. That is to say are you a Baptist? Far out, be a Baptist dude. Are you a Socialist? Far out, be a Socialist dude. Are you an Atheist? Far out, be an Atheist dude. Are you a House Maker, far out, be a House Maker dude. Are you a Catholic, Buddist, Hippy, Business man, Cop?.....well, you get the point."

That's why Dudeism is the religion for this time and place, everyone from almost any background can be a dude if he lives a dudely life, or at least if he tries to to the best of his possibilities. We are not, if I've understood it well, an Atheistic movement or an Anti-Religions movement, something like everyone else is stupid and only we are intelligent.

Yes, but who is to say what the "dudely life" is? Ask 10 people and you will get 10 answers; some answers will dovetail, while others will be totally at odds with each other.

QuoteDo you follow the three tenets? Then you're a dude. You don't? Then you're not a dude even if you always wear a robe and smoke pot all day long. This applies to everything like titles, organization, the role of TBL (or Po), etc.
I think Dudeism is like water, throw it in any container and it will always remain water. But it won't be coke or wine or whatever. Water is and water will be. At least imho that's how I see it.

What three tenets are you referring to? And why just three? I think it would be better if Dudeism were a thing of each person's heart, not complying with 3, or 4, or 5 tenets. Such bother can be legalistic and foster egotism; I AM a Dudeist because I FOLLOW the three tenets. It also encourages a judgmental attitude toward others who feel, as an example, that only 2 out of the 3 are in keeping with their own conscience.

I am curious; have you studied the attitudes of the Pharisees (religious leaders) of Jesus dude's time? They had all kinds of numbered tenets they claimed they followed. Jesus dude called them hypocrites and snakes, white washed graves and in today's language, asshats. That is not to say that if committing to heart "three tenets" helps you live a dudely life that it is a bad thing, it just needs to be a personal thing that you do as a personal help and NOT a standard by which you judge others or are judged of others.

QuoteWe are here in this private residence forum to dudely discuss whatever comes to our mind in a dudely way, and this means that no one should think to have the definite truth, well, except the dudely llama who often talks with the Stranger.

Why the dudely llama? I don' think he would claim to have ANY "definite truth," he is a dude for sure, but I think that he doesn't want to be a rock star, or the final word on dudeism.

QuoteBtw, as regards the need of "strict" rules carved into stone, or basic religious laws which regulate our beloved religion. I think they are needed, even if just in the form of something like: "If you follow these three simple tenets youre a dude, if not you're not, sorry."

Who is to judge who is properly "following these three simple tenets?" You? Me? The dudely llama? I would also say that the dudely llama has no desire to be everyone's judge. You and me are the only ones who can decide if we follow any tenets of dudeism. We are dudes because we say we are, nothing more. Because we are following our hearts, not three rules merely created to offer a guideline, a help and a suggestion to someone seeking to explore dudeism, NOT three rules to be obeyed or else you are out and that is that.

QuoteI mean, I'm against rules and toward freedom like everyone else here but a certain organization is needed and not something that can be easily changed, otherwise with time it could happen that following some, hard core idea of dudeism we end up being an undudely religion. Just a question on this: what would Dudeism do and go if something happens to the dudely llama? OK, everything goes into the hands of the ArchDudeship as the number 2 but is it enough? And then?

A simple answer I would offer to that comment of yours would be "rules were made for people, people were not made for rules." Dudeism needs to be a philosophy that is a living set of ideas, concepts and thoughts that grow and change, and said "rules" should be discarded if they do not serve the best interest of people exploring dudeism. Obeying rules and tenets does not a dude make.

QuoteMuch better if the dudely llama lays down the simple rules of Dudeism organization at least for those who think that Dudeism is a religion.

I doubt that he would agree. He is humble and certainly intelligent enough to understand that he does not have all the answers and is in need of input from the dudely group mind as do we all.

QuoteThose who prefer the path of being dudely hermits would be cool anyway. It might be that I'm too serious about it but as they say in USA better safe than sorry. When I'll hopefully be in Dudervana I don't like the idea of seeing Dudeism transformed in something else like what happened to Taoism after the departure of Lao Tze, who probably said fuck it anyway.  8)

A dudely hermit? You mean that we will have outcasts? Us obedient to the "three tenets" would be the "in-group" while others exploring dudeism down another path would be the "out-group." Such would make for very dull dudeism.

Again; who will decide who is "in" and who is "out?" Why not accept all who are exploring the way of the dude, even if said exploration is a different path from the beaten one?

QuoteThe beauty of Dudeism is in its three tenets and a couple of other rules of behavior, so it's easy to remember how to be a dudely dude. The same can be done about its organization as a religion. Because this is a religion and we are all Priests, or Rev, or Brothers and Sisters Shamus.

If you find beauty in the three rules, that's marvelous! But if a person discovers three other different principles that offer a path to a dudeist life, we should all celebrate such a marvelous discovery!

QuoteWe could simply have "rules" or something like that with the same approach used for the forum. I mean there are some rules on the forum, this is not Nam, so the same principle applies to Dudeism as a religion, as regards hierarchy, titles, organization..... It only has to be contained in a single sheet of paper written with a 12 font, otherwise it would be exhausting to memorize it.

True, this is not Nam, there are rules...but only so that while driving in the forum you don't drive the wrong way down the street and hit someone...again; rules are to help people get along, but can and should change when they no longer do so. And if someone, some dude, discovers a better way to dudeism, let us embrace it.

That's just like, my opinion, man.

Quote from: Andrea Da Fino on August 31, 2011, 04:27:57 AM
Just another thought on titles, f**k it today I have too much free time.

I have a friend who calls himself Rev.Ed, and I find this cool. I have a friend who calls himself The Grand Old Dude of York, and I find this cool too. And I have a friend who calls himself Meekon5 and I find this cool too again. Am I wrong or is it that I've got a problem and find too many things cool? Or that's pretty dudely to let people choose their own fu***ng name freely?

Btw I've luckily a lot of friends but I took these three as they are a good example for my point of view on titles. And remember that Meekon is also a Pope, so don't mess with him.  ;D

I'll say it again: what's the real problem with titles? Isn't it some kind of real reactionaries thing?

My opinion, and this is really carved into stone, is that there can be people with a name like xyz who consider themselves real dudes but are in reality a mixture of real reactionaries and nihilists much more similar to the sheriff of malibu or of nottingham and people with big names who are down to earth and really cool dudes. One example over all the dudely llama and the archdudeship.

And if you've gone around the forum for a while you know I'm pretty right.

I hate the noise and hurry inseparable from great Estates and Titles, and look upon both as blessings that ought only to be given to fools, for 'Tis only to them that they are blessings.

- Mary Wortley Montagu


A Zen master once said to a student that had achieved a degree of Zen (and was damn proud of his newly achieved title) that he "stank of Zen." In other words, I don't really think the Dudely Llama takes his title that seriously.

In short, let us not stink of dudeism and titles, but rather savor Dudeism while helping others do the same. A little burning of incense can be a blessing, too much and your room stinks.

...Just a thought, man.

QuoteMy opinion, and this is really carved into stone

 A parable...

There once was an oak tree, as wide, strong and unyielding as a mighty oak tree could be. Next to it was a small thin little tree. Beside it, the oak seemed awesome, majestic, powerful and very proud! What a sight the mighty oak was!

One day a storm came their way, it blew and blew it's powerful breath on both trees, the little tree began to bend and was whipped all around by the fierce wind and cold rain!

Next to it stood the mighty oat; powerful, strong and straight! The oak was not going to yield to any storm as was the little tree! It was not long until the storm had become so powerful that the little tree was bent all the way to the ground! It looked defeated!

All of a sudden a massive blast of wind hit them both, the little tree thought this was the end! But, in just that moment when all looked dark, the little tree heard a mighty CRACK and a loud hard thud!!!!!! The sound was ear splitting, the ground shook!! It was if an earthquake had torn into the earth!! The little tree looked over and the once proud and strong oak was broken in two and smashed to the ground in bits and pieces of demolished tree! The little tree couldn't believe what it saw. The mighty oak had been destroyed!

After a small while longer the storm had blown itself out and the little tree slowly bent back up straight to look around. The little tree had been bent to the ground but had survived. Because it could bend, it could live through life's storms, while alas, the mighty unbendable strong and proud oak had been demolished.

Moral of the story...be a bendable tree and the storms will blow over. And remember, rocks are easy to smash.

(http://th04.deviantart.net/fs24/300W/i/2007/343/e/8/A_Little_Tree_by_kamagfx.jpg)

The three tenets are: Don't be uptight, Abide and Take it easy. That's what Dudeism is. Imho.

"I am curious; have you studied the attitudes of the Pharisees (religious leaders) of Jesus dude's time?"

Yeah, a bit. And JCD took everything to two tenets and kicked their asses because they were a bunch of nihilists. And they crossboarded him, but that's another story.

"Why the dudely llama? I don' think he would claim to have ANY "definite truth," he is a dude for sure, but I think that he doesn't want to be a rock star, or the final word on dudeism."

Obviously not, but of all thousands who saw TBL he was the only one who came out with a good idea. And given that it's his idea he's probably in the best position to talk about Dudeism. We can talk about this for hours but at the end he's the one who came out with Dudeism. And so he probably has the right to have the final word on everything Dudesim related.

"You and me are the only ones who can decide if we follow any tenets of dudeism."

Yes, might be. And maybe one day we end up like others did crashing each other's heads because we have different opinion about what being a dude means. I prefer things to be clearer. Like infinite ways to be a dude but a clear definition of what a dude is, and I think we already have it.

"rules were made for people, people were not made for rules."

Right, but rules are also needed to avoid anarchy and having everyone pissing on others' rugs because that's what they feel like doing. Keep in mind what happened to Taoism and what it is now. But it's not Taoism anymore probably.

"A dudely hermit?" Someone who is happy as he is and doesn't want to perform ceremonies or any active involvement but just want to take it easy and he's happy this way. Which is perfectly dude. (Being not a native speaker of English sometimes I don't have the right word to express my thought, that's my fault, sorry.)

"But if a person discovers three other different principles that offer a path to a dudeist life, we should all celebrate such a marvelous discovery!"

I agree, so no problem with those "real" Christians who just follow the Golden Rule, they are compeer right? (I really agree with this, there are dudes who are not dudeists and don't know dudeism but are dudes anyway)

If the Dudely Llama doesn't take his title seriously why the f**k aren't we able to do the same and let people choose their f****ng names as they f****ng wish?  ;D

In Italy we have a way of speech that says "Crystal pacts, long friendship". For me this is the right way to go and the only one who avoids most of the problems. Always for the when things get complicated rule, not a tenet though.  ;D  ;D  ;D

I don't think we need refer to these three tenets as rules, but we do require a way of identifying what a dude is.  Like I said, do we set down guidelines like that and say, if you're outside of these most basic of requirements, that's just not dude, or do we move with the general consensus?

I'd say we have to keep a strong definition, or we'll end up moving away from what we are at heart.  Moving Dudeism forwards, or around, or whathaveyou is inevitable an true to the universe, but surely, if we change what it is at the core it isn't itself anymore.

We need to say, there are many ways of living a dude life, but any dude must a, b, c (and more or less letter of the alphabet) to really be.

Abidance is definitely one.
Taking it easy and not being uptight can be two, but they're much the same thing.
Not pissing on anyone else's rug, or a more concise metaphor should be another.

I don't dig people who can't get along and sort things out without getting uptight.  I think the only way to harmony is for everyone to be in tune :)

All we need to do is set out the simple ways that people are dude, and what is considered undude behaviour, and everything else is down to choice.  Nothing about white russians, bongs, robes, the Sabbath, etc.  Just simple, honest principles that speak from and of Dudeism's heart.

Is three tenants enough... too much....?  I think maybe we need to start a topic, possibly on the Abideism boards to hammer that out.  Oh, wait, I'm a mod... I'll do that now ;D

Fucking A Rev., and mark it 8.

"Opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one."

That's what I think Dudeism is all about, part anyway. I mean about taking things easy, or not too seriously, or having a bit of humor, or putting things in the right context, or whathaveyou. Far out!  8)

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on August 31, 2011, 06:55:32 AM
I don't think we need refer to these three tenets as rules, but we do require a way of identifying what a dude is.  Like I said, do we set down guidelines like that and say, if you're outside of these most basic of requirements, that's just not dude, or do we move with the general consensus?

Good point, Rev. Ed C, I would also call them "qualities that could identify a dude as a dude." Or perhaps a "natural life style or habits of a dude." They could also be seen as the aspirations of a person desiring to live as a dude. They seem to describe an outlook a dude has in general.

QuoteI'd say we have to keep a strong definition, or we'll end up moving away from what we are at heart.  Moving Dudeism forwards, or around, or whathaveyou is inevitable an true to the universe, but surely, if we change what it is at the core it isn't itself anymore.

A definition of what Dudeism is seems to be pretty well developed, and has been written about and described in a few works on the subject. You can get a good feel for what it means to be a dude with a little reading here and there.

There is always the concern that if a reasonable and understandable definition is not produced and generally agreed upon and adhered to, the concept in question will simply be watered down by so much input that the end result is a product with little or no genuine meaning or any ability to reflect it's origins. The original concept, in this case a definition of Dudeism, will be lost. That is a genuine concern to be sure.

Having said that; a solid definition of Dudeism has to be balanced with the input from the wisdom (and perhaps even the foolishness) of the group mind as new people embrace Dudeism and naturally offer new points of view and new experiences.

I think the answer, and a way to achieve balance, is to express Dudeism in as simple and broad terms as possible. A sort of basic guideline as to what Dudeismm has been, in it's beginning, and what it can continue to be.

The question is what do you do with new dudes and what they will inevitably have to offer by way of new ideas?

Clearly Dudeism is in it's infancy and growing with all the pains of growth. I personally find this fascinating to watch and abide in.

QuoteWe need to say, there are many ways of living a dude life, but any dude must a, b, c (and more or less letter of the alphabet) to really be.

Abidance is definitely one.
Taking it easy and not being uptight can be two, but they're much the same thing.
Not pissing on anyone else's rug, or a more concise metaphor should be another.

I find value in the "a, b, c" concept; it's a good way for a new dude to get a quick and solid idea of what it means to be a dude. But rather than calling them "rules that must be adhered to,"  I see them as guild lines, a map to begin your exploration of being a dude and perhaps a set of goals to reach.

The problem with stating that "any dude must" is that NO dude will. That is to say that no one will ever live up to these tenets at all times and if they don't, does that disqualify a person as a dude? Clearly it doesn't.

This is why I suggest that a dude is a dude because they desire to be so, they find value in being a dude, they are, as we all are, reaching out to be a dude and explore what it means to be a dude. If they haven't nailed all of the three tenets yet, that's cool, they are working on it, working on it with the rest of us.

QuoteI don't dig people who can't get along and sort things out without getting uptight.  I think the only way to harmony is for everyone to be in tune :)

But what if we can achieve harmony even when people (dudes) are not always perfectly in tune? People are sometimes passionate about how they tune things, and they don't always tune alike. I think there is room for lots of ins and outs, and lots of "well, that's just like your opinion, man." In other words, agree to disagree, and then go get a lane.

I say agree to disagree because in doing so, new ideas can be discovered when people disagree, rarely do new ideas flow from a group of people who agree on everything. And, new ideas will keep dudeism strong and relative. So I say no to harmony per se', yes to debate, yes to respecting the opinions of others and yes to a forum of new ideas, diversity and creativity...to me, THAT is harmony, and can be genuine Dudeism.

QuoteAll we need to do is set out the simple ways that people are dude, and what is considered undude behaviour, and everything else is down to choice.  Nothing about white russians, bongs, robes, the Sabbath, etc.  Just simple, honest principles that speak from and of Dudeism's heart.

A noble goal, and one that I think will be far out to watch as it is achieved!

QuoteIs three tenants enough... too much....?  I think maybe we need to start a topic, possibly on the Abideism boards to hammer that out.  Oh, wait, I'm a mod... I'll do that now ;D

Damn good idea, Rev. Fucking eh!

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on August 31, 2011, 06:01:51 PM
A definition of what Dudeism is seems to be pretty well developed, and has been written about and described in a few works on the subject. You can get a good feel for what it means to be a dude with a little reading here and there.

This is true.  One of the best things about Dudeism is its openness.  If we try and crack this "tenets" thing in a real simple state without a whole book of dogma, the forum, dudespaper and any books written (Abide Guide and onwards) will only add to it without setting things out in a sort of commandments way.

Much like Buddhism, you can take something simple like I once did, the Five Precepts and make that your core and heart.  The rest is all take-or-leave philosophy.  That's how I worked with Buddhism, which has a lot of pure gold wisdom, watered down with a lot of fantastical tripe.  As long as we do the same and leave most of this whole thing open, we're good :)

Quote
Having said that; a solid definition of Dudeism has to be balanced with the input from the wisdom (and perhaps even the foolishness) of the group mind as new people embrace Dudeism and naturally offer new points of view and new experiences.

And so we enrich ourselves and others, fuckin' A man! :)

Quote
I think the answer, and a way to achieve balance, is to express Dudeism in as simple and broad terms as possible. A sort of basic guideline as to what Dudeism has been, in it's beginning, and what it can continue to be.

Yup, as simple and clear as possible.  We set out the heart and the rest of the body will just sorta... haze around.  We must have something that describes what Dudeism is, at its core, because if there's no definition, then surely it cannot exist :P
It's clear we're both on the same track on all of this!

Quote
I find value in the "a, b, c" concept; it's a good way for a new dude to get a quick and solid idea of what it means to be a dude. But rather than calling them "rules that must be adhered to,"  I see them as guild lines, a map to begin your exploration of being a dude and perhaps a set of goals to reach.

The problem with stating that "any dude must" is that NO dude will. That is to say that no one will ever live up to these tenets at all times and if they don't, does that disqualify a person as a dude? Clearly it doesn't.

Yeah, my bad on the use of the words "any dude must", I kind of meant that if they don't hold the principals of dudeliness we're setting out to heart then maybe they're not truly dudes.  This isn't about telling people what to do, it's about saying this is what a dude is, and then people can say "that's me" or "that's what I aspire to be" or "that's not for me".

We don't want to be too hazy at the core, we need to have something tangible, and let the haze we all the rest of the vague crap we spout and muse over ;D

Quote
But what if we can achieve harmony even when people (dudes) are not always perfectly in tune? People are sometimes passionate about how they tune things, and they don't always tune alike. I think there is room for lots of ins and outs, and lots of "well, that's just like your opinion, man." In other words, agree to disagree, and then go get a lane.

I say agree to disagree because in doing so, new ideas can be discovered when people disagree, rarely do new ideas flow from a group of people who agree on everything. And, new ideas will keep dudeism strong and relative. So I say no to harmony per se', yes to debate, yes to respecting the opinions of others and yes to a forum of new ideas, diversity and creativity...to me, THAT is harmony, and can be genuine Dudeism.

Damned straight!  I'm not about forcing people to grin and bare friendships and alliances and whatnot.  Harmony comes from not getting uptight and taking things in ones stride.  Dudeism is one great harmony, and disagreements should be handled with good-natured rationalism, not frantic arguments and ill-will.  This cannot always be avoided, that's for sure, but it's what we should all strive for.  It's a peacemaker thing, it's offering money to Nihilists looking to mug you instead of biting off their ears.

I am also of the agree to disagree bent, but more often than not I'm more of a compromise sort.  Both of these things should be easy in a harmony, but get hard to do when there's dischord.  It's a natural, human problem that we all need to work on if we're to abide each other here.  A work in progress, nonetheless! :)


And yeah, as for laying out these "tenets", as promised, the conversation carries on here: http://dudeism.com/smf/index.php?topic=2622.0 8)

Shit,I'm fucking knackered reading through all this stuff.
And I've half forgotten what...............................................
Is this all just about abiding?
Look,if they ain't pissing on my rug,or pissing on my mates rug,then what.........................................
Look,nihilists fucking happen man and sometimes we just got to,................you know.
But hey.Just take it easy.

Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling.8)

Quote from: cckeiser on August 31, 2011, 08:26:44 PM
Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling.8)

I think that statement... "Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling" ...should be one of the tenets of Dudeism.  ;D

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on September 01, 2011, 12:42:17 AM

Quote from: cckeiser on August 31, 2011, 08:26:44 PM
Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling.8)

I think that statement... "Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling" ...should be one of the tenets of Dudeism.  ;D

For once I'm just going to say yep mark that 8.

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on September 01, 2011, 12:42:17 AM

Quote from: cckeiser on August 31, 2011, 08:26:44 PM
Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling.8)

I think that statement... "Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling" ...should be one of the tenets of Dudeism.  ;D

Mark it 8 from me too. Anyway I used the term tenets because that's what my english allows me. Maybe there are better terms to use.

Db, I've lost a piece of your writing. Let me try to put things in another perspective:

"In short, let us not stink of dudeism and titles, but rather savor Dudeism while helping others do the same. A little burning of incense can be a blessing, too much and your room stinks."

Far out, this also leads that criticizing or blathering about people for names or titles or whatever has little to do with taking things easy. Imho.

Oak and the little tree. Beautiful story, but in reality I've never seen it happen, most of the times the oak says to the storm fuck it. If a storm is so strong to break a big oak it makes toothpicks of the little tree. The same goes for the stone, it depends from the stone, not all stones are equal, some are pretty hard. My head is sometimes.  ;D


The three qualities of a dude:

Don't be uptight
Abide
Take it easy

The three attitudes/characteristics of a dude:

He respects others' rug
A dude minds and sometimes draws a line in the sand
He doesn't roll on Shabbas

Life according to Dudeism:

Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes he eats you


Better then?  ;D


Anyway I still think, imho, that if someone doesn't aim to follow the three qualities of a dude not just with words but for real then he's not a dude. Being a dude means a pretty clear things. Otherwise with time we could end up with cleft assholes and uptight humanizers saying that they are dude. Hey, everyone can be a dude! Yes, if they follow or aim to follow dude/Dudeism guidelines.

Hoping not to seem uptight.  ;)

Oh, and if I seemed too uptight in my previous posts it's just because I care a lot about my beloved religion, sometimes too much maybe. No harm intended to anyone.

Anyone familiar with Thic Nhat Hahn's 14 precepts?

Instead of rules or commandments, we could model something like his precepts.

Small post, maybe redundant, trying to catch up here after Irene took my technology away for a while.

Quote from: revgms on September 01, 2011, 08:36:54 AM
Anyone familiar with Thic Nhat Hahn's 14 precepts?

Instead of rules or commandments, we could model something like his precepts.

Small post, maybe redundant, trying to catch up here after Irene took my technology away for a while.

Unfair of you not to post a link there old boy:

http://www.tonglen.oceandrop.org/Thich_Nhat_Hahn_14_Precepts.htm.

I'd not seen these before (I will now wonder off and study them).

Thanks for the lead revgms.

Nicer link (better web page):

http://viewonbuddhism.org/resources/14_precepts.html

Thay, Thic's nickname, is an uber Dude, IMHO.

Yeah, too much work with the whole link thang, slacker ethos an all.

Far out, fabulous stuff. Now I'll go reading it and maybe take some notes. From the first two principles seems pretty good and useful. Thanks for the hint Rev.