Knowledge In The News :

Kamis, 27 April 2017

Cari Tahu Apa Yang Ingin Dikatakan Yesus Kristus Kepadamu!

Silakan masuk dengan Facebook untuk melihat hasil Anda

by Taboola

Promoted Links

Selasa, 25 April 2017

Buddist Temple Banjar Singaraja

The Buddhist temple and Monastery in Banjar North Bali, near Lovina, is more then just a "tourist attraction". It is still used, and you can find groups of people staying in the Ashram nearby. It well knows as Vihara Buddha Banjar, is the biggest Buddhist temple in Bali. It is located at a hilly area at Tegehe Village, Desa Banjar, Buleleng Regency about 22 km west of Singaraja City and 11 km from tourist spot Lovina.

The Buddhist temple is not a tourist trap, entrance is free, but donations are welcome. Even the sarongs you may need to enter the temple, you can use for free. The Buddhist temple is situated in the hills above Lovina and offers nice views. In the 6th century Buddhist monks suppose to have landed and settled in the North of Bali, and the Hindu religion of Bali has a lot of Buddhist influence.

The terraced complex has a few praying rooms with golden Buddha's, and several Buddha statues in the garden. On the highest level of the complex you find a Stupa, allmost like a small version of the Borobudur in Java. In the temple you find references to the Borobudur.

Brahmavihara Arama Budha Banjar is a Buddhist temple that was built in the late of 20th century Christian exactly in 1960 and after 1970; it was opened formally in 1973. Actually Buddhist temple had been built before located at Banjar Tegehe around the hot spring area of banjar village, but at that time only a few of people adherents Buddha. Then after Buddhist adherents were getting more increasing then Brahmavihara Arama was finally built on such area of land; the area has been expanded in order to be able to build Borobudur Miniature that is located on the Southern part of the Brahmavihara Arama that has been built and opened.
Principally there are 5 complexes of buildings:

Upasatha Gara : located on the top of the hill on the west, is a comfortable and a quite place. On the wall there is relief of Buddha’s birth, and in the center there is Buddhist statue in the condition reaching the heaven. In religious and ritual activities this space is functioned as stabilizing the candidate of Monk, a stating stage to follow the next training. It was in this space the Monk said their oath.
Dharmasala : is located on the east, Dharmasala room is a kind of a room for giving lecture. This room is also a place for giving preach and other spiritual activities.
Stupa : is a giant bell-like building located at the corner of North West, its walls are made of concrete, carved on relieves that are very interesting. In the Stupa there are many sacred Buddhist things kept such as bright and fire proof things.
Bodi tree : at the northwest corner there is a big Bodi tree that is decorated with relief. This place is a victory of Buddha when reaching eternal perfection. In this place visitors usually do meditation especially on Asuda and Waicak Holydays.
Kuti : at Vihara complex there are rooms called Kuti. These rooms are the home stay for Monks and students who are studying and a place for Monks exercise.

If we hang around all corners of the room and park we can find many Buddhist statues. Among there are two beautiful ones; Parinirwana and Buddha statues. Both are made from bronze coated with gold gifts from Thailand and Sri Langka in 1977. These statues are place in different rooms. Buddhist Parinirwana statue visualized Buddha reaching heaven or Hindus term Moksha (eternity). Other biggest Buddhist statues at the park in Brahmavihara Arama are about 31 statues. They are made from sandstone or concrete showing the symbol that there are 31 stages of nature outside heaven. Other important holydays at Brahmavihara Arama are Waicak comes every Purnamasiddhi (Full moon). In may, once a year. It is to celebrate:

The birth of Buddha in Prnamasiddhi Waisaka Puja.
The reaching of Heaven by Buddha that is a perfect freedom
When Buddha reached Parinirwana (eternity)

Photo Gallery Vihara Buddhist temple Banjar Bali.

We are very happy to be lead and show the attractions you visit so that will also show places that are still unique attractions such as Balinese dance, Balinese customs, Panorama Bali and deliver the By-by Bali's price is very cheap. And you can design a tour or a tour that will visit.

Don’t waste your time…

Call our 24hours hot line at: +62 81 2397 7705, E-mail :info@driversbali.com For further information. You can also reach us via Skye or Yahoo Messenger to discuss your travel needs and plans.

Sabtu, 08 April 2017

Begun, The War On Conservatives Has

Many conservatives predicted that President Trump, once disappointed at conservatives in Congress failing to go along with his populist program, would turn to Democrats in order to ram through his agenda. It didn’t take long for Trump to open that door. Trump didn’t care much about repealing Obamacare; he spent most of his campaign saying he would repeal Obamacare, but then promising health insurance for everyone. Even during the Trumpcare push, Trump openly stated that the best thing might be to let Obamacare fail on its own terms. Because Trump had little interest in the business of doing the hard slogging necessary to generate a massive health care overhaul, he delegated bill-writing to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who knew that Trump’s legislative ADHD wouldn’t allow him to take too long with the process. So Ryan negotiated with himself, tried to ballpark a bill that could pass both houses of Congress, and ended up with a Frankenstein monster of stupidity combined with a few pieces of good policy. Then Trump pushed. And failed.
Trump and Ryan failed because the policy they pushed didn’t repeal Obamacare – it re-enshrined its central regulations, which conservatives opposed. Trump and Ryan failed because even their good policy changes were opposed by moderate Republicans in Congress.
So, who did Trump blame? Was it Ryan, for pandering to moderates in the Republican caucus? Was it the moderates, who wanted a watered down bill? Was it Trump himself, who made promises that Democrats would have loved, then insisted on Obamacare 2.0 rather than a true free market repeal?
Nope. It was conservatives. You know, the people who actually took the whole “repeal Obamacare” thing seriously. The people who thought that a new entitlement program was a bad idea. The people who didn’t lie to their constituents. Conservatives, the people who brought Republicans their victory in 2010 and 2014, who despised Hillary Clinton so much that they turned out in record numbers for a man noticeably short on conservative credentials in 2016. They’re the problem. Trump himself has fired off only one tweet casting blame for the Trumpcare debacle: This is laughable. Trump doesn’t give two figs about Planned Parenthood – he spent much of the campaign praising them. Heritage and Club for Growth both supported Trump ardently during the election. The top members of the House Freedom Caucus were all Trump campaign stalwarts. But Trump is blaming them. Of course. This is the same guy who said during the election cycle that he didn't care if the Republicans lost the Senate, since that would enable him to work with Democrats. And so White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus blamed the conservatives in the GOP, and then added that Trump could work with the Democrats instead. Avatar for the establishment Hugh Hewitt, a fan of Paul Ryan’s and a bizarrely vacillating fan of President Trump, called the House Freedom Caucus “the Area 51 sub-caucus…which believes in legislative flying saucers that ignore the Senate, and the Senate rules, and the reconciliation rules. They own the loss, nobody else.” And Democrats are eager to split Trump from conservatives: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has zero interest in working with Trump, is now flirting with Trump, understanding that he can give Trump the run-around without consequence. Schumer accused Trump of being “captured by the hard right” and offered to work with Trump if Trump dumped repeal and tax cuts for high income earners (i.e. the people who pay the vast majority of America’s taxes). Back in March 2016, I wrote this: Trump’s new war on conservatives, cheered by establishment lackeys, was totally predictable. If Trump pursues that war, it’s all downhill for conservatives from here. Which means that conservatives must stand and fight. It’s time to send Trump conservative legislation – make him veto it. Push Ryan to propose legislation that will please conservatives, rather than treating them as an out-group to ignore. If Republicans gained the White House and Congress and Senate only to dump conservative principles in favor of bipartisan mush, they won’t have only blown the most obvious chance of our lifetimes, they’ll have broken all their promises. They’ll deserve to lose.

Minggu, 08 Januari 2017

Realise events for care leavers and children in care

Senin, 02 Januari 2017

Prince Charles unveils Bali memorial

London's many thousands of Australian residents and visitors have a permanent place to pay their respects to those who died in the Bali bombings. Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall marked the fourth anniversary of the October 12, terrorist attacks in 2002 by unveiling a memorial in central London dedicated to the 202 people killed.

The memorial at Clive Steps, opposite St James's Park, features a marble globe with 202 doves carved into it standing in front of a wall bearing the names of all those who died.

In a moving tribute, representatives from the 22 countries which lost citizens in the attacks read out their names.

Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Richard Alston read the names of the 88 Australians who died.

"There are probably 150,000 Australians in London at any one time and a lot more during the summer season," he said after the ceremony.

"This memorial is in a very accessible location so not only Londoners, but many Australians living here will be forever reminded of one of the most horrific events that we've experienced."

Among a small Australian contingent at the unveiling ceremony was Jessica Hardy from the Gold Coast.

Her 20-year-old brother, Billy, died while in Bali on an end-of-season football trip.

"It's kind of tough being without your family because I'm used to sharing this occasion with them," Ms Hardy told AAP.

"But I'm glad that I could represent our family and be here to see the unveiling of my brother's name."

Ms Hardy, a former Big Brother contestant, has been based in England since March.

"No matter where you are in the world, you can pay your respects to your lost loved ones," she said.

"I usually light a candle or something, so rather than it being private day today it was nice to make it more of a public affair, to be able to stand by other people and have the support of them."

UK Bali Bombing Victims' Group chairman Jocelyn Waller, whose son Ed, 26, was killed in the blasts while on a rugby tour, described the memorial as uplifting.

"This is the fourth anniversary, we've been through three others and they've been quite sombre events," he said.

"Today somehow it was different. I think everybody, if they cried, it was tears of sort of joy and reconciliation rather than sadness.

"Of course it's a sad thing, but I think (before the unveiling) people didn't realise what an extraordinary monument this is - how beautiful it is and how uplifting and how meaningful it is."

Kamis, 27 Oktober 2016

What is Materialism?...

Most academic philosophers these days will tell you, without hesitation, that they are materialists. Materialism asserts that everything is or can be explained in relation to matter. This would be straightforward enough if we had a clear and stable idea of matter. But do we? Unfortunately, we don’t. There have been big changes since Descartes introduced his version of the mind/body problem in the 17th century. Descartes argued that the essence of matter is extension, or to put it another way, that what makes something material is having a shape at some particular position in space. Mass and energy don’t enter his account at all. After a number of important intermediate stages, we have arrived at a picture that takes mass and energy to be central, that makes shape unnecessary, and makes position in space problematic. Since Einstein, many physicists have regarded matter as a ‘lumpy’ form of energy. And quantum physics, with its Uncertainty Principle and probability waves, severs any necessary connection between being material and having some particular shape at some definite location. A materialist influenced by Cartesian physics offers us a very different picture of the world than a materialist influenced by quantum mechanics. The point is that the laws of physics (or, rather, our versions of them) are open to change. This means that our current concepts of matter (mass and energy) may change as well. If physics imposed logical constraints on these concepts — if it in some way limited their meaning or content — the problem might be solved. Materialism would then be the view that nothing exists which falls outside those constraints. But there are no such constraints. Or, rather, what seem to constrain physicists at one time are abandoned in another. After Einstein, no physicist thought that matter required a position in absolute space (as the Newtonians did). After quantum mechanics, few physicists thought that matter must be deterministic (as Einstein did). Now some physicists are seriously suggesting that matter can move backwards in time (as almost no one previously believed). The laws of physics get stranger every day and the only thing certain about the future of physics is that it will be decided by physicists. The physics of the future will not be bound by the physics of the present and certainly not by its metaphysics. As always, the physics of the future will let the philosophical chips fall where they may.
Perhaps we could say that matter is whatever physicists finally decide it is. But this reduces materialism to a blank check to be filled in when physics finally closes its book. To advocate materialism is now simply to pledge allegiance to physics’ final words (if any). Materialism is no longer a metaphysical doctrine. It is now the epistemological position that the methods of physics are such that they will finally map the structure of the universe.
Thus far we’ve been trying to understand what materialism asserts by looking for a clear and stable concept of matter. Maybe this is the wrong place to look. We might get further by thinking about all those spooky, ephemeral and esoteric things that materialism denies.
What are these things? Over the years, the targets have expanded. The main target of 17th century materialism was Descartes’ mental substance. Eighteenth and 19th century materialism was more ambitious, attacking both the supernatural in general (e.g., ghosts and magic), and religion in particular (e.g., immortal souls and divine intervention). The main targets of 20th century materialism expanded still further to include consciousness. These targets are very different but they have one important thing in common. In one way or another, they all challenge the idea that science is capable of producing a complete causal account of the universe. That is, they all claim that something outside the system of nature, as represented by science, either can have causal impact on the natural world, and/or can explain what we are and what will become of us. Let’s call the former ‘interventionism’ and the latter ‘exemptionism’.
The commitment to interventionism and exemptionism are obvious in the case of supernatural and religious phenomena. Gods, ghosts, witches and magicians intervene in the physical world by summoning forces and energy unknown to physics. Neither can immortal souls can be understood in terms described by science. The case of consciousness is less obvious but also strong. Despite nearly fifty years of concerted effort, states of consciousness have resisted all attempts at physical description. The difficulty isn’t hard to understand. The sensation of warmth, the taste of coffee, the sound of my voice in my head, have no quantifiable mass or energy and no actual location in physical space (we can’t open my head and find my headache). It is easy to think that they may be caused by the brain, but it is hard to think that they are the very same thing as what causes them. But if they are not identical, if experiences (as such) have causal power, they intervene in the material world just as gods and ghosts do. If a sensation of pain, considered just as such, just as an experience, can cause me to jump and shout, the laws of physics do not by themselves explain my jumping and shouting. That is why 20th century materialism takes consciousness to be a problem — especially the idea that conscious states can be causes of anything. Where does this leave us? We tried to understand what materialism asserts by understanding what matter is. After all was said and done, we were left with the epistemological doctrine that matter is whatever physicists finally say it is. This appeared to rob materialism of all content as a metaphysical doctrine. So instead we tried to understand it in relation to what it denies. But our efforts have taken us nearly full circle. The only common features of the processes and entities that materialists have denied is that they are interventionist or exemptionist. That is, they challenge the view that physics can provide a complete picture of the world and our place in it. So our second attempt to understand what materialism asserts leads us to nearly the same place as our first. Materialism is just the epistemological view that the methods of physics can provide us with a complete account of how things are.
© Michael Philips 2003
Michael Philips is a professor of philosophy at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon. In his spare time he is a photographer and performance artist.

Selasa, 11 Oktober 2016

R. GUNTUR MAHARDIKA: share intelligence about the Islamic State

Obama and the French and the others in the Western coalition are merely carrying out cosmetic strikes against the Islamic State. Russia is now acting with Iran and its client regimes in Baghdad and Damascus to do something genuine to fight the Islamic State. Obama won’t coordinate with Putin because of Assad: “American officials, who have long cast Mr. Assad as the primary source of instability in Syria, assert that the Syrian leader’s brutal crackdown provided an opening for jihadist groups and that the crisis cannot be resolved until a political transition is negotiated that requires him to leave power. But Russian officials see the Syrian government as a bulwark against further gains by groups like Islamic State and Nusra Front and sometimes suggest that the defeat of the Islamic State should come before a negotiated solution for the Syrian conflict. The U.S. position assumes that the Islamic State’s power and appeal is based on outrage at the crimes of Assad, and that therefore its support would melt away if Assad were gone. No one who has ever read anything that the Islamic State has published or any of the accounts of why people join it could hold this position, but of course the Obama Administration and the other governments of the West are committed as a matter of policy to ignoring and denying the ideological and religious appeal of the Islamic State. Since they maintain that the Islamic State is not Islamic, they have to find some other reason for its appeal to young Muslims worldwide; that reason is supposedly Assad’s atrocities.
Putin, by contrast, is more realistic. He realizes that the Islamic State has global ambitions and is by no means only devoted to removing Assad — as anyone who has ever paid the slightest bit of attention to them knows. Thus he knows that removing Assad will only strengthen the Islamic State, and that the Islamic State will be the chief force able to take advantage of that removal.
The U.S. position is based on fantasy. The Russian one is based on reality. The Iranian involvement is unfortunate, but now that Obama has concluded his disastrous nuclear deal with the mullahs, it can hardly be said that the U.S. has a better handle on the Iranian situation, either.

“Russia Surprises U.S. With Accord on Battling ISIS,” by Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, September 27, 2015:

UNITED NATIONS — For the second time this month, Russia moved to expand its political and military influence in the Syria conflict and left the United States scrambling, this time by reaching an understanding, announced on Sunday, with Iraq, Syria and Iran to share intelligence about the Islamic State.
Like Russia’s earlier move to bolster the government of President Bashar al-Assad by deploying warplanes and tanks to a base near Latakia, Syria, the intelligence-sharing arrangement was sealed without notice to the United States. American officials knew that a group of Russian military officers were in Baghdad, but they were clearly surprised when the Iraqi military’s Joint Operations Command announced the intelligence sharing accord on Sunday.
It was another sign that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government.
The effort, which Mr. Putin is expected to underscore in his speech at the United Nations on Monday, not only puts Moscow in a position to give military support to Mr. Assad, its longtime ally in the Middle East, but could also enable the Kremlin to influence the choice of a successor if Mr. Assad were to eventually leave power.
Russia’s moves are raising difficult questions for the Obama administration, which remains deeply conflicted about American military involvement in the Syria conflict. Ensuring that the Russian military and the United States-led coalition, which is carrying out airstrikes against the Islamic State, “deconflict” and avoid running into each other is only part of the problem: The Obama administration and the Kremlin do not appear to agree even on the main reason for the conflict.
American officials, who have long cast Mr. Assad as the primary source of instability in Syria, assert that the Syrian leader’s brutal crackdown provided an opening for jihadist groups and that the crisis cannot be resolved until a political transition is negotiated that requires him to leave power. But Russian officials see the Syrian government as a bulwark against further gains by groups like Islamic State and Nusra Front and sometimes suggest that the defeat of the Islamic State should come before a negotiated solution for the Syrian conflict….