Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Karma

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,822

    impossiblity of nature my good sir

    the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round

    the wheels on the bus go round and round..all through the town...
    "did you ask me to consider dick with you??" blooming tianshi lotus

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    909

    Oh, god, it's a metaphysical daoist rant......... head for the hills.

    Ok, so I'm going to venture a radical statement here and say that it's a typical anthropocentric human response to assume that everything must have a creator and things must have a begining and an end. As such, this view is predominantly metaphysical hogwash packaged in a solution of snake oil.

    It is also a typical human assumption that there has to be some "supreme being" behind it all, many of us can't possibly cope with the idea that we are not in any way superior to any other form of life on earth. And for that matter, we arent even superior to the nonliving stuff on earth. Is it really so hard to admit and understand that life just IS? Is it so hard to understand and accept that things change and there is no such thing as an end or a begining or superior or inferior? Is it so hard to grasp the principle that being and non-being are inherently the same?

    What do we mean when we say something comes to an "end"? Is "ending" even something that actually happens or is it a made up concept which we fabricated in the creation of verbal language? Is it simply a made up concept used to attempt to describe the way things cease to be in the form we once knew them in? If this is the case, and I really beleive that it is, don't we delude ourselves with the idea that the object in question actually "ended"? Didn't it really just change forms?

    And what in the hell do we mean to say when we say something "began"? I've encountered many events, ranging from the onset of a storm to the birth of a child, which many people would call "beginings" but did anything actually start that wasn't there before this "begining"? No. In my brief life in this current form, I've seen nothing come into being which did not manifest itself from energy that was already there.

    To summarize. Life and death are one and the same. Every moment of your life you are constantly dying and being born anew on a cellular level. Even the neurons in the adult brain are replaced occasionally (contrary to a slightly archaic though widely held medical belief, if you need medical evidence for this statement, go hunt through medical journals online, it was realized in the past 5 years). Life and death are but illusions, we (and by we I mean every organism, and every inorganic piece of matter on this planet, as well as every gust of wind, etc.) are but complex fields of energy. We who call ourselves human are simply extremely complex, self-perpetuating, self-aware electromagnetic fields. Matter is only a form which energy takes. What most call "death" is merely that energy changing into a different form. What most call "birth" is the exact same thing, energy changing forms. If I think well of my life I must therefore think well of my death.

    As for suffering...................

    Read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations.

    You can stop suffering on an individual level anytime you want to. The only thing which can allow an outside force to harm your mind is your mind itself. Mental anguish is permitted by the mind and can only be alleviated by the mind which created it. Accept death, accept your limitations, accept your pain, and learn from it. Free yourself from desire and you free yourself from the ability to suffer. After all, what is the source of pain? It derives from being denied that which we desire. And what do we desire? Life, knowledge, happiness, and love. If you stop looking for these things in the outside world, and learn to free yourself from the bonds of desire, you will find them within your own spirit.
    Show me a man who has forgotten words, so that I can have a word with him.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    163
    Because it is inconceivable and irrational that anything doesn't. Nothing creates itself. Everything comes from a single Creator.
    gosh, sorry to beat this quote over the head, but there's a lot of logical and philosophical viewpoints that will say this is wrong. now, i used to think this way, not nessasarily a Creator (capital C), but a point of origin. but then a field trip to a Jain temple changed all this. and though jainism came before buddhism, they are still within the realm of what i call upanishadic speculation. them, along with the materialists, the nihlists, the ascetics, among others, where the schools of thought that pretty much smashed vedic religion to bits. okay, now onto this whole creator/origin business....the guy at the jain temple explained to me that if the universe had a definite beginning and end, then there would be plenty of room for an Ultimate Creator God, or whatever you wish to call it. But there's two big holes in this idea. First, we define the universe as a set which includes everything...both known and unknown. If there is a Creator or Origin, it must exist as an element outside the set called the universe, either through time (before the set was created, an Origin must exist in order to create it later on), or space (the Origin cannot have created itself, and thus cannot be in the set) . We can therefore define a superset, which includes the original set and this so-called Origin.....so, it kind of negates the idea of the first set containing everything, doesn't it? and since every set needs a creator, we could be making supersets till our eyes bleed, and we would still not be satisfied. and this leads into the second big point.....if everything comes from a single creator, then, well, what creates the creator? of course you could make an exemption for the creator and give it special powers, like, the ability not to be created...haha. of course, special exemptions for no reason than other to make your argument work is hogwash and highly illogical.

    according to jains, there was never a point of creation and there will never be an end, that the universe has been going through a cycle of creation and destruction forever. while the idea might be mind-blowing if you think about it too long, its actually way more simpler than dealing with a so-called creator God. and while the idea of God in Jainism and parts of Hinduism and Buddhism still exists, they dont see it a separate personality, that God is the sum of the universe, that God is simply our primitive and human-like way of accepting Dharma.

    now, i have no idea how buddhism deals with issues such as these, since 1) it really has little bearing on attaining enlightenment (look up buddha's answers dealing questions of the self or atman, you'll see what i mean) and 2) i imagine there would be no real consensus among buddhists. but....this is good for looking at things like karma and dharma, and maybe freeing your mind from constraints of customary thinking.
    -Jesse Pasleytm
    "How do I know? Because my sensei told me!"

  4. #14
    Jess,

    If there is a Creator or Origin, it must exist as an element outside the set called the universe, either through time (before the set was created, an Origin must exist in order to create it later on), or space (the Origin cannot have created itself, and thus cannot be in the set).
    If I am understanding this correctly, I think I can stop you there. This is where the concept of restriction comes in. You don't need sets. The first act of creation was not an act of building, but an act of carving out. For the simple reason that we're dealing with an infinite Being. Well, when we have an infinite being, there is no place where this being is absent. True infinity is true perfection. So where is there room for imperfection? It can't exist because the Creator is infinite - He's in every conceivable place possible. You have to take the concept of infinity seriously.

    So now there's a problem - a creator wants to create, but there's no place to put it because He is already everywhere. If you're in a room which is shaped exactly to match the contours of your body, how are you going to bring something else into that room? [This does not imply that the creator is limited though, the 'space' may be infinite, but so is the being.] Well the only thing to do is to suck in your gut. And that's what had to happen; this Being could no longer fill up all of infinity. He had to create some space where something besides himself could exist. And that's the basic concept of restriction; a Kabbalistical perspective on the creation of existence. The actual formation of existence is the next step, but it's long....


    There don't have to be sets; [one view holds] we are contained in the Creator Itself.

    Does this make any sense to you?


    and this leads into the second big point.....if everything comes from a single creator, then, well, what creates the creator? of course you could make an exemption for the creator and give it special powers, like, the ability not to be created...haha. of course, special exemptions for no reason than other to make your argument work is hogwash and highly illogical.
    Again, if we're dealing with a infinite and omnipotent Creator this question is redundant. The nature of this being is infinity. Stop thinking in anthropomorphic terms. This Being is being, existence, matter, time, space itself. It is what is. You can't ask what was before or what created 'being' [the Creator]. The answer is, it was being! [the Creator, Source.] Before that? The same! The concept of time and anthropomorphic principles make this subject very evasive. Difficult to grasp because the human mind is not fashioned to comprehend certain things such as no time and no space.


    What do we mean when we say something comes to an "end"? Is "ending" even something that actually happens or is it a made up concept which we fabricated in the creation of verbal language? Is it simply a made up concept used to attempt to describe the way things cease to be in the form we once knew them in? If this is the case, and I really believe that it is, don't we delude ourselves with the idea that the object in question actually "ended"? Didn't it really just change forms?
    Dao, this still doesn't address the issue of a Creator! So it's a cycle! So it changed form! It doesn't answer the question of where this 'energy' that forms matter originally [way back, if you want] came from...


    It is also a typical human assumption that there has to be some "supreme being" behind it all, many of us can't possibly cope with the idea that we are not in any way superior to any other form of life on earth. And for that matter, we aren’t even superior to the nonliving stuff on earth.
    So could you tell me the reason why there are different forms of existence? If everything is the same, nothing is ultimately superior, why different forms in the first place? If there aren't different levels of superiority then the same purpose would have been achieved through a single form of existence.


    Oh and whoever's gonna tell me to look from the answers within again; I'm not looking for enlightenment, I'm looking for discussion.

    Peace guys...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,822

    lol

    lol when people ask borderline satori questions i like to give answers like that because its the best way for them to find their answers..

    really it doesnt matter what anyone says, its not like were gonna convince lipster of what we believe is right..

    he obviously believes in "the alpha and the omega"

    well maybe his mind will change in time, maybe not

    but lipster, what your talking about has obvious flaws and contradictions, your own words im talkin about here

    but it really doesnt matter, maybe your having a hard time explaining what you feel, who cares..the point is you believe it, its your beliefs not ours..i doubt anyone here is gonna change the way you feel with a few well placed words and such

    so whats the point of arguing beliefs when they arent really gonna be radically changed by anyone..at best we can only make each other think things over etc
    "did you ask me to consider dick with you??" blooming tianshi lotus

  6. #16
    Well that's the point Vince, I'm not looking to convert anyone to my views. I just wrote that I'm not looking for answers. I'm just presenting my views and reading others'. Out of INTEREST.

    READ THE GODDAMN ****IN WORDS YOU BRAINLESS TWAT.

    God, I hate it when you come up with this arrogant bullshit Vince. "Maybe his mind will change in time." Well excuse me sir, I love the way you think your views are automatically more legitimate than mine. I know you think that I don't, but I really [really really] do understand your problems with my mode of rationale and thought. I think I've already established in a God thread we had a while ago that we have two completely different modes of thought. That's why when you read my stuff it just seems like confused bullshit to you. The reason for this stems from a single simple point. There are two viewpoints of existence - the pragmatic view and the realist view. We occupy opposite ends. This is why you never seem to be able to pick up [on the point of] what I'm saying and why you think I can never truly understand what you're saying.

    If you're not aware of the definition of pragmatic and realist viewpoints of existence, look it up. If you can't find anything I'll explain what they mean.

    And please point out my flaws.


    (deep breath) Peace bro...
    Last edited by Lipster; 06-16-2003 at 06:50 PM.

  7. #17
    And I really don't know why I get so wound up when you lay on this shit...I shouldn't...

    You have a talent Vince...

  8. #18
    Maybe we should go for this little scrap Doc suggested...


  9. #19
    Brainless twat.

    OH MY GOD. (If you do exist...). That's ****ing funny!

    Yes, Vince does have talent. Sometimes a little misdirected at times, but still there. We have to help him nurture it.
    Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

    "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

    (more comments in my User Profile)
    russbo.com



  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    909
    Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough

    Dao, this still doesn't address the issue of a Creator! So it's a cycle! So it changed form! It doesn't answer the question of where this 'energy' that forms matter originally [way back, if you want] came from...
    I don't think the "issue of a creator" needs to be addressed. The consciousness which is "myself" was not present at the creation of the universe, and therefore I would be a fool to speculate on how the universe was created. Furthermore, I have no reasoning or evidence which would lead me to beleive that the universe was even created in the first place. Maybe you were present for the creation of the universe and you have relevent evidence to address the "issue of the creator". Frankly I have no reason to beleive there is a creator, or that the universe was even created at all. This is not to say that I have reason to disbelieve these things, that would be equally silly of me. The point is, I wasn't there, it's not my place to spout meaningless conjecture about something I can't really ever know anything about.

    So could you tell me the reason why there are different forms of existence? If everything is the same, nothing is ultimately superior, why different forms in the first place? If there aren't different levels of superiority then the same purpose would have been achieved through a single form of existence.
    Take a look at an ecosystem. I'm going to drastically oversimplify here, and say we have a robin, a hawk, and a bunch of worms. The robin eats worms, the hawk eats robins, and when they die they both get eaten by worms. Is the hawk superior to the robin? Is the robin superior to the worm? Is the worm superior to both? Or is it simply that there is no such thing as superiority? Isn't "superiority" yet another example of something WHICH DOES NOT EXIST outside of the human linguistic dialectic? Superior is just a word, it's not something which is present in reality. Anyway though, I'd love to see you present some evidence for the philosophical argument that "If there aren't different levels of superiority then the same purpose would have been acheived through a single form of existance." Because quite frankly, it's a completely unsupported argument and a teleological one at that. If one does not accept the unspoken premise that there is a supreme creator who has in mind a purpose for all forms of life, then the argument is not only unsupported but nonsensical as well.

    I'm not trying to question anyone's beleifs, I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should and should not do with their lives, I'm just trying to offer others the oppurtunity to see through the lies we've all been taught. I had the oppurtunity and, though it took me 20 years, I have just now begun to sieze it. So I'm just trying to offer you that same oppurtunity. Do with it what you will.
    Show me a man who has forgotten words, so that I can have a word with him.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •