How do these definitions sit with you? (with poll)

I wanted to add in something to see what you guys think. I've thought about this for a while. Simply wanted to add in something about "universal" values, prescribed in an intelligeable heaven or whatnot.

Okay. There are universal values. I was thinking about putting on my door -edit- when I right before I killed myself -stapled all over it, a bunch and bunch of papers talking about universal values. I had a weird dream about it.

Anyway, these universal values or whatever. Conditions. People think to have these conditons fufilled in some severe cases perhaps.

Although I cannot give examples off the top of my head- they exist..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now guys. If you respond to this post I demand you respond to my previous post first please. Possibly included in response to this. Asking what I think, fine I will and don't mind. Looking to talk to somebody.

I don't understand this. I don't know what opulence means. Something to do with God maybe. In that case I would say, that this looks like some spiritual something, and that in it, is a certain way of life. An ethic or whatnot which might not sit so well with certain people possibly? You decide. Atheistic perspectives wouldn't allow it but it certainly is interesting yes?

Not sure. If this all goes to gether looks like it.
Okay. The supreme gain in life is devotional service to god. You might say,
"

The supreme gain in life, the most severe gain, in life, is devotional servece in god and you could get away with that as a certain statement hard to unfold from it's "imperative."
etc
"
...
Now. "Actual education (as in schools?) is nullifying the false perception of duality within the soul."
Explain this. I am fucked up. Sometimes you write so confusing anyway. Or that or I am incredibly retarded...

I get this more than most do I think. But not the disgusted? Oh christ. Head spinning. Sorry. Deal with me or advoid me. DISGUSTED. Ewe that's disgusting. Did you mean disguised. I have no idea.

Sure, this may be a good ideal. But only for some people. You might like that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I disagree with searching for sex durring misery, that's retarded.
This first parts a bit more confusing though.

I would not want to pass up my material happiness. So, this does not sit with me. If I wanted a different sort of happiness, I would choose to transcend material things or material happiness, but I don't know how well that would sit.

The rest of this buddhist sort wisdom I am not going to bother with. I don't have the time. I might get to it later there fore I will leave it here. If you respond I might take more time next time because I'm fucked up on anti-anxiety medication. So respond please. Tell me things. I don't mind listening.

A wise man is one who knows the process of freedom from bondage
and a fool is one who identifies with his material body and mind
The real path in life is that which leads to God
and the wrong path is sense gratification, by which consciousness is bewildered
Actual heaven is the predominance of the mode of goodness
whereas hell is the predominance of ignorance
God is everyone's true friend, acting as the guru of the entire universe
and one's home is the human body
one who is enriched with good qualities is actually said to be rich
and one who is unsatisfied in life is actually poor
A wretched person is one who cannot control his senses
one who is not attached to sense gratification is a real controller
to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality
The best quality is to transcend material good and evil

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oli

that knowledge can also be goodness, passion or ignorance and that detachment can also be of the three modes also

appearances can be deceptive

then you have experience of the senses over-riding your intelligence

ditto above

(BTW - such experiences are not unique - in fact they are constitutional)

thus children can go from absolute pleasure to absolute misery at the drop of a hat

statistics on health issues in old age suggest otherwise

therefore there is an emphasis on attaining a particular type of association as opposed to a non-particular type of isolation

what's the question?

so why, in your opinion, do you think god is more deserving of a kick in the balls?

it usually works like this

BG 2.62: While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.

BG 2.63: From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool.

BG 2.64: But a person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord.

actually they aren't the same shape - the reason is that the cells that make up the shape get changed

and you think its your scars?

still there is the question of you actually being you - for instance if you were kidnapped and some one else was put in your position that behaved and looked in away that was not unrecognizable to others, it would raise issues if it came to light (its not like people would say, "Well what does it matter, he looks and behaves much like the original oli")

where is the "I" from your baby body? (that body is no longer here)

how you forget it, you get decked out with a different mind when you enter a womb (and the nature of your mind at the time of your previous death determines your next body)

why this happens, is because in our inexhaustible desire to find some alternative to god, we require a fresh platform to wholeheartedly pursue ignorance (If you could remember your last 200 lives ranging from a cock roach to a cocker spaniel, we would spend all our time at the psychiatrists)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, I think I understand this.

Meh, as I found out.

Yup.

Ah.

Pfft, I'm virtually in my old age now and normally eat only when I remember I "should" have had something hours ago...

Ah again. Some light creeps in.

Assuming that's not meant as flippant (and this isn't either): that's the trick isn't it? Knowing WHAT the question is.
Why? Why me, why everything? Roughly.

More deserving than whom?
If he's as loving and all-powerful as he's supposed to be why aren't "things" easier?
Suffering serves who's purpose?

Anger is rare for me, but I can see the point of the quotes.

Okay, but they're still there as scars after 50 years.

Not at all but something keeps them with "me".

"not like"? So you're that the "duplicate" wouldn't be recognised as me?
Must think on this, because I see that it's likely they would probably say it didn't matter...

Was there an I in that body? "I" wasn't, until around age three/ four. "My continuity as "I" goes back that far and no further.

Anything I'd take as evidence of/ for this (at this stage of my education?)

So we're enlightened and at the same time looking for non-enlightenment? We're aware of god and looking for alternatives?

 

LG, I think the main issue one has with this poll is not necessarily the underlying meaning of some of what you write (issue of belief in god aside) but the words you use and the overriding sense of arrogant superiority that emanates from them and your subsequent responses, demonstrated when one asks for clarification and you respond with a flippant question as though that is sufficient answer.

Personally, there are one or two that have elements I agree with - but not necessarily in the absolute that you have worded them as, and some/most that I clearly disagree with.

I shall respond as being in agreement for those that I find I am mostly (if not totally) in agreement with.

Hope you find it useful.

 

when discussing value based knowledge, the answers have to come from the person - for instance suppose you asked whether "goodness" exists, I could respond "Do you think it is good if I assault you and steal your money?" - in other words value based knowledge has to come from within since there is no scope for me to "tell" you how to understand a value

understandable

thanks

 

Oli
“

so when you speaking of wanting to "know" the question remains why do you want to know (ie what is the purpose of knowledge) - hint- you will probably give one of three possible answers

so we all find out - and eventually forget due to the nature of illusion, and thus find out the again some time later down the track ....

in this way we can understand where our limitations are clearly demarcated

This is the beginning of spiritual inquiry (according to the Vedanta Sutra)

A human being should be inquisitive to know these things: Who am I? Why am I put into this condition of working very hard to get only a few grains? Why am I in this uncomfortable situation? Where did I come from? Where do I have to go? The Vedänta-sütra begins by stating that a human being should be inquisitive to know who he is, where he comes from, and where he has to go.

well either god is wrong for making the universe wrong, or you are wrong for having a wrong idea of your position in the universe

What do you think is the relationship between the living entity and the material universe? (IOW for what purpose do you think we exist in this world)

A little bit of salt makes a preparation tasty - that doesn't mean that i fyou add more salt it becomes more relishable - in fact it makes it a source of suffering - in other words the fact that we are suffering could indicate that we don't know how to enjoy properly

its certainly clear where anger arises from

you still have finger nails too - but not the same ones you had 50 years ago

something keeps your finger nails on you too - at a certain point it doesn't hurt when you cut your finger nails and at a certain point it does - thus it appears that they are simultaneously part and not part of you

I am speaking that if the duplicate was recognized - would your mother still say, "OH well what does it matter - near enough is good enough"

that simply indicates the strength of your memory - for some people life didn't begin they were six years old - still there are very good reasons why your mother keeps photo's of you when you were 2 as opposed to photos of the next door neighbor's child when he was 2 - you may not remember but others certainly do

you have difficulty remembering life earlier than your toddler years - still you can rationally determine that you were in the womb, etc, by accepting the testimony of your mother - in other words given our current qualifications of recollection and perception, evidence becomes an impractical proposition (If you asked your mother to prove to you that you were in her womb, it would basically boil down to whether you had faith in her words or not - ie detected any incongruities or not)

we are aware that god's activities are enjoyable (the most strong, the most beautiful, the most intelligent etc etc) - the question is whether we think our enjoyment lies in being a servant to god and his activities or being an imitator of god and his activities - for those who sincerely take for the second option, the material world is provided as a stage for us to act out such desires (of course in the thick of the material universe's diverse and numerous similarly desirous life forms, we tend to get lost in the crowd most of the time ....)

In other words we have an original nature that is god conscious, but due to material association we have forgotten that nature, just like you have forgotten the nature of your existence prior to being a toddler

 

Have you told them about the 'correct' epistemology' that proves the ontology you desire to be proven, yet?

Don't neglect what works, dude.
A deep thinker, as yourself, should use what is successful in spreading the, cowardly, needy, desperate bullshit you peddle.

 

seems like you also have a few burning issues that you desire to bring to the forefront ....

:shrug:
and that makes you what by default?
brave, satisfied and dedicated to the truth of reality?

 

If it walks like an Oli and it quacks like an Oli...
No, I'm not sure whether I'm me or just a reasonable facsimile thereof.

 

so you wouldn't have any issues if something that looked and acted in ways remarkable to yourself usurped your position?