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

The word actual is based on the dualism actual or real vs. unreal. So even in this one sentence we have a contradiction. Let's see how much dualistic thinking is in the other sentences.

'Real' and 'improper' are words that suggest or create dualities.

'good' = duality and the sentence of course implies that attachement is bad. More duality.

'transcend' is a word used in dualism where transcendence is couterposed to manifestation or materiality or immanene. 'Material' is used in dualities counterposed to 'spiritual' or 'holy'

and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure
'real' again.

a sentence laying out a dualism. Two types of humans. Also a dualism between the spiritual and body and mind.

Dualism based on a transcendant God and the senses. God is clearly not immanent here and another dualism is formed.

Yet another dualism. Also an implied dualism. Disatisfaction is bad. Satisfaction is good. Anyone disatisfied with, for example, something like slavery and fights against it is spiritually poor. They should be satisfied with their or others' lack of freedom.

Control good, lack of control bad. More dualism. Senses bad. Another dualism though I am not sure which other term goes with it.

Practice as you say but not as you do. You would never know that you understand this belief yourself.

The best quality - separates this quality out from others. Duality. Transcend, as always a duality word contrasted with immanence. Material contrasted with spiritual. Dualisms Dualisms Dualisms

You have to wonder why God made a world he wanted us to view as bad. You have to wonder why God made senses he thinks are bad. You have to wonder why God created a dualism, a world he is not manifest in. And then there is the ultimate dualism: God is not here, is not involved in sex, God is not emotions. God is separate, transcendant, out there.

And then there are those who think if you love earthly things: a woman, the forest, the smell of the air off the ocean, orgasms you are not loving God.

What a horrible dualistic philosophy you have presented. The odd twist is it claims to transcend dualisms which banging dualism into our heads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ Grantywanty


“

The only thing wrong with our society is that we humbly serve those who don’t deserve it – therefore it is common knowledge that no one in this world fully surrenders to anyone else, and that no one is suitably qualified to accept such full surrender anyway – taking this material concept with us when we approach god makes spiritual life more troublesome than what it need be



“

There could be many reasons you don’t beat your children (they might be able to break your teeth for example)
What I am saying is that the display of disgust at improper activities is the perfection of modesty (in other words, shying away from what is improper)

Which example was that?

I am not sure what you are aiming at here
“

the issue was “good qualities, such as detachment”

No doubt because her attachment to you also has an element of detachment – that’s why I gave the eg of being locked in your room (the whole beating you up thing was suppose to indicate the foundation that beauty lies in good qualities)

“ [/QUOTE]In other words real beauty is perceived as the possession of good qualities
(as for attachment, that is the prime cause of bad qualities – for instance if your mother was so attached to you that she forbade you to leave the house and locked you in the room (even though you are 33), you would probably insist that she display a bit of detachment ”
Well, you just came up with a bad version of attachment, but there are good ones. I am attached to my girlfriend.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ Oli

“to refuse as acknowledge as belonging to one” works ok
(notice how “abhor” doesn’t rock up in the synonymns)
if there wasn’t this capacity, there would be no scope for detachment (How is it possible to be detached from something you acknowledge as belonging to one’s self - in otherwords if we have the capacity to lose something, it indicates that it never was truly "ours")
“

depends who’s asking
“

if you are not in jail, to a greater extent, yes
“

detachment is a good quality, hence the words “such as”
“

successful theory finds its way into practice ....
“

how many more times do you plan on getting divorced?
“

consciousness that has no ultimate relationship with trying to cultivate happiness by hanging on to temporary things (except under the weight of illusion)
“

unless you eat more than you require you will die?
“

selfishness, lethargy, envy, lust etc enable you to get a clearer picture of the world you live in?
“

depends who you are comparing them to
“

such is the power of your seeing ....
“

make of it what you will
“

before or after your divorce?
“

hence those without it are poor
“

do you eat a pizza by placing it on your eyebrows?
“

if a person in power is controlled by another higher controller they are not in control – similarly if a business manager is controlled by envy, etc, it is envy that ultimately controls the business
“

I take it you assume there isn’t
“

if all you see is this world, most definitely

hence this issue raises the question of “what’s there”
“

assuming life finishes with the body

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So if they don't acknowledge it as theirs they don't do anything with it? At all?

Nearly everyone, but in this particular case: me.

Really?
Legal = proper?

How so?

Very good, now expound upon the theory and say HOW it can be practised.
What is the basis for the other type of happiness.

None. I didn't plan the first one either.
Your point?
For both remarks - i.e. that you take it I'm a bachelor and how many more times I'm planning on divorce.

 

Oli

generally if a person (at least of principles) approaches something that is not theirs, they attempt to see that it is returned to the owner

“

depends on your qualification I guess, just like any other branch of knowledge you care to mention ...

its a good place to begin as a general indicator

it enabled you to survive a divorce without committing suicide or killing your wife (.... actually you haven't clearly indicated that you aren't in jail, so maybe we should suspend that idea ....)

happiness is in relation to an object - if all you are capable of discerning (due to your theoretical base no doubt) is that one type of object exists (this body and things related to this body is practically one category) you only have one type of happiness , which has the habit of wringing dry more quickly as time goes on

relates to your earlier response
me - and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure ”
you - Getting further off-track.

if you don't experience divorce as a miserable consequence of the pursuit of sex life, I can't see any reason for not planning for many more joyful divorces in the future ...

 

Grantywanty

pardon me for asking, but were you stoned when you posted that?

 

So a wealthy person who renounces, would acknowledge the wealth isn't his and get rid: thereby becoming not wealthy...

Okay.

There are no unjust or immoral laws?
Anywhere?
Laws vary from country to country, time to time: so does "proper"?

And if I'd been detached I wouldn't have got married in the first place.
(PS, I'm not in jail - but you only have my word on that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

I haven't come across anything other than this body to use as a basis.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

False assumption on your part. The divorce wasn't actually related to sex or the pursuit of it.

There are things other than body and mind?

See above.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Go ahead.

And children are relatively ignorant.

Divorce was history by then: carefree-ness was nearly total.

Um, detached from ex-wife - not detached from life.

Yeah, I'm an arrogant care for no-one guy.

Da, okay. I know what you mean.

Since I wouldn't have those as part of my personal make-up any more then I wouldn't be me would I?

Aren't people a mix of things - I like things - is that not a mild lust )or whatever) for those things?
If I lose my "bad qualities" then I won't like those things anymore - hence not me.

How would I investigate it?
My senses, mind and body are tailored to this world.

That's a possibility, what are the alternatives?

I'm in the middle of it because that's where birth and life put me.
As to what matter is, it's the stuff that's all round me, (without getting into physics).

The moment has come and gone, the body is mostly still here.

Yup, that one puzzles me at times.
I am that which identifies itself as me?

 

I make these statements not in condescension, but in curiosity. I voted on the poll, but felt it necessary to clear up discretions in order to answer some of them.

In a way, yes. But any one can lead to the others depending on the person and situation. Strength can develop. Intelligence is simply knowing what to do in the situation to achieve a goal. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. wealth is undefined and can be many things. renunciation (presumably of sin) is like a rebirth. fame comes from achieving goals that affect many people.

This is why I dislike the usage of the word god in most cases: because it is undefined, especially in this case. The one agreed upon definition is "creator of the universe". How am I supposed to devote service to that which created the universe? Does this mean I am supposed to create instead of destroy? If so, then I agree.

If I understand you correctly, then I agree. The soul is not separate from the material world just as the spiritual world is not separate from the material. Understanding this allows one to correlate the two and be more at peace with oneself.

I don't agree with this one. I believe that real modesty includes modesty for everything around you as well as yourself. To be modest is almost like being naive, but in a grandmotherly kind of way: to look kindly upon ignorance and only act when necessary to prevent unhappiness in the whole rather than just the self. Modesty is to know what disgusts you and weed it out--disassociate from your disgust and learn to accept it lest it blind you.

I agree with this. To see beauty in something, one must see it from the environment it comes from. Beauty is defined by an interaction between our association and our instinct. To see beauty in something usually described as ugly, one must understand it and where it come from. One must disassociate from one's own background.

Yes.

I'm not quite sure I understand. I do not think that real misery is only defined by a search for sex. Real misery to me is despair: a feeling of having no escape from the evil or mundane.

I agree. A wise man knows the unknown. The unknown is only discovered by freeing your mind from the constraints of conventional thought.

I do not agree. I feel that a wise man should also be able to identify with his material body and mind. If he cannot, then he is ignorant to it and therefore a slave to it. He must know his own limitations within a physical body if he is to ever overcome them.

Again, the usage of the word god requires more definition. If by god you mean creation, and by this statement you mean that our path is to create, then I agree. But I would also say that it includes a necessary maintenance of god's creation of which our survival depends upon.

In other words, anything that leads to destruction of god's creation is unwanted. Anything that creates upon god's creation is wanted (for we are all the tools of god, are we not? therefore our creations are his own).

This becomes unclear, though, when we ask if it is right to destroy a destructor.

Yes, consciousness is bewildered by this, but it is bewildered by so many things. I think sense gratification is something which we require to tell us the right path. But some instruments of destruction implement this and overload our senses with a false feeling of gratification. The thing to do here is to decipher one from the other. Things of destruction will overload your senses and leave you feeling empty whereas constructive sense gratification will leave you with a sense of satisfaction long after it has faded.

I agree

I think I agree. To rephrase, you could say hell is the predominance of destructive interference.

I agree. As a human we perceive god as being our own tool, but he perceives all of us as his tools. We use his creation as he uses us.

yes. for as long as one is human.

 

Roy

thanks
much appreciated

(BTW the OP is a scriptural quote from the Srimad Bhagavatam)

this is actually a description of god - god is the most strong, most intelligent, everyone finds him attractive, possessor of all wealth, the most detached and the most famous.
It enables a distinction between any other cosmic or mortal possessor of opulence and god

there is the example that a parent may give the child $10 to purchase something for their birthday - in other words devotional service to god means we work with what is allotted to us by god in the service of god (what is accepted is the sincerity of such service, since the means are already supplied)

Real education means to give up the false idea that anything is separate from the Lord, the source of all potencies. (in other words if one is thinking this bread crumb belongs to me and the rest of the universe belongs to god, they are still have a perception of duality within the soul)

the danger about improper activities is that they are conducive to ignorance (and ignorance is not conducive to knowing god). Modesty is referred to in the sense of shyness - in other words its not sufficient to be embarrassed about improper activities. If one is truly disgusted by them, there is no opportunity to adopting them (and thus there will be no opportunity for one to become ignorant) . If a theist is not disgusted by improper activities, they run the risk of becoming complacent about them

precisely

the suggestion is that sex life is mundane, and thus to seek it, is to seek further entanglement

true - surmounting the mind is where it is at

SB 11.16.11 Among subtle things I am the spirit soul, and of things that are difficult to conquer I am the mind.

by the word "identify" it is meant that one thinks "I am this"

- if one thinks "I am this body" then that is unfortunate because the body is subject to disease, old age and eventually death, thus there is no actual platform for happiness.

- if one thinks "I am this mind" then that is also unfortunate because the mind has a very flickering nature, hankering for things and then rejecting those sought after things at a later date (If the desires of the mind are completely fulfilled in this instant, it will engineer newer ones in the next), so here too there is no platform for happiness

the real identity of the living entity is the soul (consciousness)

god is the cause of all causes (of which this creation is one such cause) - the real path is that which leads to the association of that cause of all causes.
The only thing we can essentially create is a means to close or distance ourselves from this cause (if we trash the planet, it would no doubt constitute the later)

basically there are two types of sense gratification - one is the type in relation to matter and the other is in relation to god - it seems that you have hit upon that

lol - yep sounds like ignorance to me

the issue is that being the best friend and teacher of everyone, his ability to determine what will make us satisfied and successful is greater than ours or anyone else's

the idea is that the human form of life affords luxuries that are not available in the animal species - namely the facility to understand god and progress towards his shelter - thus saying one home is much like any other home has dire consequences for spiritual life

 

Oli

there is a difference between getting rid of something and returning something to the rightful person (at least for someone of principles)
hint - a clue as to who is the rightful owner lies in the first proposition

Full opulence consists of full strength, intelligence, beauty, wealth, renunciation, and fame

hence its a good general indicator and not an absolute one (general indicators by necessity have a few qualities of absolute ones)

wisdom in hindsight

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

lol - I'll keep it in mind

hence experience and theoretical base are closely related
(In other words you have no reason to know any better because you have no reason to act any differently - such a situation can be changed by philosophical appeals, ie appeals to reason)

“

but forging the relationship was
(I assume you didn't marry her to get to know her father better)
“

certainly - perhaps it would be better to discuss this at the end

ditto above
e

Ok suppose a young man is sitting is sitting in a movie theatre. Just as the lights go down and the movie begins, he feels a brushing against his elbow and realizes that a person has sat down in the seat next to him. From the corner of his eye he notices her slim physique and long hair tied back in a pony tail and is immediately absorbed by the desire to perform all sorts of noble deeds for the betterment of her welfare (ie he is overcome by lust).
Due to the nature of the cinema environment, he is reluctant to make eye contact and begin conversation, but instead spends the next 90 minutes in a state of simultaneous anticipation and nervousness. In such a state, who is the main character, what is the movie about, he cannot say .... instead all he can focus his senses on is the sweetness of her musky bodily aroma that fills the vicinity of the cinema seats, while his mind is in a flux, trying to anticipate her intentions with each movement she makes on their shared arm rest and each slurp of her coca-cola. Finally, after what feels like a millennium, the credits roll and the lights come on. Gathering his wits, he turns to strike up a conversation, only to find she is not there .... or more correctly ..... she never was there. Next to him is a skinny old hippy man (with a packet of musk incense in his pocket)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(do you think this sounds familiar to us at all)?

compared to adults, yes
(correction - compared to some adults)

ok - so that leaves the other standard aspects of material anxiety open

ex-wife, smashed car, broken leg, lost wallet, glum depression, busted hot water system, hyper tension, volcanic eruption - whatever it may be, detachment will get you through life a hell of a lot easier than money (or some other material attachment)

arrogance is a symptom of attachment ("I am so good")
with detachment, good qualities like compassion for others can become catalyzed, since if we are too attached to what we want or what we think we are there is no space to actually focus on the needs, interests and concerns of others

unless you have some sort of lifestyle that necessitates being nasty (like a mafia hit man for instance), its not clear why you are attached (or why you think others would be attached) to you having reliable reserves of lust, envy, wrath, etc.
In other words its not clear why one would feel the notion of "becoming a better person" threatening to their sense of identity

To get a clearer picture of this, consider a line spoken by Prahlada Maharaja in Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.31: durasaya ye bahir-artha-maninah. Dur means difficult, and asaya is a person's intention. Thus durasaya refers to a contradictory intention, one that lands us in difficulty. The nature of that contradiction is the enjoyment of the material world, in which external sense objects (bahir) are the gain (artha). The contradiction here is that our claiming possession of sense objects does not make us the enjoyers of the material world, because we don't know how to enjoy matter without suffering. In our efforts to overcome this contradiction, we let the imagination (manina) do what it will with sense objects.

In other words lust does not mean the quality of attraction. Lust/envy/etc means the quality of being attracted to things that cause suffering (or as in the cinema scenario, bewilderment) - of course by the agency of our mind (imagination) we override such actual experiences to empower an unheeded determination to possess material things ...... as if possession of material things somehow bears a correlation to our actual experience of happiness. .....
Thus a person under the influence of lust/envy is caught up in a constant stream of desires "what a beautiful house - I wish I could live in it", "what a powerful position - I wish I could occupy it", "what a beautiful woman - I wish I could have her" etc etc in this way they have no peace (and without peace, there is no question of happiness)

This constant calling back to "I.. I.... I... I..." in relation to matter is the false calling of attraction.
If we can get attracted to things in relation to transcendence (like, you know -gulp - god), then the possibility of detachment from these inferior engagements exists

(steps off soap box)
“

this is the important position of transcendental literature - in one sense it is of this world (we can use our body to open it and use our eyes to read it and use our mind to think about it) in another sense it is not (since the result of doing such things enables transcendental truths to be realized eg - the nature of duality, etc)

the eternal, cognizant and blissful nature of transcendental knowledge

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“

kind of like popeye's "I y'am what I y'am"?

(In other words its not a very satisfying answer to why are where you are)

Suppose there was an episode of twilight zone where a person comes to consciousness in a world that that is totally unfamiliar - he has no recollection of where he came from - he has no idea what he is doing here - and then he abandons all this thinking and says "Oh well "

To say the least it wouldn't make for an appealing plot

what is the relationship between you and matter?

the body has gone too (perhaps you could indicate which parts of your body are like your sense of consciousness, ie that doesn't change with the passage of time - in other words apart from your sense of "I am", what part of your body has remained unaffected by the passage of time over the years?)

so its obviously not the body (you no longer wear size 3 underwear)
and its obviously not the mind (mickey mouse doesn't cut the mustard like he used to)

what does that leave?

 

Apologies "getting rid" is used in the UK for any manner of relieving oneself of something - including passing on. Which still comes back to: renunciation precludes having.

Still doesn't address the issue that I may well have differing ideas of "proper" from you.

Nope if detached I wouldn't have wanted to marry her - "wisdom" only by default.

Appeals to reason? Assuming I have any.... of course.
I'm listening at least.

Possibly.

Not to me.
Seriously.
Alien concept.

Granted on the "most".
So children are in relative hell?

You can ignore hunger for only so long...

Hmmm, okay -perceived arrogance, detachment cuts you off from people.
Similarly if detached where and how does compassion come in?
If I'm detached how can I have (or why should I show) compassion?

Because my lusts (in mild form) define my likes/ dislikes etc.
Is not a "taste" for say, cognac, a form of lust?
So I stop being a cognac drinker, and stop everything else that gives me pleasure - thus becomng someone unrecognisable to others as "Oli".
"Didn't you used to..."
"Why don't you.. anymore?"
"You're not the same person you used to be"

Um, okay, seems to answer my question above.
The ONLY thing I can think of re "I must have...or I'm not happy" in my case is books (for the information in them).
Lust for information?
I'm buggered then

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So we don't know to how to investigate, or can't be sure of the results?

Yeah well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

See later.

Is there a satisfying answer?

Sounds like the "plot" of life for most people, that's uninteresting?

Relationship?
We interact, I shape it, to a lesser(?) extent it shapes me... :shrug:

Unaffected? Nothing.
Still here?
"Me" (recognisable to people I haven't seen for 30 years), scars etc so there must be some physical continuity.

Me?
Sense of self as self.

 

Oli
“

so suppose one wants to rebel against this notion of renunciation and decides
to "own" something - can you tell us anything that one can own in this world without having to be forced to "pass it on" at some point?
(hint - we are born with nothing - and usually screaming - and we die with nothing - and usually screaming)
“

relative differences can be traced to relative causes, but absolute ones remain constant

same thing

a man who listens is a reasonable man

why only "possibly"?

you've never experienced over eating (your sense of greed overcoming your discrimination of how much you should eat)?

(or any one of a million examples where one's intelligence gets lead astray by emotive states)?

compared to persons/situations that have a higher degree of ignorance, no
compared to persons/situations that have a lower degree of ignorance, yes

once again, unless you have a degree of detachment, there is a good chance you will follow down the path of premature death by obesity/heart disease and other maladies caused by over eating (that are so prominent in opulent societies)

"deatchment" is used in reference to the conditioned soul - in other words due to the proclivity to enjoy in the wrong manner, detachment is deemed a good quality, because it enables proper attachments to develop.

eg

BG 2.44 In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

I guess it basically boils down to one's association and whether one is satisfied with that (whether one has knowledge of where such association leads is a separate issue)
for instance even a mafia hitman could get peer pressure if he was mellowing out a bit
"Hey paulio whatta evers happen to you now? - You didn't even-a break-a dis guys teeth - what ever-a happened to da paulio who would send guys like dat to swim with da fishes?"

depends why you want to have information.
In other words what do you do with the knowledge you have?
eg - Impress the secretary, how much you know?
- take it on board in a mood of introspection to determine what is to be sone and what is not to be done
- Just passes the time because life is boring
etc etc

in short though, if the only issue of lust you have is information, you are certainly a rare personality.
(
PS - Given that you posted

"If there is a god and I ever meet him the first thing I'd do is kick his b*lls up through his throat.*
And then ask "Why?"."

it appears that you have other issues aside from the pursuit of knowledge
“

Its more a case of we don't want to investigate so we never know the results

if transcendence is superior to matter, why does that somehow suggest a lower standard of existence, knowledge or happiness?

there is
but if you are satisfied with the answer you have arrived at, there is not much point going into details

to say the least, novelists and script writers tend to embellish.

so you cannot be held as responsible for your actions?
or is there some other relationship to a greater extent?

“

there is continuity even between fresh carton of milk and a rotten carton of milk but they can easily be recognized as different.
Thats the issue - with matter there is constant continuity - it is never the same - what part of you is it that remains the same?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Regardless - you cannot be wealthy if you've geuninely renounced wealth.

So renunciation can include "I've renounced this but I'll hang on to it until I die?"

Absolute proper-ness? Huh?

Only the perception - he was wise to not marry her, look how she turned out vs. I didn't think enough of her to marry her?

Meh, okay I can see where you're coming from.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Because I wanted to BE with her for the rest of my life, as opposed to sleep with her for the rest of my life.

Nope, one reason I don't get drunk: part of me says "enough - any more and you're another fool who thinks he can dance".

The marriage?

Okay.
Not how I'd define hell (not knowing), but... maybe, on second thoughts.

And hunger is a useful thing in that it informs you that your body is running out of resources.

A "conditioned soul" - who does the conditioning and how do you know the conditioning is valid?

But one becomes unrecognisbale as the person one once was, no?

Mainly to see how (and where) it fits with the knowledge I already have to see what sense it makes...

Been called that before, but usually paraphrased.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I also later appended the words "in my darkest moments" - I do have them.
If there is a god then things should make sense.

Somehow I completely misread your original lines and it looke dlike you were saying on one we could learn and on the other we couldn't.
Apologies.

IF.

That's a given (that satisfaction leads to no further looking/ asking - draw your own conclusion).

Uninteresting to the "lead characters" in the soaps of their own lives?

I "believe" so...

The final ellipses should have had a ":shrug:" appended - I'm not sure what you mean by "relationship with matter".

Never the same? - all my scars, to name the most obvious example, are here, some nearly fifty years old, there must be some continuity, unless my body is held together by an uncoscious self-image. ??

So if the "I am that which sees itself as me" isn't true what is?
What am I?

 

Oli

given that even rich people are born and die with nothing, it appears that no one else can be either

no
renunciation can include "this is not mine but I will engage it in the service of the owner"

yes - absolute values

thus the first instance has the advantage of attainment of knowledge ("gee I will never be so stupid like that again .... ")

”

and sex life and all that arose from it didn't catalyze this determination?

I was asking more specifically about eating food - you've never had the experience of over eating something that is very tasty
or in the case of lethargy, you've never experienced over sleeping?

that's one possibility

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and without the good quality of detachment, there's a good chance it will be the death of us

in short conditioned life is symptomized by hankering and lamentation - in other words we are in a state of hankering in pursuit of the sense objects (the beautiful house, the high paying job, etc) and this results in lamentation (we are sad because we don't get it or we are sad because we do get it and it isn't quite what we made it out to be, and hence we ditch it for some other poor sucker to pick up)

once again, it depends if one is satisfied with that - in other words is it more important that one simply reinforce other people's ideas of who they think we are or is it more important that we pursue our own actual identity as a being

but then what do you do with what makes sense?
In other words what is the goal of knowledge?
For instance suppose you understand something - for what purposes do you utilize it?

lol

I guess it comes back again to why you are expecting the world to world in a certain way (in other words what makes you so sure that you are the sensible one and not the universe)

the very nature of the term "transcendence" (beyond the senses) suggest superiority - does that mean we are in agreement (at least theoretically)?

indeed

“

lol - we also tend to act like script writers in terms of our own affairs

so if I stole your wallet you wouldn't hold that against me personally?

I think we are moving int he right direction -
do you think matter is what determines the environment of our state of being
or do you think our state of being determines our environment of matter

(BTW are you familiar with the wave/particle duality)

but according to scientific knowledge, we know those scars are not the same (even a scar changes over time)

now we are getting somewhere
yes there must be some continuity (and obviously you are not held together by your scars .....in an ultimate sense)
why would you call your self image unconscious?
(when you were ten years old, you had a different or unconscious sense of "I"?)

for a start you are not the body

you began by asking for an indication that consciousness continues after the point of death

if the nature of being an "I" is seeing the "I", as opposed to being a sack of scars, its plausible that after the sack's demise, the "I" continues.

Popeye knew what he was talking about

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Okay.

Examples?

Granted.

Nope.

Nope.

Over sleeping? Only in the sense that I'm asleep past the time I should have been awake because of not getting to sleep for a long time after getting into bed.

But not knowing you don't know is hardly hell is it?

Ignore your body or die?

Yup, but I weas aslking about a "conditioned soul" is there any reason to believe that the conditioning of the soul is any "better" than that of the body?

More - how does one know what one's character is without the reflection/ interaction from others.
Anyone can be "good" and "generous" if there's no one around.

Utilise? Deopends on what the information is: better design for whatever my company's building, making "more" sense of life...

I don't expect it to, I just hope it will make sense at some point.

Because I've got more experience with me than with the universe, not so much me being more sensible as that I've probably got more chance of understanding me: you don't look for your keys in the dark...

Certainly.

Nah, most people's lives are a joint writing effort.

Yup, I put the "believe" in because there's the argument about what free will actually is going on in another thread.

Belief/ thought shapes physical reality?
I've argued that before (at uni), but I'm not sure I believe it. (My evidence turned out to be false...)

Somewhat.

Granted.

Glad you think so - I'm getting confused

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Um, because as far as I'm aware I don't consider my shape/ scars/ size that often.

Not that I recall - I was still me.

Largely agreed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's plausible, but....

 

Oli

goodness conditions one to happiness;
passion conditions one to fruitive action;
and ignorance, covering one's knowledge, binds one to madness.

so there was no sexual impetus to forge the relationship?
(Did you marry her for her money?)

so you've never eaten a morsel of food after you've burped in your entire life?

even on a sunday morning?
(assuming you don't work on a sunday)

ignorance can be bliss
(not everyone in hell is unhappy)

the statistical likelihood is closer to over indulge your self and die

conditioned soul means they operate out of conditions - the body represents those conditions (in other words I identify with the body, thus I want the house/job etc )
For a conditioned soul, it is very rare for them to have a moment of clarity

there is a saying a friend from Brazil told me "If I want to know who you are, i get to know your friends"

in other words we have a tendency to pick things up by our social interaction (if all your friends are drug addicts, there's a good chance you are a drug addict) - this can be either our saving grace or achilles heel

as to how one can know what one is outside of influences or association, that requires getting free from the influence of states of mind that colour our perception (lust, greed,wrath etc) ... which, ironically, can be more easily achieved by good association

if they are influenced by egotism they will tend to pay extra special attention to being good when there are others around to praise them for it

let me put it another way
what is the purpose of knowledge?
Is it to enable one to eat to live?
Is it to enable one to live to eat?
or is it something else?

“

If you don't mind me asking, why do you think that the universe deserves to why is the universe duty bound to conform to your notions of sense/logic?

How do you know that the universe doesn't know more about you than you know about yourself (given that you don't seem to know what you are doing in the middle of it in the first place, its not such a big claim)

lol

so you're not strong in your belief that we are not responsible for our actions?
“

basically I am suggesting that we have a material identity because we have material desires (in other words our consciousness is contaminated)

i only mention it because it suggests that at a certain point, the objects of perception become indistinguishable from ego

clear as mud eh?

well I guess that rules out your shape/scars/size as the ultimate factor in your sense of I

you must also recall how your body was different
and you must also recall how your mind was different
What does that leave?
“

why not completely?
If your body and mind has been completely over/under hauled by time and if you are still the same "I", how could it be anything less than completely not you?
“

what?
You have something against sailors?

 

Maybe, but are they absolute conditions?
You can have passion with detachment?

No and no. I earned more than she did.

I have, but the burp mainly came from the lemonade

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On Saturday night I'm out until 2, 3, or 4 or working on the PVC until much the same time.
Any "lay in" is due to late nights.

Ah, I'd assumed hell is a punishment - and if you don't know you're being punished it can hardly be effective.

Satistics and me don't mix - I tend to be an outlier on many of them.

Okay.

I'd agree on the rarity.

Dichotomies of life?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good acts aren't necessarily a sign of goodness.
Acts can be feigned.

I dunno, that's why I keep looking.

I said I hoped... conversely I could may alter my notions of sense...

And I should ask the universe?

I tend more toward free will than I do to "everything is merely a response to stimuli".
"Of course I believe in free will, I have no other choice"

If there's a "we" that isn't material why/ how did we get contaminated?

Or that the answer we see is the only one we're capable of understanding, or it's the answer to the only questions we're capable of asking.

Nope, you're clear, it's just the gradual shifts in thinking I'm "suffering"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Except that they're always there when i check, so there's something keeping them with "me".

Not too sure about the mind being different so much as the knowledge.

Because there's something that keeps "a body" with "my" distinguishing features around "me".

That's the question - it still has "components" that distinguish my body as "mine". How so?

Nah, the plausibilty query was about survival of the "I".

 

Oli

in one sense no - if one approaches transcendental values, absolute material values can be absolved

you can have a detachment born of ignorance ("stuff it") or a detachment born of passion ("if I detach myself from this everyone will think I am cool") or a detachment born of goodness ("In the ultimate pursuit of happiness, it is better if I detach from this")

then why didn't you buy a dog instead of getting married?

mainly?
Is that a yes or no?

so do you spend more time in bed after such ordeals?

ignorance is not so much the source of happiness but the inability to determine exactly why one is unhappy
For instance an incompetent business man may be happy when the phone lines go down since his creditors can no longer call him up to grill his backside

time and tide tells all

one type of association enables one to determine the nature of association

hence the absolute values of passion and ignorance arise

what are you looking for then?
Something to eat?

and the universe is obliged to follow suit with your change of whims?

“

could be a more healthier approach than desiring to kick it up the balls before asking

lol

gets back to issues of free will and bad association (or falling into that type of association where you cannot distinguish the significance of association – ie ignorance)

they are different options to the notion of perception being indistinguishable from ego?

from science we know that is a misconception - you haven't got a single cell in your body that is older than 12 years old

the mind means your likes and dislikes - that's why I opened earlier that mickey mouse doesn't cut the mustard like he used to (assuming that Ol Mickey cut it when you were ten)
similarly cognac didn't cut the mustard when you were ten (or at least I hope that was the case)

and what is that?
a protein of some sort?

“

a rotten carton of milk also has the same components as a fresh one.
In the same way a dead body also has the same components as a living one.
still we see that a living person can manifest qualities that a fresh carton of milk cannot (consciousness/free will etc)

If your main concern is that the "I" can't exist separate from a body, introspection on how this body is currently existing in relation to "I" should dismiss it.
(The "I" fills the body, the body doesn't fill the "I")

 

LG apologies for the delay.

Okay, postulating transecndence I can see that.

Or detachment formed from the pursuit of knowledge?

A dog didn't offer the saem level of compionship.

I have possibly, but is a belch a sign of over-eating or just trapped wind?

Of course: after such a long time I'm more tired than I would after a "normal" day, so I sleep more to recuperate.

The ignorance of children usually goes with happiness, no?

Time catches up, but I doubt I'll die of over-eating, the converse is more likely to be the case.

But in association there is a reflection of "what" you are, no?
A way of learning more about yourself: isoltaion would not give you any insight as to your generosity, say, because there would be no opportunity to express it.

An answer - maybe any answer. :shrug:

Not at all, I meant that I could (possibly) change my notions of sense based on what I see - alter MY self to match the universe 9as I see it).

Agreed, must control that anger, more despair than anger, but the end result's the same...

Nuh, okay, will think on this.

Ah okay: I think I see what you mean.

Yup, but the scars are still there, still the same shape, the tattoos are still there...

Actually the more I think about I find very few of my likes and dislikes have changed since childhood, although I have added newer ones due to exposure (which explains cognac

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), but I see the point.

That's what I want to know.

Yup, but there's still the question of continuity of recognisability.

Coming round to that way of thinking, but it still doesn't indicate survival of the "I" after death: where was "I" BEFORE the body?
How/ why did I forget that?