Please Heed My Advice And Save Yourselves.

so it's the pattern that makes the difference? Their patterns of energy and their patterns of matter? (I don't mean to sound patronising, I'm walking through this for the sake of the thread starter, more than anything)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More precisely, the specific structure.

An engine would not work without the precise arrangement of spark, gas, and air, along with correct timing. In the same way, a body does not work without the precise timing of the heart, regular infusions of oxygen, fuel, sugars, carbs, and everything else it requires. But, it is a house of cards, when one thing falls, like lack of oxygen, the whole thing breaks down like an engine blowing a rod, and eventually it is beyond repair.

The fact that once dead, you are likely to stay dead, is due to our failure as mechanics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So could it be said that the specific structure of one person not only defines them as alive, but also differentiates them from other people? And also from a bird, or a car, or a rock? These things are different, but are all still made up out of the same material and energy. It's the pattern, the structure, that defines their form, no?

Remembering that to come back to later, where does you structure end and another's begin? there does your body stop and the air begin? at the surface of your skin? What is that? Easy to see macroscopically, but apon closer inspection you find infinate surface area in little alcoves and troughs. Even closer inspection revies the mostly emply nature of the molecules which form the body and the air- this empty space doesn't stop when you transition from air to flesh- the space between molecules only becomes smaller.
Look even CLOSER, and find that the atoms which make up those molecules are mostly empty space, and even within tsubatomic particles, space is the major componant. emptiness, nothingness.

Modern physics is still working on exactly what they nothing, that space is made out of, relativity, string theory, Variable Speed of light all pose slightly different ideas based on what evidence we have, but one thing is clear. The space is continuous, from one end of the universe to the other.


Lastly, what effects does your life have on the world around you? Directly? indirectly? When/where does your influence end? Does it ever end? forewards in time? What about backwards in time? What serious of events lead to you, and to your sitting where you currently sit? What changes to any of those events might have happened, and what effects may they have had?
Now take the table sitting in front of you. What is it's history? what is it made out of, and where did that material come from? how was it made? who made it? Who sold it, who bought it? Where will it go when you are done with it? What effects will it have, and has it already had on the world? Where will it's effects, both foreward and backward in time, end?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So many questions!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What differentiates us from everything else? Nothing really, just our definitions.

hmm... that sounds familiar...
Where are you?

Since your life is not really yours, but a continuation of events in general, to think of your particular influence would be similar to tracing the influence of a lighting bolt. To follow the chain of cause and effect would require an explanation as complex as the universe itself! Whatever events that "you" were mixed up in become the causes of successive events, reverberating throughout time, and eventually fading away as the vibrations of matter spread too far apart to interact as the universe expands (maybe).

 

So the table has as much of an effect on the universe as you do? Both are infinate?

 

SquashBuckler, if you understand the past 10 posts between SpiderGoat and I, then you are one step towards understanding ites number 3 and 4 on your list.

Just because Buddhism teaches that we need to let go of our own egos, that doesn't mean that we are supposed to consider ourselves the lowest of the low (though this is sometimes a method used to teach the final idea). The point is to understand that you are not a special and important as you might otherwise tend to think that you are. Once you can embrace this idea, you can take alot of stress off yourself. The world will not fall apart just because you oversleep one morning. There are other beings in this world beside yourself. You are no better and no worse than they are. we all just are.

Now a quick run through of your "Buddhism wrongs"
#1.Reducing attachment towards life.
I have always found that by understanding your own death, you can value your life more. I don't know of any Buddists who don't delight in life. It's the purposlessly grandious that we tend to find stupid. The getting drunk and screwing anything that moves, the building the tallest building just to see it can be done, damn the consequenses, etc. The amzing bueaty of how a rain droplet joins itself to the suface of a puddle, however...
#2. Elimination of desire.
IMO, the elimination of needless desire is very helpful. as someone already stated in this thread, trying to fufill desire is a never-ending battle. Desire and need are different things, however. The need for food to sustain he body is a fully acceptable desire - its the desire to eat a ten course meal because you want to that causes unhelpful suffering.
#3. Eliminating self-cherishing.
see the above
#4. Considering yourself the lowest, and most humble.
I disagree that this is even a teaching of Buddism. While many schools of Buddhism train their diciples with such methods, it is a tool towards something else, not a realization or a teaching in of itself.
#5. Altruism, help others before yourself.
The question has already been asked: and the problem here??? Besides, the middle path suggests that you must be fully aware of yourself and your own needs before you try and help others. So this isn't even acurate. Buddhism teaches a path to enlightment, at which point, compassion and subsequently, altruism should occur in you naturally. The teaching does not demand altruism from its followers. It assumes altruism as an effect of compassion
#6.Loving everyone. Wouldnt you say that loving everyone equally would be an injustice to those who deserve to be loved?
Not everyone deserves to be loved.
Why not? Everyone suffers during their lives. Even those who murder and rape have had suffering. Their suffering does not forgive their actions, and it does not relinquish them from punishment, but it still is a factor of thier life history. Do you love a child less simply because they do something stupid; unaware of the results their actions will cause?
#8. The statement that pure contentment is suicidal.
huh? I must have missed this in the Discourses. I was unaware that reaching a state of nirvana was suicidal.
#9.Wanting to eliminate "I" and the ego.
again, see the above. It reduces stress, and opens up more door and possible paths for you. The world need not revolve around you and your actions. If you were to die today, it will still go on. Now, scince you most likely won't die today, what can you do with your re-discovered freedom of life?
#10. The idea that karma will get all those who have mistreated you.
Again, I don't remember reading this in the discourses. You have bravely twisted the idea that you don't need to go out and exact revenge on that guy who cut you off earlier today, he will suffer and joy just like everyone else. Relience on Karma as your own personal angel of vengance is nowhere in the Buddhist teachings.
While it suggests that karma will come back and cause suffering for thouse who have caused suffering, and vise versa, this is more as a lesson to apply to yourself. If *I* cause suffering, then *I* will get it back down the road. Therefore, if I want happiness, I must create happiness in others firstly.
It's not about revenge, its another training tool for self-control and compassion.

 

The table and you are the same thing, as all form is impermanent. Judging the relative effects requires one to define the table and you as separate things, and to define what a significant effect is. Even cause and effect are one in the same. It is too easy to jump to the conclusion that because there are no separate things, your personal worth is quite small, but the opposite is true, your particular arrangement of molecules is unique, like a flower, and will never happen again. To live in this world, it is practical to adopt the illusion of separateness.


Buddhism is a tool, one of many methods, that, once it has served it's purpose, must be dropped. Buddhism is for those who have not yet realized the essence of Buddhism.

 

apropos, Squashbuckler doesn't post nor visit these forums no more. So, when you ask him questions in your posts, they are going to fall on deaf ears.

 

others may be here to read. It doesn't matter who. There may be at least one who realises something from reading that logic path.

too bad about Squash, oh well.

 

see, I never said others won't be able to read. Don't get ahead of yourself just yet, I was merely telling you that when you direct questions at him (as you have done so) that they will fall on deaf ears. If someone else wants to answer for him, so be it. But the man to whom the question were directed at won't reply, as he is, and will remain, absent.

It is a shame, though.

 

Man are you ignorant. Was that first paragraph some type of threat? Really, No proof? Ever heard of reincarnation? http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2002/10/025.html . I'm sure you'll spend sometime coming up with something to deny this. Yes, I won't test my theory, but does that mean that I fear it? That's like saying if you don't go to the store at 4 AM, you fear going to the store at 4 AM. Or, if you don't right your name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times, you fear doing it. You really are an idiot.

Oh yeah, ever heard of the conservation of mass law? Nothing can created nor destroyed. Therefore there is no death of the mind or body.

 

Surely you can explain color to a blind man, right? Come on, just explain color to him, it's not that hard, right? Go ahead and explain sound to a deaf man too. What's this? They haven't experienced it, therefore their brains can't comprehend it. It's like imagining the 4th dimension or a new color (not within the 10 million or so that we see).

The reason that I said you have to experience it is because it's very difficult to explain. Well all I can say is, it's not like happiness,sadness,anger, or anything like that, just emptyness (if you haven't experienced it obviously you can't relate).

 

First off, sparky, I would rather get things done. Life is neutral, this putative peace you speak of is specious, for there to BE peace there has got to be the opposite, the counterbalance, the contrast to remind you what is peace.

I said it is my opinion that nothing would get done. Of course, that's my mistake for assuming you're in tune with reading comprehension... my mistake. Really, what did you do in school, sniff glue?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I now know why Squashbuckler decided to refrain from congregating with you. If reality is subjective, why don't you tell your mind you're in China right now, close your eyes, tap your shoes and you'll be there. Then, head over to Austria, learn how to ski while you're there. :bugeye: Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Reality is not subjective, ethics is, morality is, your perception of what's charming is, etc. etc. I don't even feel I should have to explicate WHY reality isn't subjective. You seem quite content in your little bubble, mister subjectivity. I done debunked the whole skeptic argument through the use of Epicurus' wonderful epistemology.

If nothing can be known, do you KNOW that nothing can be known?

Really, impugn the merits of my argument, what I quoted Epicurus on, anything, but don't sit there and ignore it and continue to type bollocks in hopes that you will expatiate yourself out of this one.

I said a whole bunch in that post, I proved altruism to be spurious and specious, and all you people can do is pretend I said nothing. You can keep it in clandestine if you so desire, but if you wish to offer a rebuttal, make it thorough.

 

Don't flatter yourself. I don't threaten people in forums, and if you took that as a threat, it speaks volumes on your character, says a world of information. You're missing the point of pontification, old timer.

I don't even know why I'm replying to the link you gave to this putative reincarnation crap. If this story makes reincarnation possible then every story of some freak claiming to know/see/smell/taste/talk with/ etc. virgin mary, jesus, god, allah, moses, and fucking ELVIS would all be proven to exist! I mean, really, what did you think was going to do, if this story holds weight, then consider ghosts and phantoms as now being real. You're veritably myopic (hint: look that word up).

Fun with quotes from the article in your link: "I have some scientific basis to claim rebirth is possible". Oh yeah, and I have some scientific basis to claim all this coming from the big bang theory is possible, and I have some scientific basis to claim Darwin's theory of evolution is possible, I have some scientific basis to claim I am God, I have soem scientific basis to claim you're an idiot, I have some scientific basis to claim that trees make plastic bags because I saw a plastic bag caught in a branch of a tree the other day, get the hint? I can have some scientific basis to claim anything I want, really. I doubt you even know what scientific basis means. Talk about equivocation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I got to roll my eyes at that one, junior.

You fear going to the store at four in the morning because you're too tired and maybe don't want to get up and be tired the next morning because of a late night trip to the store, or maybe you fear that it will be of no interest to you. I wouldn't dare, actually I just "don't right [SIC] my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times" because I do fear it, I fear it will be boring and tiresome. 'Sides, I'd rather LEFT my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times :bugeye: Stupid.


Really, it's simple hedonism here, if you don't want to do it, it's because you fear it will not bring you anything good. Hedonism. Plain and simple. If this TOO goes over your head, I will begin to refer it as your dunce cap, it goes over your head, and indicates your level of intelligence (that's a good one, and to think, it came to me just now).


Now, having said all that. I still defy you to prove your "my mind won't be over" if hit by a big mack ten truck theory. After all, you "don't fear death".

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed, I'll let the death of the body argument percolate, give it some thought.

But, moving on...

No, I'm not ignorant. You seemed to be well versed in facetious repartee , though <-- that's sarcasm by the way :bugeye:

Calling me ignorant, I'd feel compelled to defend myself if I felt like you were even remotely insulting. This is just weak.

 

Did I mention I'm not blind? And also, not deaf, did I mention that? Thought I'd mention that. We have all of our senses, so use 'em and explicate.

If you use the fucking experience garbage, then what is the point of posting in these forums.

person A: "Oh, I have something to say, blah blah blah

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

blah blah blah blah blah"

person B: "That's where I think you're wrong, why did you say that, explain it further".

person A: "You have to experience it, you need to feel it".



I can already see it now :bugeye: Stay idle, kid. It does you good.


You could have said from the beginning to Squashbuckler that that was his putative problem, but you waited until you had your ankle - not your foot - in your mouth to use that cop-out. Well done.

Everyone can say, "oh, you need to feel it first", that saying is too trite to be effective in debate. How about, instead of stating the obvious (like that truism you gave Squash) you give your opinion on what comes after this feeling, or during, or before, what changes, what stays the same, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Or how about, just like how you expressed your feelings of me being ignorant, you do the same and express your feelings on your point with Squashbuckler. Think he deserves that much. And if that kid in your article was able to explain his putative "past life" and the rest of his story, as intricate as that situation is, I think you can manage this just fine. Go ahead, we believe in you, you can do it.


Of course, you could choose to abstain from doing so. After all, that would be more efficient congregating, and we all know that's not in nobody's interests, right :bugeye:


Short and to the point. If you can't explain a feeling or an experience (whether vicarious or first hand), don't bring it up! That's just like me going, "I just seen Elvis!". Only to have someone combat with, "where?". Where I reply with, "can't tell ya". Bah!... sounds like shlt to me.

 

Apropos, I now recant my stance on death, I fear it will be of no interest to me and not conducive to my happiness, thus I do fear it. However, its inevitability does not cause me distress. I just feel that engaging in an activity that will lead to my death (i.e. suicide) as a conscious endeavour would be a step retroactive to my current interests. I fear I will not enjoy it and it will take time (an eternity's worth) away from my other - more important - interests.

Now, I shan't hear no talk of, "see, I told you so". I am man enough to put sapience ahead of pride, however, the one to prove Epicurus wrong and debunk his stance on death was me, not any of you. For you see, when I posted this...

I came to realize it debunks Epicurus' whole stance on death and mine too. I've told you my new stance. Now, as for the whole desire bit, take that up with Squashbuckler because I have yet to bring that up or argue for or against any of that crap. I came into the game on the altruism, anti-skeptic arguments, and the fear of death. I've recanted on the latter, but if any of you wish to offer anything that even remotely resembles a rebuttal, make sure to bring up MY points, not squashbucklers, not anybody else's.

 

It doesn't surprise me that you don't want peace (I can tell from your posts).
Life isn't neutral, there's always change.

Ok, thankyou for explaining to me that there's no reason to believe you at all.

See, I hate it when people argue like this. Instead of answering, they just insult because they can't counter argue. Thanks for trying, your pathetic mind wouldn't be able to counter argue anyway. All you can say is basically that it "just isn't".

No.

You said something. I agree partially about the altruism thing.

 

Sorry for asking a question, if it bothered you that much that you would rather write insulting statements rather than simply answering the question I wouldn't have said anything.

All you can say is that it's crap, and that it's not true. You're just basically denying it because you don't want to accept it. Using your moronic sense, to counter argue you say things like "do you believe this story or this story is true?" instead of using some type of concrete evidence. There's concrete forensic evidence, all you're doing is ridiculing the article (like I said you would) because you can't argue otherwise with real evidence.

I must say this is true, and that you actually used some type of logic to argue. Well done, I agree (you could never say this, now could you?). I do fear dying now, but not later.

I thought you could've at least argued without using insults for two paragraphs, but I guess I was wrong. Go ahead and release your anger. What a mean person...

True, but don't the atoms make up the body as well as the mind?

Ok...you might want to take some anger management classes....

 

Sorry that you didn't get my point. I was simply using those as examples to explain how you can't explain experiences to others who haven't experienced an experience close to that experience.

Calm down...please stop using the profanity (I do understand that you're angry) and also try to make some sense.

Ok, how is there a contradiction? Can you explain the emotion of happiness to someone who's never been happy (if you do get the point)?

He was asking me about how can someone feel selfless, and not be selfish, so I was trying to say that you have to experience that feeling, it can't really be explained.