So according to you, then.
Okay.
Your view is not necessarily the truth.
It seems to be simply your belief in a way to alleviate what you consider to be suffering.
Yet the question remains: how does this have bearing on there being life after death or not?
Eh?
Relevance?
Do you agree that the benefits of eating (relief from hunger, satisfaction/rejuvenation, etc) are self evident or do you think even that conclusion is subject to further regression (eg "But, after eating how do you know you are not hungry?")?
Those problems would be there whether there is life after death or not.
The existence of those problems while we are alive does not equate to there being life after death.
Care to fill in the gaps that lead from one to the other in your worldview?
Or is the notion of life being a temporary part of a much bigger picture (that includes some form of life after death) simply your way of coping with the temporary nature of existence?
That doesn't mean that your worldview is necessarily correct, though.
It might simply be your coping mechanism, or simply the circle of belief in which you have found yourself.
This point of suffering came up as a response to the challenge that one should be able to directly perceive the phenomena of reincarnation (in order to render the act of reincarnation as a meaningful mechanism and hence reveal some over-arching game plan .... as opposed to pointless recycling of the same events, beginning each life with a clean slate).
At that point, it seemed relevant to indroduce the buddhist 4 noble truths, noting how and why it begins with the first truth (the picture of suffering), as opposed to 2nd, 3rd or 4th one.
It introduces the proposal of a correct way to perceive suffering as the first necessary step in breaking the cycle (hence the word "truth" ... how to perceive the act of suffering in this world,
as it actually is)
If one cannot perceive that, one cannot even begin to perceive the mechanism of the cycle in theory.
When you suggest that even this basic premise of the mechanism of suffering is but one particular world view and is in no way universal, it then follows that you offer some suggestion how it is so.
In other words, for the discussion to progress, it follows that you should give some example or understanding of the notion of suffering that renders this explanation invalid, rather than simply saying "No, it is not valid, it is but just one of many possible ways to view it"
.
But surely you're just assuming it's a movie and not reality that one is engrossed in?
You claim to everyone else that it is just a movie, and that you can see that it is an illusion.
That worldview requires it to be an illusion for the worldview to make sense: you believe it is illusion thus you have a way of thinking you recognise it as illusion which reaffirms it as illusion.
Unfortunately there is the opposing worldview: belief it is not an illusion, thus you don't see any illusion which reaffirms that it is not illusion.
How do you actually demonstrate that one particular worldview matches reality?
Is it possible to do that without requiring the person to step on your particular cycle of circular reasoning, whichever that may be?
If one is suggesting that there is only one reality and not an element of illusion that warrants the suspension of belief, then there is "no movie to watch", so to speak. If you take that stance, I'm not sure how you could ever distinguish one point of view from another, other than to say they are different. This leaves you with the problem of not only being unable to demonstrate reality, but also being unable to resolve the inevitable conflict between differing views outside of political systems (ie, if I am stronger than you, my view is more valid than your view).
So, in such a system, an individual professing a layering of reality is no more disturbing than an individual professing a like for blue jackets (maybe one's livlihood depends on the production of red jackets, so upon hearing their point of view, one immediately gets agitated and sets them straight "on the facts" .... but other than that, what would their point of view matter?)
The point of introducing the movie theatre with two people was to introduce how a functioning illusion includes not only a type of aversion or distraction from reality, but also a similar type of insulation against 3rd parties operating outside of the illusion.
As such, to be willfully engaged in illusion
and to request a demonstration of its supposed illusory nature represents a conflict of interest.
tl:dr . In the matrix, if he took the blue pill, it probably wouldn't have been a trilogy.
Going forth to applying solutions. Obviously the first step in problem solving is perceiving a problem exists.
Sure, but the question is whether it is a slaughterhouse from which one can escape or simply the only reality that actually exists, pleasant or otherwise.
Yes, the example of slaughterhouse has the implicit assumption of possible escape, and is thus loaded in that regard, but ignoring that, the question stands.
Then one is left to the activities of forgetting about the inevitable for as long as possible while making the best possible arrangement for 24hr access to a mouthful of hay ... which is arguably an escape plan, just not a satisfactory one.
The slaughterhouse illustrates not only the opportunity of escape, but also the wasted opportunity to do so due to engagement in sub-standard satisfaction (aka, illusion). The first requirement for the animal to escape lies in being disatisfied with the mouthful of hay.
Ah, so you do see life after death as being the solution to suffering?
And you don't see this simply as wishful thinking?
Because most people don't have an accurate understanding of the problem of suffering,
all of their remedial efforts are wishful thinking.
A few questions, though:
- how does one get from concluding on the desired solution to proving that it is correct, and that it is not simply a quest for the impossible?
- why is life after death necessarily the solution, rather than just a possible solution?
- why do you think that something having a conceptual solution means that that solution must be a reality?
It is kind of like eating. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Whether we eat more or less depends ultimately on our level of satisfaction, but we experience it through the act of eating.
In the absence of regular eating, one can become used to being hungry, but we would argue that it represents a lower level of satisfaction. So some levels of satisfaction can be revealed as being superior to others.
We are a complex network of desires and agendas, some born out of noble gestures and some less so, all of which demand our attention to be satisfied. At the end of the day, we can only move in the space afforded by our estimations of satisfaction.
In otherwords, an element of dissatisfaction represents the first opportunity for something else to manifest. It represents the space to move. Armchair philosophy only succeeds in getting one out of the armchair if it culminates in revising or updating one's estimations of satisfaction.
