My thoughts of Truth 1. Define “ultimately satisfying”? Life is inherently transient. If there was no motion, there would be no consciousness. So naturally, satisfying feelings pass away. If a nice dinner satisfied you for an hour, is it not satisfying? What is the difference between an hour and 90 years? Furthermore, some people are satisfied by the hunger itself, and it is the craving itself which causes them a subconscious satisfaction. To claim that things are not “ultimately satisfying” seems like a result of feeding emotional led thoughts, a type of angry grasping proclamation against the natural order of things, as a result of bitterness over the innate transience of life.
There is no scientific evidence saying that you will avoid rebirth if you live a life free of attachment to cravings. There is no scientific evidence to support the notion that consciousness ceases to exist after death, yet both atheists and Buddhists parade this idea like it is a truth. Yet there is no empirical evidence saying consciousness ceases to exist after death. For all they know they could be reborn as a new lifeform, but have no recollection of their past life. Atheism has become a dogmatic religion where they have blind faith to their version of the afterlife, an afterlife of nothing.
Truth 3 should not even be stated, as it is exactly just a rewording of Truth 2, and it is completely redundant.
Following the Eightfold Path could be proven to put an end to craving, but it is not proven that ending craving affects the outcome of bodily death’s effect on consciousness.
So, as far as Buddhism goes, is it true, or just blind faith? Discussions with hippies and new-age types often results in them saying “it’s just something you have to learn on your own, I can’t explain it in words.” Not empirical, not falsifiable. I bet I could make a better religion than this if I put my mind to it.
A lack of satisfying events is equally dissatisfying. They don’t need to be ultimate.
That is like saying; don’t live. The universe began with nothing, so why did it manifest the earth and us, if only to refute any purpose it could have had? Or could have.
A world beyond need reduces suffering. If you are successful in the above endeavour to refute your needs, you will cause suffering.
We don’t know if there is reason to be alive, all we can know is that we are. That that reason is determined outside of this world, suggests that that is the reason why we are born or remain unborn. Ultimately this is not karma as its value is denoted from outside the cycles and from before the world.
This more leaves us in the position that we are stuck with this world [something made us born here], and so we need to do beneficial things and make people happy. Looking towards a spiritual solution, means aiming ones endeavours towards that e.g meditating. Meditation is fine, but there needs a balance and stories have to happen, life has to happen for people to attain contentment.
At first glance, that is how it would appear according to Buddhist teachings. But what I got from it, if you read between the lines of doctrine, is that they want you to forget what satisfaction is entirely. For instance, you might think that what they advertise if for the seeing man to intentionally go blind. But what I think they are trying to promote, is not just for the seeing man to go blind, but to forget he ever saw in the first place. And to block himself from becoming conscious of the concept of sight itself.Their philosophy is,more or less, “he won’t know what he’s missing if he never remembered having it in the first place.”
That’s what I’m saying, sort of. If the universe gave us life inherently for no obvious reason, why do they think becoming, life and rebirth can be snuffed out so easily? They have the audacity to think their lifestyle and mindset has an effect on the afterlife without doing any empirical studies verifying their claims. It’s absurd to think that they can end the process of rebirth simply by ending some natural cravings. It would be like saying they can end tsunamis or natural hurricanes from knocking over cliffs, or prevent stars from being born by practicing meditation very diligently.
I have to agree. I would categorize asceticism as a form of suffering,though it is unknown exactly why our brains healthy functioning causes pleasure in the metaphysical conscious sense. We experience the workings of a machine (the brain) and when the machine follows it’s healthy parameters, we feel pleasure in the metaphysical conscious sense. Buddism attempts to detach consciousness from ever experiencing any such machine again, by attempting to rewire the machine itself to behave in an unnatural way. So it believes it can transcend the soul from the machine, making conscious experience forever never attaching itself to another machine again, by making one little machine modify itself. It has no empirical evidence proving its doctrine accomplishes what it claims, which is it claims to avoid rebirth (the process of consciousness integration into a machine.)
What do you define as world? In my conversation I usually denote the world as something outside of what we believe to be our brains.
If the conditional phenomenon and experiences can be unconditionally manifested, then you will also always find that goal. This is to say if the condition is unconditionality of the conditions. Buddhists suck at self reference. Another problem is that if you are attached to the dukka or whatever they call it, then you’ll never be free, so ignore the dukkha… It refutes itself! Look for more rational, non self refuting logic.
“Ultimately satisfying” in that sentence means “satisfying in the long run”. The statement is true for the normal homosapien brain because the brain is designed such as to adapt toward at least a little dissatisfaction or to “seek newness”, growth (as opposed to watching the exact same TV reruns over and over and over for your entire life).
By dismissing Dukkha, one doesn’t crave for anything, thus doesn’t feel disappointed or dissatisfied by not getting it.
As the statement proclaims: “That is the Truth of Dukkha.”
That’s true, and succinctly put.Cravings are outer things. My experience of the otherworld is that unlike this world you can be unaffected by anything just by thinking like that [of being unaffected by anything] lol. Ergo, we are detached and subjective due to that. There are things to do, great things which have not occurred yet. You don’t have to do anything to not be born again, except will yourself not to be born, it is simplicity itself.
For me the brain is also of the world, consciousness transcends all of that ~ or did you mean ‘mind’? I would also include Samsara in that, so our essentiality is outside of everything along with and ‘in’ the Socratic eternity [the greatest thing/greater reality sphere, encompassing universes/realities]. The mind is inside and outside of the world, this is how it can transcend bodies/worlds, and how it can communicate derivative physical info from the world.
I mean brain. Similar to what you said, our brains transfer a filtered view of the world we experience as our minds. So the brain and world are connected, in relation to our minds. But in relation to our brain, the world is distinct to itself. So I specified it as “the world outside our brains” because a filtered view of the world is usually inside our minds and that’s the closest to clarity of the world we can get while being trapped inside our brains provided our brains are functioning within normal parameters.
That theory of yours seems a bit like hyperbole. Your internal will is a series of neural programs that can influence the body to perform actions. It is unknown if the actions of the body have a permanent effect on the path of ethereal consciousness once it leaves the body. You cannot, for instance, win the lottery by will alone, and it is equally absurd to propose that you can alter the outcome of the afterlife through will alone, whether that will be purely manifested in the physical or ethereal realms. In addition, the illusion of freewill is only experienced in higher complexity organisms that have complex thought, such as teachings involving the poorly defined concept of freewill itself. The teaching is accepted by the mind due to its poorly defined, murky meaning, and thus its neural connections associated with tend to feel mystical seeming and murky. Freewill illusion is a phenomenon that occurs when consciousness is a aligned with thought aligned with a particular action. The same can be said for will. However, there are unconscious factors effecting the future outcome of willful effort too. Also, if an organism willed itself not to be born, that just means its program routines are willing itself to think it will not be born, as “not being born” is a property at home in the ethereal dimensions. A physical human has no output where it can perform the action of affecting a future outcome when the future outcome is at a place in time where it no longer exists. So a human body cannot perform the action of such a thing as causing an ethereal soul “not to be born” unless the human body can effect ethereal timelines in the future. That has yet to be seen, or proven.
I see. What percentage would you give the accuracy of our brains ability to map the world correctly?
I’d say its very accurate, and in fact it takes well thought out optical illusions to show us that we are making up [composing] the world we see.
in short, there is correlative info occurring.
I was saying all that towards the end result; that Buddhism supposes that it is difficult get out of samsara, where i am saying that in the mental-worlds between earth lives, the mind is the only power. I agree that will upon earth the will is limited. I think nirvana and not being born are easy to attain, but fighting life’s struggle is not. It may be true that if we all lived like so, then we’d all be good, but the world ain’t like that, and in my experience people aren’t.
No, but it can affect outcomes in the present, as the subject can make some choices, but its a duality.
True, but I don’t think they are trying to do that. The objective is for individuals to reach a point where it can opt out of being reborn i.e. Once dead, and in the intermediate state between worlds/lives, they aren’t bound or forced to live again. I however think this is an observation based in the earthly perspective, as if we are trapped in samsara, when it may be a freedom.
My guess is that people would change there mind about life, if there were a cue to be born!
_
Percentage is unknown. “Filter” reference “Filtered Water” reference. Likely some senses are more filtered than others.
If there are mental worlds outside of earth lives, as well as the phenomenon of will power, there must be some sort of structure. Therefore, if there is structure, rebirth into some form has already happened. In this case, it would be rebirth into some other realm different from Earth, but still a rebirth into some realm. If not being born was so easy to obtain, why then, are you here right now?
If, after death, the soul is presented the option either to be born again, or end its existence for good, most rational beings would choose option 2. Therefore, because there are so many souls here, we must conclude that there is either no such option, or decietful manipulation and or withholding information occurs when the question is presented.
The reason option 2 is the most rational option is because with life there is a 80/20 probability of suffering, and with non existence there is zero suffering. Even in a good world there is still a 20/80 probability of suffering, and that little bit of suffering taints the whole thing. Life is a rollercoaster, and rollercoasters lose their novelty. You can become bored of life, even if it is a good life. But you cannot ever become bored if you cease to exist.
I am not right now able to translate the meaning you are trying to make from this.
‘filters’ are calibration and info matching/correlating. If you were plugged into skyrim, you would be in skyrim world, no? So this world is like that, except its constantly updating ~ but its still skyrim, it still has data which says this object of this colour is here etc, etc.
No choice maybe? The alternative may just be a black empty void, or i may have preferred life up against whatever else was on offer. It could be that for certain things to happen, you need certain people, and in some such sense, we are born from the mud of ignorance such to fulfil whatever that is.
Only if you knew what your life were to be like. I don’t agree with foreknowledge as it makes everything pointless, an act. So as you don’t know the world prior to being in it, we simply wouldn’t know what to do ~ hence there is no choice possible. The whole thing is probably more akin to a factory than some mystical fantasy.
If consciousness were to exist after earth body death, it should not be called a black empty void, because consciousness would have some sort of structure. Nothing is outside of consciousness. However, if the mind were to imagine itself as an isolated physical structure in relation to the universe, outside of the consciousness structure, if it were a void, it could be considered a black empty void.
Denying access to memory is a form of withholding the truth and or deceit. So if you are denied access to the knowledge of how miserable your past life was, the presented choice is not fair. You don’t need to know your future life or future world, because you should know by now that the odds for being born in a nice world is not high.
I agree. The problematic part is where we have no knowledge of a previous world, whereas assumedly after death the consciousness would be aware of something of its previous existence. This should mean that whatever we were prior to birth in this world, it is not the same as the knowing ‘after death consciousness’. However there is the question of memory; our memory is physical and of the brain, so it may simply be that we forget everything [which could be quite merciful]. However, we will as you say have some kind of conscious structure after death [if et al], and all info exists in all time. So perhaps attaining a new body divides us from memories of a previous life? …sounds like i am making excuses though, so i’m just going to go with the idea of ‘memory flush’ as the inevitability of death/birth.
There is just one thing that can save the soul, and that i think is where the consciousness takes imprint from the world/info. So it may be so that our beliefs can kinda program it as if like putty. Sandman and Promethean philosophy [also in Nietzschean] and the eternal return in that sense.
So in a way perhaps we should think of the soul/consciousness as like a forge.
The cup must be emptied that it may then be refilled. I think that if you really want to know something, the world will bring it to you.
