-
Posts
1898 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Everything posted by Prometheus
-
How does the OU stand up against bricks and mortar universities in terms of curriculum?
-
You are not alone... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMssuZsXv4
-
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
Fair enough. I have no problem with your position - might change if you had the power to implement it though. Incidentally i agree with your idea you about death. Its not even nothing, since by saying nothing it leaves us with an impression. I'll come to my non-existence soon enough, no need for you to rush it, but thanks for caring. I am nothing but what the universe happens to be doing at this particular time and space. The conditions that cause me will rise then fall, and what i call I will cease. I think that is what some others are alluding to - there was never a fixed, permanent I in existence. Time for bed before i start talking utter rubbish. -
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
I thought i addressed your point. I'll try again. Regarding the OP: One person is saying she wants to end existence for all people because of suffering without giving them a choice. I do not think this fair. Regarding the criminal: Many people (society) are saying they want to limit the existence (i.e. jail) of one person because of the suffering they are causing. I think this is fair. To say this is double standards is to say the first statement is equal to the second. Do i need to explain why they are not? The point of saying: was for me to confirm that i have understood the OP's position which he confirmed i had, albeit an oversimplification. A further point, implied, is that most of us would rather have our own choice about our existence rather than it be up to one person. This is not a similar situation to a criminal wanting a choice in his incarceration, as mentioned above. What? I thought fight club was a Buddhist film. -
I think we have significant differences in the interpretation of Buddhist scripture (and maybe the validity of some Buddhist scriptures). Perhaps it would be best for us to split our discussion into two: one addressing our scriptural differences, the other regarding the OP. It may be more beneficial for us, and less burdensome for others reading this thread, if we take the scriptural differences to a Buddhist forum? Regarding the OP: mystics may have guessed at the nature of the universe and it's origin. With so many guesses floating around, someone may even have guessed right. But we won't know, unless science is able to verify this (i.e. evidence is consistent with the guess). There's nothing wrong with guessing - it's where science begins. But, in my opinion, it should be where religion, spirituality or whatever you want to call it, should end. It should end here because its sole domain should be to improve the mental condition of mankind. Guessing at the nature of the universe is not needed for this end. In fact, i would argue that such speculations are damaging because they turn away rational minded people from something they may benefit from. Anyway, i'm happy to address your particular points above, i just think a Buddhist forum would be better suited.
-
Pulse. What rhymes with oranges?
-
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
To be a double standard i must be applying different principles to similar situations. Let's have a look: I acknowledge that criminals generally prefer not to be incarcerated. I believe it is in the best interests of society for them to be incarcerated. I acknowledge that people generally prefer to exist despite their suffering. I believe it is in the best interests of all for them to continue to exist. I do not think these are similar situations. It was less a point anyway, although there is one between the lines, just my attempt to understand the OP's position. -
Please provide scriptural evidence. Just link to somewhere where it expounds some of these ideas. I don't know enough about Taoism to discuss it. As for Buddhism how do you link your statement: with the Buddha's statement:
-
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
So you acknowledge people prefer existence despite their suffering, but you would benevolently decide it is in their best interests not to have existed. -
My objection My objection is that the Buddha didn't give an answer. You seem to think otherwise - please provide scriptural evidence. I do not know much of Taoism, but the first line from it's first book seems to suggest seeking an understanding of some ultimate truth is not possible.
-
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
You seem to think we all would prefer non-existence. Have you actually gone out to get a representative sample of people's opinions on this matter? Most people seem happy to exist even if we do suffer. If we all agreed with you we could very easily terminate the human species within a generation, by not reproducing. But we apparently deem it worthwhile to bring another being into existence knowing full well that the being will suffer. At the end of the day, the universe doesn't care what we think. End the universe, and it'll probably just pop back into existence again from nothing (like it apparently did this time), sentience will probably arise again with it's suffering (no more surprising to find it twice than once, surely?), and we'll be back at the same place. Find a better solution. Or just learn to live with your suffering. -
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
Would you consult with any of your 6 billion fellow humans in this first? -
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
Thanks. You might like this site then. It's a common misunderstanding. Buddhism is not nihilism, nor masochism: suicide is certainly not recommended. There is though the extinction of the illusion of a permenant self, a ghost in the machine, which is given as the source of dukkha - but i think that's largely uncontroversial here. -
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
So are you saying that it is our desires that lead us to an unsatisfactory life - regardless how many of those desires may be realised? And are you saying a state of desirelessness, achieved through not existing, is preferable to living? Um, could you point out where the Buddha said this? -
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
You speak of desires quite a lot. But then you say this is not about what we want. Is a desire not something we want? Maybe there are 2 separate ideas here? Something about desires which i don't understand. And then that if one measures all the 'good' experiences in one's life against all the 'bad' experiences, then if the bad outweigh the good, one would have been better off not born. I haven't commented on anything else because there is no point going on to a second point until i understand the first point. -
From AN 4.77. The Buddha didn't think it relevant to his teachings, so i guess Buddhism is not relevant to anything. Let science answer this question if it can, there is nothing wrong with Buddhism remaining silent on a topic it cares not to conjecture about.
-
Is nonexistence preferable to living?
Prometheus replied to knownothing's topic in General Philosophy
So the basic idea is: I want existence to be like X. Existence is not like X. Therefore I will kill myself. I think there might be other options. -
Thanks. Maybe i misunderstand your interpretation, but do you mean to say the the teaching of dependent arising argues that nothing really exists? That is not my understanding of this teaching, which i understand to mean that things arise in accordance to causes. Maybe we could agree that particular things we come across are empty of inherent meaning, being that they are linked to other things by of chain of causes, and so cannot be fully understood in isolation? How about the pali canon? Anyway, how come this talk of Buddhism? The Buddha specifically refused to address such issues such as 'how did the world begin' as they weren't relevant to his message. To that end its probably best to discuss our interpretations of doctrine by PM rather than bog down this thread.
-
Where can i find this teaching?
-
I thought you were a Buddhist?
-
No, it's like calling John Smith a Titty. You don't have to take offence if you don't want to.
-
I've never noticed the variant spelling either. But you could call the Buddha Titty Mcyamyam and it wouldn't change a thing.
-
Thanks for clarifying this, which makes sense now. As for the rest i've no idea what you're talking about but you chaps seem to be enjoying your conversation so i'll leave you to it.
-
Better than what?
-
I'm afraid i don't understand why you would come onto a discussion forum then decline to enter a discussion. I have also never heard of 'Buddha's timeless Law Of Permanence'. This sounds like more 'Tao of physics' type rubbish which is neither science nor Buddhism, but since i do not have facebook or twitter accounts i shan't be finding out.