What is the root to all evil..?

[Donnadogsoth]

Collectivism is a subset of hypocrisy, because in all collectivist ideas there are rules that apply to 'all', except to the rulers / priests / politicians / etc. So hypocrisy includes collectivism and is thus the more mighty concept. Since ethical rules are always formulated universally, i too think that hypocrisy is the root of all evil.

 

Hypocrisy is an idol to the self.  It is a luxury.  And if the hypocritical man could buy that luxury instead of working for it, he would.  Ergo, love of money or Mammon is the idol behind the idol of the hypocritical self.

[RichardY]

I think the inverse makes more sense, although I still take issue with it.  Good is the absence of evil. But either way you arrange this sentence it places a moral value on inertia.

I think actions like Charity are Charitable when they are unforced(subconscious). If you say, "I must get someone a present because it's their birthday" then it isn't out of love. The conscious pursuit of altruism is not charitable.

 

Ayn Rand said that "the root of all evil is the desire for the unearned."  Abusers demand authority they have not earned, knaves and thieves property, rapists sex, murderers life.  Is there an action that stems from the desire for the unearned which would not be considered evil?

Life boat survival situations perhaps.

 

Hypocrisy is an idol to the self.  It is a luxury. 

It would be more accurate to say self-deception (So Self-Hypocrisy because then you are aware?), manifested in pleasures of the self, drugs, addiction etc and then when you are aware the vampirism/parasitism on others and the choice not to be. The lake(hypocrisy an effect) is the source of water, when really it is the springs (the selves).

 

And if the hypocritical man could buy that luxury instead of working for it, he would.  

Which makes sense, as he didn't earn it, trading one thing for another.

 

Ergo, love of money or Mammon is the idol behind the idol of the hypocritical self.

Ok which makes sense, as money can be anything from Gold, Silver, Copper, Salt, Sea shells, Energy, Colourful paper etc. What matters is the voluntary cooperation of people behind that production. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by RichardY

[Donnadogsoth]

It would be more accurate to say self-deception (So Self-Hypocrisy because then you are aware?), manifested in pleasures of the self, drugs, addiction etc and then when you are aware the vampirism/parasitism on others and the choice not to be. The lake(hypocrisy an effect) is the source of water, when really it is the springs (the selves).

 

Which makes sense, as he didn't earn it, trading one thing for another.

 

Ok which makes sense, as money can be anything from Gold, Silver, Copper, Salt, Sea shells, Energy, Colourful paper etc. What matters is the voluntary cooperation of people behind that production. 

 

The heart of man is desperately wicked with propensity to sin.  The self wants, and it wants to have most efficiently, and nothing is more efficient than Money, effectively something-for-nothing.  There it has found its God.  Thus, love of Money is behind all idols which are behind all sins.

[Tyler H]

The heart of man is desperately wicked with propensity to sin.  The self wants, and it wants to have most efficiently, and nothing is more efficient than Money, effectively something-for-nothing.  There it has found its God.  Thus, love of Money is behind all idols which are behind all sins.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Particularly Francisco d'Anconia's speech on the essence of money. I urge anyone who has not to do so.

[Goldenages]

Donnadogsoth:

 

Even the garden of Eden's tree of knowledge of good and evil bore, in the end, golden fruit that the serpent beguiled such a love of into Eve, that she with her unfallen nature would not have normally had, and she beguiled Adam, and thus there was the first sin: pride.

 

My interpretation is somewhat more pragmatic: God did not want Adam to gain knowledge. The less knowledge, the better slaves. Thats why all collectivistic systems grab schools and punish the thinkers. From Giordano Bruno to the free speech today.

Yes I am proud to have some knowledge. Helps to avoid slavery.

Yes I am proud to love my wife.

Thats not sin.

Its the very opposite: Its life.

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Particularly Francisco d'Anconia's speech on the essence of money. I urge anyone who has not to do so.

 

Thanks for this excerpt, Tyler. It makes a good case, but is not quite what I'm talking about. The problem, of course, is not that money is evil. I would even be willing to at least consider Rand's proposition that money is the root of all good, if it represents the dynamic between goods, ideas, and mind. If money is a tool, the problem is that one can come to love the tool, above all other things. Then the tool becomes a god, and the poetry of life gives way to moral silence.

[Tyler H]

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

 

 If money is a tool, the problem is that one can come to love the tool, above all other things. 

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Why is this a problem? Could it not similarly apply to anything else?  

[RichardY]

Money is no more corrupting than land or livestock or a personal aeroplane.  It's the love of money that's corrupting.

 

Let me be clear, I'm not saying "loving a coin" is the root of all evil, nor that enjoying prosperity is; I'm saying that loving Money as an idea, even an idea that has yet to reify, as with the paleolithic, is the problem.  I conjecture that, just as behind all numerable numbers there is Number, and behind all spinnable stories there is Story, and behind all utterable entities there is the Word, so behind all sin and false gods there is Money.  Even an inaccurate choice of modern classroom mathematics such as one based on Newtonian deductive axioms rather than a Keplerian principles and synthetic geometry, which has disastrous effects on human creativity, is in a sense monetary. 

Yeah there is an imperfection/Gaping hole in defining the "start" of one era and the beginning of the "next", instead of perhaps taking time as Holistic/Holy; or in Mathematics converting between various fractions and real numbers. Monetary, Momentary sound pretty similar.

 

Would it be less corrupting to define money in someway as "energy"? Do you have any ideas on how best to think of money?

 

Even the garden of Eden's tree of knowledge of good and evil bore, in the end, golden fruit that the serpent beguiled such a love of into Eve, that she with her unfallen nature would not have normally had, and she beguiled Adam, and thus there was the first sin: pride.

 

ETA:  Behind every sin is a false god, and behind all false gods is love of money.

So "Monkey see, Monkey do"? In order to be good, a person must have knowledge of evil or be thought of as good by those who are evil or at least have some evil nature about them. Is it possible to have pride in a non sinful way? I mean if a man goes into a burning building and saves a persons life, or a student is proud of his achievements and hard-work.

[Donnadogsoth]

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Why is this a problem? Could it not similarly apply to anything else?  

 

All other tools are inferior to money.  Imagine you had an infinitude of hammers.  What could you do with them?  But an infinitude of money is infinitely more efficient and versatile.

 

Tools are force, they have a force-nature to them.  That force-nature is retained by money, to infinity in principle.  Thus, to love money, one is loving that omnipotent force-nature above all things and that love is the root of all evil.

Yeah there is an imperfection/Gaping hole in defining the "start" of one era and the beginning of the "next", instead of perhaps taking time as Holistic/Holy; or in Mathematics converting between various fractions and real numbers. Monetary, Momentary sound pretty similar.

 

Would it be less corrupting to define money in someway as "energy"? Do you have any ideas on how best to think of money?

 

So "Monkey see, Monkey do"? In order to be good, a person must have knowledge of evil or be thought of as good by those who are evil or at least have some evil nature about them. Is it possible to have pride in a non sinful way? I mean if a man goes into a burning building and saves a persons life, or a student is proud of his achievements and hard-work.

 

Money is associated with water.  We call cash “currency”.  We keep it in a (river) “bank”.  We “liquidate” our assets.  We have a "floating" exchange rate.  Is there a better metaphor than water for money?  If we hold to my theory that money has a force-nature then we can ask if there is anything more destructive on this planet than water—tidal waves, floods, ice storms, rot, disease?  And water is our primary bodily component, something like 67 percent of our bodies is water, and over 90 percent of our blood.  Water is the basis for all known life.  Loving money is thus in a sense loving the flesh over the divine.  If there were some way to associate money with fire, rather than water, money would “lift up” towards a divinity as the ancients thought fire was the most divine of all the elements.  Today we know “fire” is “plasma” or the fourth state of matter.  Sounds futuristic.

 

Good pride:  Joy in accomplishment is a natural and good reward for one's good labour.  One may take pride in one's group's accomplishments if that spurs one on to one's own accomplishment.

 

Bad pride:  Arrogance about one's accomplishments or non-accomplishments.  Pride in one's group's accomplishments may become an excuse for laziness.

[Tyler H]

Tools are force

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this either.  How are tools force?

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this either.  How are tools force?

 

Hammer a nail?  Is that not force?

[Tyler H]

Hammer a nail?  Is that not force?

 

Eyeglasses are a tool, are they force? One tool is force does not necessitate that all tools are force.

[Donnadogsoth]

Eyeglasses are a tool, are they force? One tool is force does not necessitate that all tools are force.

 

Eyeglasses force light to bend a certain way.  Computers force electrons.  Pens force ink onto paper.  Engines force wheels to turn.   No?

[Tyler H]

Eyeglasses force light to bend a certain way. Computers force electrons. Pens force ink onto paper. Engines force wheels to turn. No?

By that definition everything is force, not just tools - or everything is a tool. Our bodies are a tool for movement, they force the air to move around us, they force light to change direction, our lungs force air in and out of our bodies... what is not force by this definition?

[Donnadogsoth]

By that definition everything is force, not just tools - or everything is a tool. Our bodies are a tool for movement, they force the air to move around us, they force light to change direction, our lungs force air in and out of our bodies... what is not force by this definition?

 

How about communication, as between freely willed entities?  I am not forcing you to believe me, I am making my case and you decide within your own sovereign mind how you shall respond.  It is possible to force another person's mind through brain-manipulation, tricks, fraud, confidence artistry, but, outside of that we do not force, we persuade.

 

Perhaps, though, ultimately everything is persuasion.  Is not the nail I strike with a hammer waiting for that particular "statement" by the hammerhead in order to agree to go into the wood?  Then, every tool is persuasive in its own way.  Even argumentation wins by its "force" or "power" of thought.

 

"Force" as I've been using it refers to outside the sovereign mind of man.  Even if technically everything is persuasion, the quality of persuasion demanded by the sovereign, functioning mind is such that it is not the type of force that is akin to money's force-like nature.

[Soulfire]

The root of all evil? Thinking that there is evil in the world. Allow me to explain:

 

Now, likely enough, none of you above are particularly religious, but the perspective I would like to introduce here, from Buddhist origin, is not a theistic one, so despite the "ism", bear with me here for a moment. There is a parable in Buddhism that goes as follows...

 

There was once a farmer whose horse ran away. His neighbour came to see him, and, upon hearing about the horse, he said to the farmer that he was sorry, and how bad his luck had been. The farmer answered, "Who knows what is good or bad?" On the following day, the farmer's horse returned, leading behind it a group of fine stallions. The farmer's neighbour congratulated him on his good fortune, but again the farmer said, "Who knows what is good or bad?" When the farmer's son saw the new stallions come to the farm, he attempted to ride the finest of all of them, and fell off its back, breaking his leg. When the farmer's neighbour heard the news of the son's injury, he comforted the farmer with such condolences as emphasized the farmer's bad luck, but once again, the farmer answered him, "Who knows what is good or bad?" Later that week, the army came looking for young men to fight for them, and the farmer's son was passed over due to his injury. Hearing the good news, the farmer's neighbour congratulated him that his son would be spared, but the wise farmer answered, "Who knows what is good or bad?"

 

From the above parable, we learn that good and evil are constants in the world, but are arbitrary assigned a positive or negative association based on perspective. What we perceive will dictate the entirety of our world to us and for us, and therefore, if we perceive all things as being part of a flow of the forces of Yin (black, feminine, pulling, taking, healing, moon) and Yang (white, masculine, pushing, giving, destroying, sun), then we see that both are meant to exist together, and that neither can exist without the other. To understand up, you have to have down. To understand left, you have to have right, and so forth. Evil is merely a perception, and the discerning mind is aware of this.

 

That, by the way, is where Buddhism and Daoism come together in the most beautiful form. You'll notice, too, that in the Daoist Yin Yang symbol, each contains a bit of its opposite, thereby bonding them more strongly, but also weakening the divide between perceived "good" and perceived "evil". Neither "religion", in their original form, were meant to be religions, but rather philosophies. The Theravada Buddhists, who, though not being the original school of Buddhism, are as close as we can get to the original form and they do not worship the Buddha as a deity. Likewise, there is a divide between philosophical and religious Daoism. In the former, one seeks merely to live by Wu Wei, or the way of nature, while in the later, Lao Tzu is held up as a divine entity, but neither in Buddhism or Daoism is this strictly necessary. If Atheists wish to know the real essence of any religion beyond the worship of God or Gods, look past those aspects and into the culture milieu that surrounds each various tradition, looking at the philosophy rather than the bondage to a particular deity, which is really just another name for the person at the top who controls the minds of all those who are, in station or intelligence, inferior. I don't give a damn if that person is male or female but if they take advantage and distort that which is good about religion, they're flat out wrong. And that's all I have to say about that.

[RichardY]

Change from Bad to Evil, after the end of the parable. Did the farmer actually finish his story in the parable. What if the village caught plague that's pretty bad, or got sold into sex slavery for the rest of theirs lives, caught various venereal diseases and then died, also pretty bad, but in addition Evil.

I wouldn't say that Evil is a perception, I would say that it is possibly internal in everybody. To call something Evil you must have some understanding of what Evil is, by doing so you acknowledge it in yourself.

I read on Wikipedia that the word "Religion" as interpreted by Cicero means to re-read.

Taoism has appeal to me, kind of a beatnik in a way... listened to Alan Watts on Youtube, only thing is he doesn't say much of note imo. I wonder about the effects of LSD and Magic Mushrooms as that seems to come up a lot looking into Taoism, I mean people talk about the CIA testing LSD on people. I wonder again if there is an alternative way to mess with the unconscious physically without melting the brain, kind of get into the "the operating system" or something. Taoism and Confucius looks to me a bit like the divide between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Though I only have a superficial understanding and just going by intuition.  

Buddhism: Noble Truths? Clinging to life is painful, some sort of groundhog day religion? that even "jumping off a skyscraper"(as a forum member suggested) won't fix, as supposedly there is reincarnation at least according to Wikipedia. "A parachute not opening... that's a way to die. Getting caught in the gears of a combine... having your nuts bit off by a Laplander, that's the way I wanna go!"

3 hours ago, Soulfire said:

I don't give a damn if that person is male or female but if they take advantage and distort that which is good about religion, they're flat out wrong. And that's all I have to say about that.

"Who knows what is Good or Bad?"

[Soulfire]

Hello RichardV, thanks for your insight!

 

Did I switch from "bad" to "evil" when I typed out that parable...? Didn't notice if I did. Oops. But I meant "bad" the way through.

 

I agree with your point about STDs or the burning down of the village if caused by, say, lightning hitting the place and everything going "boom". That bad things happen without human intervention is harder to understand merely in terms of perception, in that there seems to be no real reason for the evil having occurred. However...science. Science and the laws of probability both admit that such things happen, and for something to occur in accordance with a natural law is neither good or bad, but neutral, as the laws of nature have no perception of their own, have no consciousness of the fact that they may be causing misfortune. Of course, to those who suffer it, who do have perception and consciousness, such things seem arbitrary and cruel, but there is little that can be done about nature. For all our power and technology, we are as infants and insects before nature. The Native Americans say in their teachings that, no matter how old one is, all of us are as infants next to the Earth, and that's perfectly true. We cannot, therefore, fault nature for acting as it acts. It has no intention of causing evil to anyone living here, as it does not know that there are sentient beings living on this planet. Nature follows its OWN nature, its Wu Wei, without consciousness, and therefore whatever comes as a result of unfolding natural occurrences cannot be seen as good or bad, any more than the scenarios provided in the Parable of Good or Bad.

 

Also, where I ended the parable is where it ends. It could, in theory, go on in such a way for an indeterminate round of "good" to "bad", but that would just be redundant.

 

And in terms of Buddhism, no, you can't escape Samsara just by bumping yourself off, or through any other mode of death. The only way to escape the eternality of life and death, and therefore suffering, is to break free of attachments and work towards true freedom. I can personally do that with stuff: I don't particularly care what happens with most of my possessions. But people? THAT is an entirely different issue.

 

Four Noble Truths time!

 

1. All of life is dukkha (dissatisfaction or suffering)

2. The cause of dukkha is clinging (note: Buddha says nothing about HAVING things, just clinging to them)

3. There can be an end to dukkha (yay)

4. The end to dukkha is found in the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path

 

Lots of "Noble" stuff in Buddhism: Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path...but the point of the Path is to purify your behaviour, your thoughts, and what you concentrate on in order to elevate yourself out of Samsara.

[RichardY]

4 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Of course, to those who suffer it, who do have perception and consciousness, such things seem arbitrary and cruel, but there is little that can be done about nature. For all our power and technology, we are as infants and insects before nature. The Native Americans say in their teachings that, no matter how old one is, all of us are as infants next to the Earth, and that's perfectly true. We cannot, therefore, fault nature for acting as it acts. It has no intention of causing evil to anyone living here, as it does not know that there are sentient beings living on this planet. Nature follows its OWN nature, its Wu Wei, without consciousness, and therefore whatever comes as a result of unfolding natural occurrences cannot be seen as good or bad, any more than the scenarios provided in the Parable of Good or Bad.

A few ideas.

In terms of nature I agree there is no good or bad; only in the judgements, punishments and rewards imposed on others. By extension therefore people being part of nature, why is there good or bad in consciousness? If consciousness is part of nature then it is not good or bad, but as judgements are made, and if consciousness is not part of nature, then what is it a part of?

The 2 options that come to mind are either a Collective Unconscious as proposed by Carl Jung or a Soul as proposed by many religions. In the case of a Collective Unconscious then there exists the possibility to have a truly independent "Soul" perhaps as referenced in the story of the Buddha. Or the emergence of independent, but tainted souls in the Garden of Eden. "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

In the unconscious mind; preferences which are reasons in themselves, sometimes contradictory and as such can not be held in the conscious mind simultaneously. Evil is the conflict between reason.

5 hours ago, Soulfire said:

And in terms of Buddhism, no, you can't escape Samsara just by bumping yourself off, or through any other mode of death. The only way to escape the eternality of life and death, and therefore suffering, is to break free of attachments and work towards true freedom. I can personally do that with stuff: I don't particularly care what happens with most of my possessions. But people? THAT is an entirely different issue.

 Why would you want to escape suffering, life and death? Suffering seems very specific to different people. I can do without people, maybe I might find an answer somewhere that may make me think otherwise. 

[Donnadogsoth]

6 hours ago, Soulfire said:

And in terms of Buddhism, no, you can't escape Samsara just by bumping yourself off, or through any other mode of death. The only way to escape the eternality of life and death, and therefore suffering, is to break free of attachments and work towards true freedom. I can personally do that with stuff: I don't particularly care what happens with most of my possessions. But people? THAT is an entirely different issue.

 

Four Noble Truths time!

 

1. All of life is dukkha (dissatisfaction or suffering)

2. The cause of dukkha is clinging (note: Buddha says nothing about HAVING things, just clinging to them)

3. There can be an end to dukkha (yay)

4. The end to dukkha is found in the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path

 

Lots of "Noble" stuff in Buddhism: Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path...but the point of the Path is to purify your behaviour, your thoughts, and what you concentrate on in order to elevate yourself out of Samsara.

Why should anyone take seriously a religion that has no explanation for the origin of the Universe?

[neeeel]

4 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Why should anyone take seriously a religion that has no explanation for the origin of the Universe?

 

Are you serious? Goddidit is not an explanation for anything

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, neeeel said:

 

Are you serious? Goddidit is not an explanation for anything

The Origin is a recourse to the necessary, rather than to inexplicable contingency.  Only Christianity explains the world as it is satisfactorily, because it is premised on the rationality of the world, whereas Buddhism condemns us to brute facticity while denying the efficacy of reason.

[Soulfire]

My, my, did I raise some SHIT! Oopsie.  

 

The way I practice Buddhism makes it a philosophy, not a religion, so I'm not looking for an explanation for God for one thing. God is everything. So whatever explanation you or anyone else has for everything being here, then that's the explanation for God that I would take because I'm open to all possibilities. Also, though, Buddhism does not deny reason. The Dalai Lama himself has said that Buddhism is a scientific philosophy and that, if science were to disprove any of the Buddhist tenets, even such engrained things as the Truths or the Eightfold Path, then Buddhists would have no choice but to abandon them, as Buddhism is a search, ultimately, for truth. But I won't argue with any of you: that isn't what I'm here to do. The world is so cynical now and I fully intend to retain my optimism. So, let's simply chat! That's much more fun. Besides, like I say, I'm malleable in terms of my own beliefs, so I'm all ears (eyes, because reading) for anyone who likes to discuss this stuff as I do.

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Soulfire said:

My, my, did I raise some SHIT! Oopsie.  

 

The way I practice Buddhism makes it a philosophy, not a religion, so I'm not looking for an explanation for God for one thing. God is everything. So whatever explanation you or anyone else has for everything being here, then that's the explanation for God that I would take because I'm open to all possibilities. Also, though, Buddhism does not deny reason. The Dalai Lama himself has said that Buddhism is a scientific philosophy and that, if science were to disprove any of the Buddhist tenets, even such engrained things as the Truths or the Eightfold Path, then Buddhists would have no choice but to abandon them, as Buddhism is a search, ultimately, for truth. But I won't argue with any of you: that isn't what I'm here to do. The world is so cynical now and I fully intend to retain my optimism. So, let's simply chat! That's much more fun. Besides, like I say, I'm malleable in terms of my own beliefs, so I'm all ears (eyes, because reading) for anyone who likes to discuss this stuff as I do.

Is the difference between Buddhism the philosophy, and Buddhism the religion, their differing stances toward suicide?

[neeeel]

8 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

The Origin is a recourse to the necessary, rather than to inexplicable contingency.  Only Christianity explains the world as it is satisfactorily, because it is premised on the rationality of the world, whereas Buddhism condemns us to brute facticity while denying the efficacy of reason.

depends what you mean by satisfactorily. Goddidit is not a satisfactory explanation

[Goldenages]

Quote

1. All of life is dukkha (dissatisfaction or suffering)

If I had raised my children that way, I would have destroyed their personality.

And only then there is some "truth" in the words of Buddha.

 

regards

Andi

[Soulfire]

With respect to people's views on here, I do need to make the case for Buddhism NOT being totally nihilistic. I know that the first Noble Truth makes it look that way, but hear me out: when Gautama says that all life is suffering, he doesn't mean that everything is just terrible and you may as well bump yourself off. What he means is that, even when there is pleasure, there must be an end to pleasure, because nothing in life is permanent (see the end of this post for the list of the three characteristics of existence according to Buddhism). Well, if nothing is permanent, and pleasure must therefore of necessity have an end, well, one feels compelled to seek further and/or different pleasures, which are also fleeting, and this cycle continues. Rather, the Buddha suggests that we not be attached to a need for pleasure. He does NOT say that it is wrong to have pleasure, or that pleasure is exactly empty, per se, but simply that we should not believe it to be lasting, and that we should also not believe it to be the only purpose of our lives. An extremity of that is called hedonism and we all know how bad that is for us.

 

Anyway, the three characteristics of existence...

 

1. All of life is unsatisfactory

2. All of life is impermanent

3. All of life is soulless (as in lacking a consistent "soul" or "self"; this one lines up with #2)

[Donnadogsoth]

5 hours ago, neeeel said:

depends what you mean by satisfactorily. Goddidit is not a satisfactory explanation

Nevertheless, recognising that there is an æternal Origin is closer to satisfaction than asserting that the Universe is inexplicably contingent.

[neeeel]

Just now, Donnadogsoth said:

Nevertheless, recognising that there is an æternal Origin is closer to satisfaction than asserting that the Universe is inexplicably contingent.

how so?

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, Soulfire said:

With respect to people's views on here, I do need to make the case for Buddhism NOT being totally nihilistic. I know that the first Noble Truth makes it look that way, but hear me out: when Gautama says that all life is suffering, he doesn't mean that everything is just terrible and you may as well bump yourself off. What he means is that, even when there is pleasure, there must be an end to pleasure, because nothing in life is permanent (see the end of this post for the list of the three characteristics of existence according to Buddhism). Well, if nothing is permanent, and pleasure must therefore of necessity have an end, well, one feels compelled to seek further and/or different pleasures, which are also fleeting, and this cycle continues. Rather, the Buddha suggests that we not be attached to a need for pleasure. He does NOT say that it is wrong to have pleasure, or that pleasure is exactly empty, per se, but simply that we should not believe it to be lasting, and that we should also not believe it to be the only purpose of our lives. An extremity of that is called hedonism and we all know how bad that is for us.

 

Anyway, the three characteristics of existence...

 

1. All of life is unsatisfactory

2. All of life is impermanent

3. All of life is soulless (as in lacking a consistent "soul" or "self"; this one lines up with #2)

Accepting that pleasure is fleeting and hedonism is vain is called growing up.  We didn't need the Buddha to tell us that.

[Donnadogsoth]

4 minutes ago, neeeel said:

how so?

Only the Origin as explanation for the Universe coheres with the principle of sufficient reason.

[neeeel]

2 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Only the Origin as explanation for the Universe coheres with the principle of sufficient reason.

"The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground"

what is the reason, cause or ground of god?

[Donnadogsoth]

43 minutes ago, neeeel said:

"The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground"

what is the reason, cause or ground of god?

God's existence is grounded in necessity. There cannot be nothing, there must be something, and this something must be the Origin, as I explain here.

[neeeel]

2 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

God's existence is grounded in necessity. There cannot be nothing, there must be something, and this something must be the Origin, as I explain here.

rofl so we dont need the principle of sufficient reason then

 

[RichardY]

57 minutes ago, neeeel said:

"The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground"

what is the reason, cause or ground of god?

Patricide?