About a deity full of love and compassion

[atanu]

Correct. But that is unnecessary for the question proposed in this topic.
Surely if seem this way it changes the core of the problem, but the problem remains.

How the problem remains?

 

[PolyHedral]

We don't value Being in general, we value beings. Specific ones, and so it's not very helpful to say that something survives death if that something isn't what makes me "me."

 

[tarasan]

I realize some religions understand it this way.
However, i can't help but criticize them for this. Even more if they believe in a personal God.

As i see it, every kind of existence can be seen as an illusion. We can only see and know so much in each of them. True enlightment can only be reached via omniscience, and i don't think any human, or whatever we are called in the afterlife, has ever reached such state.

im not sure what you are trying to say here, how does your statement make your view any better?

i dont think these people believe that they can ever achieve full enlightenment either, and im not quite sure your in a position to say no one has ever achieved it.

but this is a side note i just wanted to hear what you thought

 

[Koldo]

How the problem remains?

Why are people being "punched in the face"?
Why is there so much hostility towards us in this state of being?

 

[Koldo]

im not sure what you are trying to say here, how does your statement make your view any better?

I think every part of existence is as relevant as any other by default. I don't value afterlife higher than current life.

i dont think these people believe that they can ever achieve full enlightenment either, and im not quite sure your in a position to say no one has ever achieved it.

Many don't even consider the omniscience as being required.
Anyway, i am certainly in the perfect position to say that no one has ever achieved it. All I need is the means to write these words.

but this is a side note i just wanted to hear what you thought

Yea, i know.

 

[tarasan]

I think every part of existence is as relevant as any other by default. I don't value afterlife higher than current life.

indeed but this again is just your view you need to justify yourself, if you think something is wrong then it is objectively wrong, you need something more than how you feel. unless your talking about this subjectively?

Many don't even consider the omniscience as being required.
Anyway, i am certainly in the perfect position to say that no one has ever achieved it. All I need is the means to write these words.

again i dissagree there is nothing contradictory about some having omniscience, heck you dont even have to be god to be omniscience XD.

Yea, i know.

goody goody gum drops

 

[Willamena]

We don't value Being in general, we value beings.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Koldo]

indeed but this again is just your view you need to justify yourself, if you think something is wrong then it is objectively wrong, you need something more than how you feel. unless your talking about this subjectively?

Subjectively surely. But isn't almost every conversation about afterlife subjective ? Granted that nobody showed objective evidence to be regarded as an widely accepted proof of its existence.

again i dissagree there is nothing contradictory about some having omniscience, heck you dont even have to be god to be omniscience XD.

Has any religion claimed that omniscience is reached at afterlife?
If not, then this discussion is meaningless.
If yes, then you have to take such religion's side for this conversation.

 

[Willamena]

Why are people being "punched in the face"?
Why is there so much hostility towards us in this state of being?

I missed a chapter. Can you explain?

 

[atanu]

Why are people being "punched in the face"?
Why is there so much hostility towards us in this state of being?

Who is us and who is the other?

What you speak is the nature of duality, arisen out of preferences-desires. Compassion of Deity as the teacher lies in the help that he/she provides to wean us away from the polarities. Ice dies in presence of steam. Is steam, a form of water cruel to ice, another form of water?

The dream pain vanishes on waking up. Similarly, painful experiences of body-mind of waking time is said to vanish on truly waking up from ignorance of identifying body-mind as me.

A man sleeps peacefully. The same man shrieks in dream nightmare. The same man wakes up and finds the world a big pain in the a--. What has changed during these transitions and what is one's real nature?

I repeat that deity as the teacher is embodiment of compassion, for helping us to raise questions and for helping us with pointers. Yet each must do one's own enquiry.

 

[Koldo]

I missed a chapter. Can you explain?

I have been talking to atanu that even if our current existence is not the ultimate state of being, the question in the OP still remains valid and plausible.

If we could ,in an analogy, compare death and utter suffering to punches in the face, then we are still left wondering why this is happening.

 

[tarasan]

Subjectively surely. But isn't almost every conversation about afterlife subjective ? Granted that nobody showed objective evidence to be regarded as an widely accepted proof of its existence.

no subjectiveness is say that there is no outward reality of the thing essentially it can only be "real to you" so to speak. but to cliam something is objective is to say that it has a reality outside of you. and example of this is as follows.

a subjectivist would say that while to them a chair exist but that doesnt mean that chair exists for you. while an objectivist would say that the chair exists irregardless of what you think.

so when you talk about the afterlife if your saying its subjective then effectively your statement is meaningless to me because it isnt my "reality", its like saying a cheeseburger tastes good.

I dont have to show evidence to believe something is objective, however i can offer jusifications for those beliefs, like rational arguementation, i was just pointing out certian people wouldnt be convinced by what your saying, remeber you made the claim about what a being was, and you phrased it as an objective cliam.

Has any religion claimed that omniscience is reached at afterlife?
If not, then this discussion is meaningless.
If yes, then you have to take such religion's side for this conversation.

certian spiritualist would i think you could think some pagans as well. certian hindu concepts as well although i dont think they call it omniscience

 

[atanu]

I have been talking to atanu that even if our current existence is not the ultimate state of being, the question in the OP still remains valid and plausible.

If we could ,in an analogy, compare death and utter suffering to punches in the face, then we are still left wondering why this is happening.

The being is not afterlife.

 

[Willamena]

To value existence, to value being, is to value the presence of all things: beauty, ugliness, joy, horror, light, and dark. It's to value everything that "is".

Each has an existence parallel and equal to yours.

 

[Koldo]

Who is us and who is the other?

This depends on each person's point of view. There is no defined nor widely accepted answer on this regard.

What you speak is the nature of duality, arisen out of preferences-desires. Compassion of Deity as the teacher lies in the help that he/she provides to wean us away from the polarities. Ice dies in presence of steam. Is steam, a form of water cruel to ice, another form of water?

The dream pain vanishes on waking up. Similarly, painful experiences of body-mind of waking time is said to vanish on truly waking up from ignorance of identifying body-mind as me.

Personally, i believe you are taking this too far. Science has already shown [albeit not completely] how pain works in the human body. It is not the identity of body-mind as me that gives birth to painful experiences. It is way beyond this.

Maybe you are refering to psychological suffering?

A man sleeps peacefully. The same man shrieks in dream nightmare. The same man wakes up and finds the world a big pain in the a--. What has changed during these transitions and what is one's real nature?

I repeat that deity as the teacher is embodiment of compassion, for helping us to raise questions and for helping us with pointers. Yet each must do one's own enquiry.

There is no real nature. Which is why to ignore the value of suffering is to ignore being.

 

[Koldo]

no subjectiveness is say that there is no outward reality of the thing essentially it can only be "real to you" so to speak. but to cliam something is objective is to say that it has a reality outside of you. and example of this is as follows.

a subjectivist would say that while to them a chair exist but that doesnt mean that chair exists for you. while an objectivist would say that the chair exists irregardless of what you think.

I wasn't refering to subjectivity in this way.
I will continue the answer right below...

so when you talk about the afterlife if your saying its subjective then effectively your statement is meaningless to me because it isnt my "reality", its like saying a cheeseburger tastes good.

But i did mean subjectivity in this way. Isn't the attribute of 'good taste' given to the cheeseburger subjective?

My discussion is not directed towards an specific objective reality, rather it is how i, personally, believe such scenarios should be properly framed.

I dont have to show evidence to believe something is objective, however i can offer jusifications for those beliefs, like rational arguementation, i was just pointing out certian people wouldnt be convinced by what your saying, remeber you made the claim about what a being was, and you phrased it as an objective cliam.

Isn't it common to use the objective to express the subjective?
You have probably seen many times already some TV commercials, and in daily conversations, where there is a claim that product X is amazing/awesome/tasteful.

certian spiritualist would i think you could think some pagans as well. certian hindu concepts as well although i dont think they call it omniscience

You are being too vague.

 

[atanu]

This depends on each person's point of view. There is no defined nor widely accepted answer on this regard.

But what is your answer?

Personally, i believe you are taking this too far. Science has already shown [albeit not completely] how pain works in the human body. It is not the identity of body-mind as me that gives birth to painful experiences. It is way beyond this.

Maybe you are refering to psychological suffering?

I know that it is out of place in this discussion. But there is no other answer. There is pain to ego consciousness, which is as far as science can investigate.

There is no real nature. Which is why to ignore the value of suffering is to ignore being.

How do you know? But I am not suggesting to ignore pain and you have avoided the questions.

What you speak is the nature of duality, arisen out of preferences-desires. Compassion of Deity as the teacher lies in the help that he/she provides to wean us away from the polarities. Ice dies in presence of steam. Is steam, a form of water cruel to ice, another form of water?
The dream pain vanishes on waking up. Similarly, painful experiences of body-mind of waking time is said to vanish on truly waking up from ignorance of identifying body-mind as me.
A man sleeps peacefully. The same man shrieks in dream nightmare. The same man wakes up and finds the world a big pain in the a--. What has changed during these transitions and what is one's real nature?

 

[Koldo]

The being is not afterlife.

Let us get deeper in this discussion.
What do you call 'being'?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I have been talking to atanu that even if our current existence is not the ultimate state of being, the question in the OP still remains valid and plausible.

If we could ,in an analogy, compare death and utter suffering to punches in the face, then we are still left wondering why this is happening.

Of course we can wonder. We can spend our whole time here wondering. It won't get you anywhere, though.

 

[Koldo]

To value existence, to value being, is to value the presence of all things: beauty, ugliness, joy, horror, light, and dark. It's to value everything that "is".

Each has an existence parallel and equal to yours.

Correct.
But do those things hold a default values when we separate them into different labels?