Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To our Buddhists:

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 3:08:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?

Can you want freedom from want?

And can you fear not having freedom from fear?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 3:10:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 3:08:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?

Can you want freedom from want?

And can you fear not having freedom from fear?

Oh go away. ;-)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 3:14:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?

Buddhism doesn't talk about having freedom FROM anything. However, the Buddha did say that you should "go about self-governed."

Obviously the Buddha would say it's better to have no fear than to have no "want." He doesn't even really say anything about "want." He simply talks about being consumed by desire that leads to self-destructiveness.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 3:47:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 3:14:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?

Buddhism doesn't talk about having freedom FROM anything. However, the Buddha did say that you should "go about self-governed."

Obviously the Buddha would say it's better to have no fear than to have no "want." He doesn't even really say anything about "want." He simply talks about being consumed by desire that leads to self-destructiveness.

Really? I ask this because the topic came up in meditation the other morning, and someone claimed that this was a very Buddhist concept and made some comments that sounded nice, but gave the credit to Buddhism. Thanks.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 9:27:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?

To be clear, the desire that is talked about in many eastern philosophies is not simply a "want". To become free of any want is absurd, and impossible. It goes against what is possible for a human to do, and will only set you up for failure.

Desire in Buddhism is a want that effects you negatively. It is more of an obsessive thing. You want something. You can't have it. It effects your mood.

A good example of this would be that mental illness known as teenage love.

Now, if you can rid yourself of that strong desire, fear will naturally fade away. This is true because of what you have to do mentally to get rid of the desire. The cure for strong desire is also the cure for fear.

Of course, most Buddhists will completely miss the cure, because like New Agers, they are usually pretentious dipshit space cadets with ego problems. They are too serious.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 4:09:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 9:27:31 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?

To be clear, the desire that is talked about in many eastern philosophies is not simply a "want". To become free of any want is absurd, and impossible. It goes against what is possible for a human to do, and will only set you up for failure.

Desire in Buddhism is a want that effects you negatively. It is more of an obsessive thing. You want something. You can't have it. It effects your mood.

A good example of this would be that mental illness known as teenage love.


Now, if you can rid yourself of that strong desire, fear will naturally fade away. This is true because of what you have to do mentally to get rid of the desire. The cure for strong desire is also the cure for fear.

Of course, most Buddhists will completely miss the cure, because like New Agers, they are usually pretentious dipshit space cadets with ego problems. They are too serious.

To provide greater context, the discussion was on finding happiness in understanding the difference of wants and needs, then there was a connected discussion on the route of defects of character falling within the realm of fear.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 4:13:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?

The answer to such a question is more dependent on interpretation of these concepts than it is any actual philosophy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 4:41:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?

John 10:1-3 (New International Version 1984)

"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.


Buddism in a nutshell..
The Cross.. the Cross.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 4:50:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 4:41:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?


John 10:1-3 (New International Version 1984)

"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.


Buddism in a nutshell..

The Buddha: "In this same class the disciples are the earnest disciples of other faiths, who clinging to the notions of such things as, the soul as an external entity, Supreme Atman, Personal God, seek a [belief] that is in harmony with them. ...But none of these, earnest though they be, have gained an insight into the truth of the twofold egolessness and are, therefore, of limited spiritual insights as regards deliverance and non-deliverance; for them there is no emancipation. They have great self-confidence but they can never gain a true knowledge of Nirvana."
[Lankavatara Sutra]
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 10:31:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would imagine the "buddhist" answer is you only "fear" if you have attatchments...

only fear if you have "wants"

so... the root of all such troubles are the "wants"/Attachments.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 10:32:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 5:05:32 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
For a Buddhist, this is a false dichotomy. What one needs to rid himself of is attachment. In doing that, one is free from both desire and fear. At least, such is the case if I comprehend Buddhism.

aha, see it was already answered :/

nevermind then!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 12:00:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 4:09:42 AM, innomen wrote:
To provide greater context, the discussion was on finding happiness in understanding the difference of wants and needs, then there was a connected discussion on the route of defects of character falling within the realm of fear.

I would agree. Fear stems from a lack of faith. However, but faith and unhealthy desire are rooted in the same thing.

It is this one thing, that once realized will free you from all these negative things. It is the essence of Buddhism, and it doesn't do any good to outright say it, as then no one would take it seriously. This is the reason why Buddha taught it through explaining things that eventually point you to the realization.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 12:02:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 5:05:32 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
For a Buddhist, this is a false dichotomy. What one needs to rid himself of is attachment. In doing that, one is free from both desire and fear. At least, such is the case if I comprehend Buddhism.

I just said this. XP

At 5/17/2011 10:31:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I would imagine the "buddhist" answer is you only "fear" if you have attatchments...

only fear if you have "wants"

so... the root of all such troubles are the "wants"/Attachments.

Yes, but how do you get rid of the attachments? There is something else that attachment itself is rooted in. Become aware of it, and attachment falls like a deck of cards. This one realization is a huge part of what enlightenment is, and it seems to be the most well kept secret in Buddhism.

~~~~

By the way, Buddhism doesn't have a monopoly on any of this stuff. These all come from a self observation.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 12:09:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 12:02:34 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is something else that attachment itself is rooted in. Become aware of it, and attachment falls like a deck of cards. This one realization is a huge part of what enlightenment is, and it seems to be the most well kept secret in Buddhism.

The naming of This and That.. Shi and Fei

... that is... Intellect combined with natural feelings.

now, you don't need to Throw intellect or feelings away.. just take it as it comes.

Embrace the This's and and That's that come as they do... but don't cling to them past their time.

Don't Reject attachment, let them come and go as they do... accept your will as it is.. and accept reality broadly too.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 12:34:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 12:09:04 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/17/2011 12:02:34 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is something else that attachment itself is rooted in. Become aware of it, and attachment falls like a deck of cards. This one realization is a huge part of what enlightenment is, and it seems to be the most well kept secret in Buddhism.


The naming of This and That.. Shi and Fei

... that is... Intellect combined with natural feelings.

now, you don't need to Throw intellect or feelings away.. just take it as it comes.

Embrace the This's and and That's that come as they do... but don't cling to them past their time.

Don't Reject attachment, let them come and go as they do... accept your will as it is.. and accept reality broadly too.

Smacks Matt on the head with the old gnarled buddha stick.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 4:13:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So i get the ridding of attachments as creating freedom in both one's wants and fears, but i don't think the end result is really what we're shooting for in life.

Ridding one from their attachments, both physical and emotional will by no means create happiness, but it may create a sort of peace, if a vacuum is considered peace.

So i'm thinking Buddhism isn't really the right direction for this particular line of discussion. Gonna check with the Benedictines they're usually good about this stuff.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 4:58:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 4:13:40 PM, innomen wrote:
So i get the ridding of attachments as creating freedom in both one's wants and fears, but i don't think the end result is really what we're shooting for in life.

Ridding one from their attachments, both physical and emotional will by no means create happiness, but it may create a sort of peace, if a vacuum is considered peace.


At the risk of sounding arrogant and blunt, listen to me when it comes to this stuff, I actually know what I'm talking about.(I'm not going to debate this, because there is no point in it. Either you believe me or you don't.)

Ridding yourself of attachments is not what Buddhism is about. Buddhism is about understanding the absurdity of allowing your desires to effect you in a negative emotional or mental way. Understanding its absurdity does not mean that you cease to have attachments. It simply means that while you may have these attachments, deep down you know that it is ridiculous, and so you never get so serious about it that it effects your stability.

This relates to the middle path if you can see how it fits.

No, when you fully understand the rationale behind this, something which really only you as an individual can figure out, you do have a peace. There is no void, and it is a happiness. It is embracing reality, and is as close to God as you can get as a human being.

All these counterproductive mental states are the result of a fundamental error that lies at the very root of the psyche. This fundamental error is even at the root of unhealthy desire.

In Discordianism, it is very related to the Curse of the Greyface. Unfortunately, if you are involved in a religion, you usually are under this curse, and you will only reach enlightenment when this curse has been lifted. True story, bro.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 3:14:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 4:58:05 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 5/17/2011 4:13:40 PM, innomen wrote:
So i get the ridding of attachments as creating freedom in both one's wants and fears, but i don't think the end result is really what we're shooting for in life.

Ridding one from their attachments, both physical and emotional will by no means create happiness, but it may create a sort of peace, if a vacuum is considered peace.


At the risk of sounding arrogant and blunt, listen to me when it comes to this stuff, I actually know what I'm talking about.(I'm not going to debate this, because there is no point in it. Either you believe me or you don't.)

Ridding yourself of attachments is not what Buddhism is about. Buddhism is about understanding the absurdity of allowing your desires to effect you in a negative emotional or mental way. Understanding its absurdity does not mean that you cease to have attachments. It simply means that while you may have these attachments, deep down you know that it is ridiculous, and so you never get so serious about it that it effects your stability.

This relates to the middle path if you can see how it fits.

No, when you fully understand the rationale behind this, something which really only you as an individual can figure out, you do have a peace. There is no void, and it is a happiness. It is embracing reality, and is as close to God as you can get as a human being.

All these counterproductive mental states are the result of a fundamental error that lies at the very root of the psyche. This fundamental error is even at the root of unhealthy desire.

In Discordianism, it is very related to the Curse of the Greyface. Unfortunately, if you are involved in a religion, you usually are under this curse, and you will only reach enlightenment when this curse has been lifted. True story, bro.

Then the word "attachment" needs to be further developed to provide greater context. Love can be considered an attachment, but so can hate. I don't think i can consider love ridiculous. However, i think a life without the attachment of love is one that is in a void, and is actually counter productive to the development of self and happiness. Being in a state of love can exist without elements of want and fear going with it. It's not easy, but it can happen, but it is my belief that healthy love is the ultimate in developing an individual, but it obviously involves attachment.

"Attachment" to physical things are definitely risky to happiness, and one's relationship with them need to be kept clear. You own them, or they own you? But this is when wants and needs are kept in the forefront of the equation.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 5:11:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 4:50:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/17/2011 4:41:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/16/2011 3:06:21 PM, innomen wrote:
Or anyone really, but i am curious as to how a Buddhist would look at this.

Is it better to have freedom from want or freedom from fear?


John 10:1-3 (New International Version 1984)

"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.


Buddism in a nutshell..

The Buddha: "In this same class the disciples are the earnest disciples of other faiths, who clinging to the notions of such things as, the soul as an external entity, Supreme Atman, Personal God, seek a [belief] that is in harmony with them. ...But none of these, earnest though they be, have gained an insight into the truth of the twofold egolessness and are, therefore, of limited spiritual insights as regards deliverance and non-deliverance; for them there is no emancipation. They have great self-confidence but they can never gain a true knowledge of Nirvana."
[Lankavatara Sutra]

So the Buddha is locking people out of Nirvana? nice guy!

Jesus says he's a THEIF!
The Cross.. the Cross.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 5:19:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 5:11:05 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 4:50:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/17/2011 4:41:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
John 10:1-3 (New International Version 1984)

"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.


Buddism in a nutshell..

The Buddha: "In this same class the disciples are the earnest disciples of other faiths, who clinging to the notions of such things as, the soul as an external entity, Supreme Atman, Personal God, seek a [belief] that is in harmony with them. ...But none of these, earnest though they be, have gained an insight into the truth of the twofold egolessness and are, therefore, of limited spiritual insights as regards deliverance and non-deliverance; for them there is no emancipation. They have great self-confidence but they can never gain a true knowledge of Nirvana."
[Lankavatara Sutra]

So the Buddha is locking people out of Nirvana? nice guy!

1. The Buddha doesn't guard the door to Nirvana. He simply teaches how to attain Nirvana. Some ways will get you there, some won't.

2. Isn't it Yahweh who locks nonbelievers out of heaven?

Jesus says he's a THEIF!

The Buddha isn't trying to sneak his way into heaven. He doesn't even believe in heaven. In what possible way could the Buddha be a theif?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 3:08:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 3:14:08 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2011 4:58:05 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 5/17/2011 4:13:40 PM, innomen wrote:
So i get the ridding of attachments as creating freedom in both one's wants and fears, but i don't think the end result is really what we're shooting for in life.

Ridding one from their attachments, both physical and emotional will by no means create happiness, but it may create a sort of peace, if a vacuum is considered peace.


At the risk of sounding arrogant and blunt, listen to me when it comes to this stuff, I actually know what I'm talking about.(I'm not going to debate this, because there is no point in it. Either you believe me or you don't.)

Ridding yourself of attachments is not what Buddhism is about. Buddhism is about understanding the absurdity of allowing your desires to effect you in a negative emotional or mental way. Understanding its absurdity does not mean that you cease to have attachments. It simply means that while you may have these attachments, deep down you know that it is ridiculous, and so you never get so serious about it that it effects your stability.

This relates to the middle path if you can see how it fits.

No, when you fully understand the rationale behind this, something which really only you as an individual can figure out, you do have a peace. There is no void, and it is a happiness. It is embracing reality, and is as close to God as you can get as a human being.

All these counterproductive mental states are the result of a fundamental error that lies at the very root of the psyche. This fundamental error is even at the root of unhealthy desire.

In Discordianism, it is very related to the Curse of the Greyface. Unfortunately, if you are involved in a religion, you usually are under this curse, and you will only reach enlightenment when this curse has been lifted. True story, bro.

Then the word "attachment" needs to be further developed to provide greater context. Love can be considered an attachment, but so can hate. I don't think i can consider love ridiculous. However, i think a life without the attachment of love is one that is in a void, and is actually counter productive to the development of self and happiness. Being in a state of love can exist without elements of want and fear going with it. It's not easy, but it can happen, but it is my belief that healthy love is the ultimate in developing an individual, but it obviously involves attachment.


Attachment can be described as the inability to examine particular assumptions. You become "attached" to certain ideas/concepts/ways of thinking/etc. Often times these assumptions are not true, and even if they are, honestly examining these assumptions will help one gain a deeper understanding of them.

I would say that the purest form of love is not an attachment. The purest love is one of detachment. The only people who have a problem accepting this are those who have problems of their own that they need to sort out. People who get upset if others don't go out of their way to pay them some type of attention.

That said, love is not a requirement to be happy. However, if you are enlightened, it almost naturally follows. Living a life of love will put you on some crazy adventures, and is definitely more fruitful. It is accepting, fearless, faith filled, and as a result very risk taking way of living.. If you are enlightened, these traits naturally follow.

It is one thing to believe that life is weird. It is something else entirely to be aware that life is weird. This can be said about a lot of things.

"Attachment" to physical things are definitely risky to happiness, and one's relationship with them need to be kept clear. You own them, or they own you? But this is when wants and needs are kept in the forefront of the equation.

There are very few "needs" to live. There are very few "needs" to have happiness. The problem is, people often times do not understand what they really "need". When it comes to happiness, it is purely psychological(or spiritual if you prefer that. Spirituality is just self psychology). The only way to find happiness is to examine yourself, and become more aware of the processes going on in your head.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 1:36:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 3:08:34 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 5/18/2011 3:14:08 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2011 4:58:05 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 5/17/2011 4:13:40 PM, innomen wrote:
So i get the ridding of attachments as creating freedom in both one's wants and fears, but i don't think the end result is really what we're shooting for in life.

Ridding one from their attachments, both physical and emotional will by no means create happiness, but it may create a sort of peace, if a vacuum is considered peace.


At the risk of sounding arrogant and blunt, listen to me when it comes to this stuff, I actually know what I'm talking about.(I'm not going to debate this, because there is no point in it. Either you believe me or you don't.)

Ridding yourself of attachments is not what Buddhism is about. Buddhism is about understanding the absurdity of allowing your desires to effect you in a negative emotional or mental way. Understanding its absurdity does not mean that you cease to have attachments. It simply means that while you may have these attachments, deep down you know that it is ridiculous, and so you never get so serious about it that it effects your stability.

This relates to the middle path if you can see how it fits.

No, when you fully understand the rationale behind this, something which really only you as an individual can figure out, you do have a peace. There is no void, and it is a happiness. It is embracing reality, and is as close to God as you can get as a human being.

All these counterproductive mental states are the result of a fundamental error that lies at the very root of the psyche. This fundamental error is even at the root of unhealthy desire.

In Discordianism, it is very related to the Curse of the Greyface. Unfortunately, if you are involved in a religion, you usually are under this curse, and you will only reach enlightenment when this curse has been lifted. True story, bro.

Then the word "attachment" needs to be further developed to provide greater context. Love can be considered an attachment, but so can hate. I don't think i can consider love ridiculous. However, i think a life without the attachment of love is one that is in a void, and is actually counter productive to the development of self and happiness. Being in a state of love can exist without elements of want and fear going with it. It's not easy, but it can happen, but it is my belief that healthy love is the ultimate in developing an individual, but it obviously involves attachment.


Attachment can be described as the inability to examine particular assumptions. You become "attached" to certain ideas/concepts/ways of thinking/etc. Often times these assumptions are not true, and even if they are, honestly examining these assumptions will help one gain a deeper understanding of them.

That's fine, fearless and searching inventory of motives. I wouldn't have called it "attachments", but i get it. I would contend that knowing the whys doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Because you know why you feel a certain way doesn't mean you will stop feeling that certain way. A certain game plan, of a spiritual nature IMHO, is necessary as a follow up.

I would say that the purest form of love is not an attachment. The purest love is one of detachment. The only people who have a problem accepting this are those who have problems of their own that they need to sort out. People who get upset if others don't go out of their way to pay them some type of attention.

No no, the purest form of love is a total union where the other is of equal or greater import than the self, and it is reciprocal. It is more than attachment it is oneness.

That said, love is not a requirement to be happy. However, if you are enlightened, it almost naturally follows. Living a life of love will put you on some crazy adventures, and is definitely more fruitful. It is accepting, fearless, faith filled, and as a result very risk taking way of living.. If you are enlightened, these traits naturally follow.

Love is where philosphy, spirituality and humanity all collide and is where the individual has the greatest opportunity for growth. Yes it is also where the greatest risk is involved and where the end result is not guaranteed.

Love is an issue that is rarely discussed here because (I think) so few really have had the experience to be able to discuss it beyond refelections of literature or sex.

It is one thing to believe that life is weird. It is something else entirely to be aware that life is weird. This can be said about a lot of things.


"Attachment" to physical things are definitely risky to happiness, and one's relationship with them need to be kept clear. You own them, or they own you? But this is when wants and needs are kept in the forefront of the equation.

There are very few "needs" to live. There are very few "needs" to have happiness. The problem is, people often times do not understand what they really "need". When it comes to happiness, it is purely psychological(or spiritual if you prefer that. Spirituality is just self psychology). The only way to find happiness is to examine yourself, and become more aware of the processes going on in your head.

I don't think so. Spirituality involves (usually) purpose and objective benchmarks. Psychology is far less profound in its implications, and is based almost solely on observation and assessments, but no oughts beyond a measurement to the norm. I would agree that there are very few "needs" to be happy, and probably the fewer the better shot you will have at happiness. Don't think you can simply decide to be happy - doesn't work that way.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 6:55:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/19/2011 1:36:30 PM, innomen wrote:
Attachment can be described as the inability to examine particular assumptions. You become "attached" to certain ideas/concepts/ways of thinking/etc. Often times these assumptions are not true, and even if they are, honestly examining these assumptions will help one gain a deeper understanding of them.

That's fine, fearless and searching inventory of motives. I wouldn't have called it "attachments", but i get it. I would contend that knowing the whys doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Because you know why you feel a certain way doesn't mean you will stop feeling that certain way. A certain game plan, of a spiritual nature IMHO, is necessary as a follow up.

Being aware of what is going on in your head is the first step towards solving the problem. If you aware of something you are doing, and catch yourself doing it, it will become less and less of a problem. You can completely eliminate certain counterproductive behaviors this way.

Most of spirituality involves what I am describing. This is all part of the game plan.

I would say that the purest form of love is not an attachment. The purest love is one of detachment. The only people who have a problem accepting this are those who have problems of their own that they need to sort out. People who get upset if others don't go out of their way to pay them some type of attention.

No no, the purest form of love is a total union where the other is of equal or greater import than the self, and it is reciprocal. It is more than attachment it is oneness.


None of this is possible unless you have the element of detachment that I am speaking of. You aren't contradicting me as much as you might think.

That said, love is not a requirement to be happy. However, if you are enlightened, it almost naturally follows. Living a life of love will put you on some crazy adventures, and is definitely more fruitful. It is accepting, fearless, faith filled, and as a result very risk taking way of living.. If you are enlightened, these traits naturally follow.

Love is where philosphy, spirituality and humanity all collide and is where the individual has the greatest opportunity for growth. Yes it is also where the greatest risk is involved and where the end result is not guaranteed.

Love is an issue that is rarely discussed here because (I think) so few really have had the experience to be able to discuss it beyond refelections of literature or sex.


Most people don't know what love is. The common perception of love is nothing more than a mental illness, and it is not nearly as desirable or useful as people make it out to be. It is a very tainted.. a different kind of love.

It is one thing to believe that life is weird. It is something else entirely to be aware that life is weird. This can be said about a lot of things.


"Attachment" to physical things are definitely risky to happiness, and one's relationship with them need to be kept clear. You own them, or they own you? But this is when wants and needs are kept in the forefront of the equation.

There are very few "needs" to live. There are very few "needs" to have happiness. The problem is, people often times do not understand what they really "need". When it comes to happiness, it is purely psychological(or spiritual if you prefer that. Spirituality is just self psychology). The only way to find happiness is to examine yourself, and become more aware of the processes going on in your head.

I don't think so. Spirituality involves (usually) purpose and objective benchmarks. Psychology is far less profound in its implications, and is based almost solely on observation and assessments, but no oughts beyond a measurement to the norm. I would agree that there are very few "needs" to be happy, and probably the fewer the better shot you will have at happiness. Don't think you can simply decide to be happy - doesn't work that way

Everything I say about spirituality implies a lot of work. There is no "deciding to be happy".

What you think of spirituality or psychology is not necessarily what is implied by what I am saying. Don't get lost in semantics.

Spirituality is self improvement, which is accomplished by becoming more aware of yourself. This is self psychology. If you are going to dispute this, then you are focusing on something irrelevant to what I am saying.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 3:20:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/19/2011 6:55:52 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 5/19/2011 1:36:30 PM, innomen wrote:
Attachment can be described as the inability to examine particular assumptions. You become "attached" to certain ideas/concepts/ways of thinking/etc. Often times these assumptions are not true, and even if they are, honestly examining these assumptions will help one gain a deeper understanding of them.

That's fine, fearless and searching inventory of motives. I wouldn't have called it "attachments", but i get it. I would contend that knowing the whys doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Because you know why you feel a certain way doesn't mean you will stop feeling that certain way. A certain game plan, of a spiritual nature IMHO, is necessary as a follow up.

Being aware of what is going on in your head is the first step towards solving the problem. If you aware of something you are doing, and catch yourself doing it, it will become less and less of a problem. You can completely eliminate certain counterproductive behaviors this way.

Yes, the first step, but most people if they get on that first step remain there forever. 'Pride says you need not pass this way, Fear says you need not look'.
Most of spirituality involves what I am describing. This is all part of the game plan.

Actually you've been vague in your meaning of spirituality.

I would say that the purest form of love is not an attachment. The purest love is one of detachment. The only people who have a problem accepting this are those who have problems of their own that they need to sort out. People who get upset if others don't go out of their way to pay them some type of attention.

No no, the purest form of love is a total union where the other is of equal or greater import than the self, and it is reciprocal. It is more than attachment it is oneness.


None of this is possible unless you have the element of detachment that I am speaking of. You aren't contradicting me as much as you might think.

I understand what you are saying, but there is a give and take, where healthy love will create detatchment of what i call 'head trash' and the lack of 'head trash' will allow healthy love.

That said, love is not a requirement to be happy. However, if you are enlightened, it almost naturally follows. Living a life of love will put you on some crazy adventures, and is definitely more fruitful. It is accepting, fearless, faith filled, and as a result very risk taking way of living.. If you are enlightened, these traits naturally follow.

Love is where philosphy, spirituality and humanity all collide and is where the individual has the greatest opportunity for growth. Yes it is also where the greatest risk is involved and where the end result is not guaranteed.

Love is an issue that is rarely discussed here because (I think) so few really have had the experience to be able to discuss it beyond refelections of literature or sex.


Most people don't know what love is. The common perception of love is nothing more than a mental illness, and it is not nearly as desirable or useful as people make it out to be. It is a very tainted.. a different kind of love.

Most people here don't know what love is, a few do, but the median age is about 19 on this site. I think that your future experiences in the area of love may change your understanding of it, or at least i hope so. Love is more than just desirable or useful, it is what completes us. Because no person is perfect no relationship exists without problems, but there is a core of love that actually can be perfection in many cases. We may interfere with how it works in our life, but the love that creates the union, by itself is, or can be perfect.

It is one thing to believe that life is weird. It is something else entirely to be aware that life is weird. This can be said about a lot of things.


"Attachment" to physical things are definitely risky to happiness, and one's relationship with them need to be kept clear. You own them, or they own you? But this is when wants and needs are kept in the forefront of the equation.

There are very few "needs" to live. There are very few "needs" to have happiness. The problem is, people often times do not understand what they really "need". When it comes to happiness, it is purely psychological(or spiritual if you prefer that. Spirituality is just self psychology). The only way to find happiness is to examine yourself, and become more aware of the processes going on in your head.

I don't think so. Spirituality involves (usually) purpose and objective benchmarks. Psychology is far less profound in its implications, and is based almost solely on observation and assessments, but no oughts beyond a measurement to the norm. I would agree that there are very few "needs" to be happy, and probably the fewer the better shot you will have at happiness. Don't think you can simply decide to be happy - doesn't work that way

Everything I say about spirituality implies a lot of work. There is no "deciding to be happy".

What you think of spirituality or psychology is not necessarily what is implied by what I am saying. Don't get lost in semantics.

Spirituality is self improvement, which is accomplished by becoming more aware of yourself. This is self psychology. If you are going to dispute this, then you are focusing on something irrelevant to what I am saying.
It may be a tangent, but i don't think it's irrelevant. Self improvement may (or may not) involve spirituality, but it is an end result. Psychology is just a giant blanket that secularists can use to remove any implication of God from the equation. A long time ago i related an experience to someone here what i would call an awakening, or a spiritual experience, and the member that i was speaking with said 'you know there are psychological explanations for what happened to you'. That's a truly silly statement, and i think that's sort of what you may be doing here. My brain's activity, my behavior and thinking patterns can ALWAYS be explained in psychological terms, but it is a less than helpful reduction of the process to those who may be looking. If i say that a person will be happy if they can humble themselves before a power greater than themself, and be grateful to that power for the life they have been given - and the end result is a happier person; psychology might be able to explain it, but it would never prescribe it.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 4:48:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 3:20:53 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/19/2011 6:55:52 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 5/19/2011 1:36:30 PM, innomen wrote:
Attachment can be described as the inability to examine particular assumptions. You become "attached" to certain ideas/concepts/ways of thinking/etc. Often times these assumptions are not true, and even if they are, honestly examining these assumptions will help one gain a deeper understanding of them.

That's fine, fearless and searching inventory of motives. I wouldn't have called it "attachments", but i get it. I would contend that knowing the whys doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Because you know why you feel a certain way doesn't mean you will stop feeling that certain way. A certain game plan, of a spiritual nature IMHO, is necessary as a follow up.

Being aware of what is going on in your head is the first step towards solving the problem. If you aware of something you are doing, and catch yourself doing it, it will become less and less of a problem. You can completely eliminate certain counterproductive behaviors this way.

Yes, the first step, but most people if they get on that first step remain there forever. 'Pride says you need not pass this way, Fear says you need not look'.
Most of spirituality involves what I am describing. This is all part of the game plan.

Actually you've been vague in your meaning of spirituality.

I would say that the purest form of love is not an attachment. The purest love is one of detachment. The only people who have a problem accepting this are those who have problems of their own that they need to sort out. People who get upset if others don't go out of their way to pay them some type of attention.

No no, the purest form of love is a total union where the other is of equal or greater import than the self, and it is reciprocal. It is more than attachment it is oneness.


None of this is possible unless you have the element of detachment that I am speaking of. You aren't contradicting me as much as you might think.

I understand what you are saying, but there is a give and take, where healthy love will create detatchment of what i call 'head trash' and the lack of 'head trash' will allow healthy love.

That said, love is not a requirement to be happy. However, if you are enlightened, it almost naturally follows. Living a life of love will put you on some crazy adventures, and is definitely more fruitful. It is accepting, fearless, faith filled, and as a result very risk taking way of living.. If you are enlightened, these traits naturally follow.

Love is where philosphy, spirituality and humanity all collide and is where the individual has the greatest opportunity for growth. Yes it is also where the greatest risk is involved and where the end result is not guaranteed.

Love is an issue that is rarely discussed here because (I think) so few really have had the experience to be able to discuss it beyond refelections of literature or sex.


Most people don't know what love is. The common perception of love is nothing more than a mental illness, and it is not nearly as desirable or useful as people make it out to be. It is a very tainted.. a different kind of love.

Most people here don't know what love is, a few do, but the median age is about 19 on this site. I think that your future experiences in the area of love may change your understanding of it, or at least i hope so. Love is more than just desirable or useful, it is what completes us. Because no person is perfect no relationship exists without problems, but there is a core of love that actually can be perfection in many cases. We may interfere with how it works in our life, but the love that creates the union, by itself is, or can be perfect.


My love is to God, and God has been very loving back, as I have been gifted with heaven. I do not need to be in a relationship. If one comes along to where I decide to attach myself to one person, that is great, but I don't see it happening in the near future.

I don't believe my understanding of love will change. I went through a lot of pain, misery, and thought to get to the understanding of love that I have now, and I have peace because of it.

Your idea of what love is like to me is very off the mark.

It is one thing to believe that life is weird. It is something else entirely to be aware that life is weird. This can be said about a lot of things.


"Attachment" to physical things are definitely risky to happiness, and one's relationship with them need to be kept clear. You own them, or they own you? But this is when wants and needs are kept in the forefront of the equation.

There are very few "needs" to live. There are very few "needs" to have happiness. The problem is, people often times do not understand what they really "need". When it comes to happiness, it is purely psychological(or spiritual if you prefer that. Spirituality is just self psychology). The only way to find happiness is to examine yourself, and become more aware of the processes going on in your head.

I don't think so. Spirituality involves (usually) purpose and objective benchmarks. Psychology is far less profound in its implications, and is based almost solely on observation and assessments, but no oughts beyond a measurement to the norm. I would agree that there are very few "needs" to be happy, and probably the fewer the better shot you will have at happiness. Don't think you can simply decide to be happy - doesn't work that way

Everything I say about spirituality implies a lot of work. There is no "deciding to be happy".

What you think of spirituality or psychology is not necessarily what is implied by what I am saying. Don't get lost in semantics.

Spirituality is self improvement, which is accomplished by becoming more aware of yourself. This is self psychology. If you are going to dispute this, then you are focusing on something irrelevant to what I am saying.
It may be a tangent, but i don't think it's irrelevant. Self improvement may (or may not) involve spirituality, but it is an end result. Psychology is just a giant blanket that secularists can use to remove any implication of God from the equation. A long time ago i related an experience to someone here what i would call an awakening, or a spiritual experience, and the member that i was speaking with said 'you know there are psychological explanations for what happened to you'. That's a truly silly statement, and i think that's sort of what you may be doing here. My brain's activity, my behavior and thinking patterns can ALWAYS be explained in psychological terms, but it is a less than helpful reduction of the process to those who may be looking. If i say that a person will be happy if they can humble themselves before a power greater than themself, and be grateful to that power for the life they have been given - and the end result is a happier person; psychology might be able to explain it, but it would never prescribe it.

You aren't grasping the meaning behind what I'm saying.

Instead of judging and making opinions on what I am saying, you'd probably do better to ask questions. I'd rather not spend this whole thread correcting the misconceptions of someone who doesn't seem interested in establishing a mutual understanding, as that is what I feel I've been doing.

If you really want to get a better understanding of what I am saying, ask more questions.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp