left the raft in the river

bubonicus

Asiaprod I'll give you a sentence that is the basis of my ideas.


"We are a physical representation of the universe learning to understand itself."

Asiaprod

bubonicus wrote:

Asiaprod I'll give you a sentence that is the basis of my ideas.


"We are a physical representation of the universe learning to understand itself."

Now I have heard that said before, just damned if I can remember where?
It is a Buddhist concept that we ourselves are indeed a small universe, and through the mystic law are also a part of the larger one, which I interpret to mean we are all one
:rolleyes:

bubonicus

There are a lot of meanings you can take from that one sentence.

Generally we are all one because we are all part of the universe.

Each of us is our individual god(concsious part of the universe) that make up in part the whole universe. This fits closely in with Hinduism.

If you could imagine the universe as a child or something that has no understanding of itself and with no way to understand itself. How does it learn. How does it find out what it is or it fits into the greater scheme of things. So ignites life. And hence the universe starts to slowley know what it is.


As for where you have heard that sentence before. It's close to something a dead comedian said once.

Asiaprod

bubonicus wrote:

How does it learn. How does it find out what it is or it fits into the greater scheme of things.

Yes, I am familiar with this concept, but a little differently. The way I saw it was that the universe (as I call it the mystic law) is in fact in a learning process and we, as part of it, are like the scouts if you will. We experience and report back. As we complete each task we unite and then come back (reincarnation) to experience the next piece of the puzzle. This continues. The body we have now is just a vessel, the other part that controls the vessel continues on.

bubonicus

Here's where we may differ.

Reincarnation is a selfish concept. It makes out that you as an individual will keep trying to get it right as it where.

If we are all of the same concsious(universe) then we all live on in each other(which in itself reincarnation), because we are all part of the same universe. The notion that your piece of concsious is different or is be judged after every vessel ends is not my line of thinking.

Do you see every cell in your body as an individual entity or are they the sum of the whole.

Asiaprod

bubonicus wrote:

Here's where we may differ.

No we do not differ. I do not see reincarnation as selfish. I see myself as the sum of the whole. I am reincarnated to to serve my function, which is for the good of the entire entity.
So we actually are in agreement, just the wording differs. Its not about the one, its about the whole of which we are an integral part. We are all connected on a different level

bubonicus

So Asiaprod are you a Buddhist or have you stepped of the wheel of life?

If you havn't stepped off, what's stopping you?

Asiaprod

Asiaprod are you a Buddhist or have you stepped of the wheel of life?

I am a Buddhist and have not stepped of the wheel of life.

If you havn't stepped off, what's stopping you?

You would need to explain why you think I should

bubonicus

Well, my understanding of Buddhism is it is a path to follow to acheive Nirvana. If you acheive Nirvana you can step of the wheel of life. You seem to have a good understanding of things therefore you have acheived elightenment. Therefore you don't need to follow buddha's teachings anymore.

Buddha himself said his 'way' was just a raft to cross a river, once you've crossed you don't need to take the raft with you.

Asiaprod

bubonicus wrote:

Buddha himself said his 'way' was just a raft to cross a river, once you've crossed you don't need to take the raft with you.

Ok, now I understand what you are saying. Therfore in many ways I have indeed stepped of the raft.

But, as you say,you have stepped off, of so what do you do as part of your spiritual practise. Have you arrived, if so, how do you see your function currently?

Nice disscussion:)

bubonicus

Nice to talk to like minded people for a change!

Anyway, I don't have a spiritual practice. I don't subscribe to any belief system. I don't see any as right or wrong. People are free to choose a belief system if the want too. But, all that you know already.

The main point of all belief systems and religions is to answer the big question and I guess it is ultimately "The meaning of life"

I had a discussion with a buddhist priest before about all this. And I was leaning towards the answer to the meaning of life. But I found every time he answered me he answered with a question.

One of the final things he said to me was - " how can you understand the meaning of life when first you have to understand what life is"

At first I told him " you don't need to know how a car works to drive it" He kind of smiled and then I said "it could be for biologists to answer what life is, but I think life and the meaning are one in the same."

He asked me what the meaning of life was. Can you give an answer?

Asiaprod

I had a discussion with a Buddhist priest before about all this. But I found every time he answered me he answered with a question.

Standard Buddhist answer there. Answer a question with another question. Why, a Buddhist if he/she where to be assigned a single definition would be "A seeker" To seek meands to experience yourself. That is the only way to get a definite answer, not second or third hand.


He asked me what the meaning of life was. Can you give an answer?

That is the big question.
Well, I don`t believe there is a single confirmed 100% satisfactory answer to that question. We all have our own take on it and I will try to explain why that is ..

How do I see it. Well, Excelsior in another post in the Christianity group said something wise that really helped me to perceive the meaning of life.
he drew attention to a tapestry and how it looks from the back. A large mass of threads of all colors with no obvious image to see. But when you walk around and view it from the front, suddenly you see the image in all its glory.
I think life is also like this. It is hidden from us for a reason. We are the threads so to speak and we only form part of the image or picture. There is no way we can see the whole image till we pass over and can view it from the proper side. So the answer to that part of your question is we do not know and will never know as long as we are on the back side of the image. We may be able to guess at what that image may be but only for a limited part of it, the part that we are interacting with. When you view the piece where you are from the front, then you will understand. That is what is meant by attaining enlightenment, but it is attained either just before you die or when you pass over. Not a great explanation, but that's how I see it after 20 years study. This is why the priest gave you no answer, he can`t, only you and I can find our role and place in this tapestry that we will for now call life.

So how to proceed, well I think we can both agree on the good thing we can do to lead a positive life. I think this is what we must do. Experience all there is in this life. Study life and interact with as many people as we can. Help others as much as we can, but not to the detriment of ourselves. Study nature and meditate, there is a lot to learn there. Study the evolution of man and of religions. In short, lead a positive and caring life and study the insight of others. This way we fulfill our role and when we pass over we get to see the tapestry in all its glory.
The key is not to look for a meaning of life, there is one, but for the moment it is hidden from us. You are only a part of the sum, you can not see it all. Fulfill you part in the equation, knowing it will all eventually be revealed to you.

Hope this helps a little.

Excelsior

Fascinating conversation guys. I must begin by admitting that I am out of my depth here. I know as much about Buddhism as the Richard Gere knows about acting. Basically, I'm pretending that I can have a conversation with your guys and hoping no one notices.

As I approach the Question, I can't help but view it partially through a lens of history. I am not the first human being. I am not the first Irishman. I am not the first anything but instead depend on everything being passed down the line to me.

And as we look back down the line as far as we can see, the dominant picture is one of bitterness, prejudice, power-plays, war and genocide. Humanity somehow survives and occassionally raises itself up above the gutter-level it sets for itself to achieve a civilisation moment. This can happen through the momentous effort of an individual- Ghandi, Bonhoeffer, Luther King Jr and Mandela come to mind or through whole societies- The New Deal in Roosevelt's America. But these highlights are beacons in the dark. I resonate with the existentialists when they say that life is suffering. Historically, there is a lot of weight in that. Globally today, there is a lot of weight in that.

So as I approach the question of meaning or the human condition or whatever phrase you choose, I want to find a way to explain how I can have such good intentions and my efforts still fall flat. I want to find a way to make life better for everyone now and not just spiritualise the solution or pass it off into another world or life.

So my question to Bubonicus is what affects does his view of flattening the individual into the whole have on morality (in the purest, least legalistic meaning of the word)? How do I make a difference to my African brothers and sisters ravaged by AIDS? How do I make a difference to my leafy south County Dublin brothers and sisters blessed by material wealth and drowning in ennui and depression? How do I make a difference to my literal brothers and sisters in their problems? What difference can I make if "I" is a faulty concept?

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

And as we look back down the line as far as we can see, the dominant picture is one of bitterness, prejudice, power-plays, war and genocide. Humanity somehow survives and occassionally raises itself up above the gutter-level it sets for itself to achieve a civilisation moment.

How very perseptive of you, this is exactly the case we see as we look back, and without, intervention, as we also see it looking forward. This is why the wheel or circle as a symbol plays such a profound role in Buddhism. This is why we say life, karma, all is cyclical.

I resonate with the existentialists when they say that life is suffering.

You may/may not be aware that the tenents upon which Buddhism was founded was to eliviate 4 suffereings of mankind
Birth, sickness, old age and death. The four sufferings from which many cannot escape.

Historically, there is a lot of weight in that. Globally today, there is a lot of weight in that.

INHO there has never been as much as there is to day. Everything and one are suffering

So my question to Bubonicus is what affects does his view of flattening the individual into the whole have on morality. How do I make a difference to my literal brothers and sisters in their problems? What difference can I make if "I" is a faulty concept?

Great question, I look forward to hearing the answer.

bubonicus

Sorry for the delay, should have left a message before I left. I'm over in Scotland visiting the brother so limited use of the internet.

Just quickly.
Quote
"That is the big question.
Well, I don`t believe there is a single confirmed 100% satisfactory answer to that question. We all have our own take on it and I will try to explain why that is .."

Asiaprod- you have already answered yourself I think. Meaning is simple after you spend enough time thinking about it. It's like the Karma thing, if you look deep enough the meaning of Karma is simple.

I think it is the same for life :
Quote
"Yes, I am familiar with this concept, but a little differently. The way I saw it was that the universe (as I call it the mystic law) is in fact in a learning process and we, as part of it, are like the scouts if you will. We experience and report back. As we complete each task we unite and then come back (reincarnation) to experience the next piece of the puzzle. This continues. The body we have now is just a vessel, the other part that controls the vessel continues on."

All our ideas have common and very sensible outlooks. What you say from a buddhist perspective and what Excelsior from a christian perspective. And I from a complete neutral perspective. Maybe I look from in front of the tapestry. I find after questioning something so much it ends up being kind of obvious and I think sometimes things are so obvious people don't accept them because life should not be so meaningless.

So here you go,
We all agree we are all part of the same universe. Actually we are all made of Star stuff. If humans or animals are the concsious parts of the universe and that in it's self means the universe is experiencing itself through us. And if our own experiences and discovery's ad to the universe understanding itself. well our meaning is to experience and discover.

As to Excelsior :
Quote
"So my question to Bubonicus is what affects does his view of flattening the individual into the whole have on morality (in the purest, least legalistic meaning of the word)? How do I make a difference to my African brothers and sisters ravaged by AIDS? How do I make a difference to my leafy south County Dublin brothers and sisters blessed by material wealth and drowning in ennui and depression? How do I make a difference to my literal brothers and sisters in their problems? What difference can I make if "I" is a faulty concept?
"

I'll answer this one again, have to go.

Asiaprod

Sorry for the delay, should have left a message before I left. I'm over in Scotland visiting the brother so limited use of the internet.

Must be cold up there, I trust you are availing of the local drinks

Asiaprod- you have already answered yourself I think. Meaning is simple after you spend enough time thinking about it. It's like the Karma thing, if you look deep enough the meaning of Karma is simple.

The only problem is that while its good to have come to the answer, how do you know that answer is correct. For that matter, what is you answer to it?

All our ideas have common and very sensible outlooks. What you say from a buddhist perspective and what Excelsior from a christian perspective. And I from a complete neutral perspective. Maybe I look from in front of the tapestry. I find after questioning something so much it ends up being kind of obvious and I think sometimes things are so obvious people don't accept them because life should not be so meaningless.

That sounds like you are implying that life is meaningless then?

We all agree we are all part of the same universe. Actually we are all made of Star stuff. If humans or animals are the concsious parts of the universe and that in it's self means the universe is experiencing itself through us. And if our own experiences and discovery's ad to the universe understanding itself. well our meaning is to experience and discover.

I am inclined to think that without explaining the Universe and how you see it, it is very hard to see your answer in the proper light. What is the Universe to you? If we are collection points for the Univers`s experience then this emplies that the universe is some kind of sentient entity. Can you define this entity in a way we can better understand it.

Yoda

Meaning of life… meaning of life…

Life is. We have life.

What do you mean by "meaning"?

bubonicus

Hi,

Sorry for the delay in getting back. So much happening over the last few weeks..

Well it looks like I am giving you all more questions than answers. And I'm finding it hard to answer you all individually. So I will just give a quick answer to Excelsior and Yoda and then try and give a brief outline of my take on our place, meaning, what ever you want to call our purpose... if any????

to Excelsior:
Quote
"So my question to Bubonicus is what affects does his view of flattening the individual into the whole have on morality (in the purest, least legalistic meaning of the word)? How do I make a difference to my African brothers and sisters ravaged by AIDS? How do I make a difference to my leafy south County Dublin brothers and sisters blessed by material wealth and drowning in ennui and depression? How do I make a difference to my literal brothers and sisters in their problems? What difference can I make if "I" is a faulty concept?
"

I'm not sure what you want me to say to this. You seem to be asking me that if we are all one, how does that change the morality of mankind.

To answer your question. it doesn't change anything. If you want to help somebody go and help them, knowing that we are all one, should just inspire you more.

Also "I" is not a faulty concept. You still have individual thought to make your own mind up.


So on to Yoda:
Quote:
"Meaning of life… meaning of life…

Life is. We have life.

What do you mean by "meaning"?"

What to mean by "mean"????, I'm afraid you walked into that one.

And you are right - "LIFE IS"

Asiaprod

Yoda wrote:

Meaning of life… meaning of life…

Life is. We have life.

What do you mean by "meaning"?

I think you could possibly rephrase the question to
Why am I here and what is my purpose in existing. Now thats a Question and I am dying to hear the answer.

AnonymousBloke

Asiaprod wrote:

I think you could possibly rephrase the question to
Why am I here and what is my purpose in existing. Now thats a Question and I am dying to hear the answer.

When these discussions about life, the meaning of the universe and everything get to this point my head hurts and I think of those Zen dudes who say "Go and drink tea"

Time for a cuppa for me anyway

Asiaprod

AnonymousBloke wrote:

When these discussions about life, the meaning of the universe and everything get to this point my head hurts and I think of those Zen dudes who say "Go and drink tea"

Must be all the tea causing those headaches

AnonymousBloke

Asiaprod wrote:

Must be all the tea causing those headaches

nah, I'm drinking herbal, innit

Doc Farrell

a very interesting conversation indeed. thank you.

Goodshape

Seconded (or third or forthed at this stage maybe). Good conversation.

bubonicus, I agree with most or all of what you've said and have come to similar conclusions myself -- but, of course, a question (and maybe Asiaprod or Yoda could answer this too) :

You said upon reaching enlightenment or finding Nirvana (one and the same, yes?) it is time to 'step of the wheel of life' and no longer neccessary to follow the teachings of Buddah. Is this meant to be a goal for this life, or are you talking about transendence in the next?

For the record I'm not a Budhist. Like yourself, bubonicus, I don't subscribe to any belief system, but I am interested in many of them for the information they teach -- and Budhisim seems to me to have more to offer than many.

Asiaprod

Goodshape wrote:

You said upon reaching enlightenment or finding Nirvana (one and the same, yes?) it is time to 'step of the wheel of life' and no longer necessary to follow the teachings of Buddha. Is this meant to be a goal for this life, or are you talking about transcendence in the next?

Ok this is going to be difficult so please bear with me, also, thanks for giving me the opportunity of getting this down.
What is Nirvana/Enlightenment? Doctrinally Nirvana is a term used to define amind which no "longer is coming (bhava) and going (vibhava)", but which has attained a statis in perpetuity, whereby "liberation (vimutta) can be said to hold sway.
Wow....impressive, but what does all that mean.
Nirvana is not a place nor a state, it is an absolute truth to be realized, and a person can do so without dying. When a person who has realized nirvana dies, his death is referred as his fully passing away, since this last life was his last link to the cycle of death and rebirth (Samsara) and he will not be reborn in this world again. Buddhism holds that the ultimate goal and end of existence is the realization of nirvana; what happens to a person after this cannot be explained, as it is outside of all conceivable experience. This is where the more modern term for Nirvarna comes in, Enlightenment.
Gautama Buddha sometimes refers to nirvana as amata 'immortality'. Elsewhere the Buddha calls nirvana 'the unconditioned element' (i.e., that which is not subject to causation). Nirvana is impossible to define directly; it can only be experienced or realized. While some of the associated effects of nirvana can be identified, a definition of nirvāna can only be approximated by what it is not. It is not the clinging existence with which man is understood to be afflicted. It is not any sort of becoming. It has no origin or end. It is not made or fabricated. It has no dualities, so that it cannot be described in words. It has no parts that may be distinguished one from another. It is not a subjective state of consciousness. It is not conditioned on or by anything else. It should also be noted that the Buddha discouraged certain lines of speculation, including speculation into the state of an enlightened being after death, on the grounds that these were not useful for pursuing enlightenment; thus definitions of nirvāna might be said to be doctrinally unimportant.
In a nut shell, we cannot define it. We can talk about. Say what we feel it might be, but none of us know exactly what it is. The closest I in my limited understanding can come to is that it is a state of existence in which we see all, know all, and understand all, but are no longer part of this world, nor are we influenced by it. We are totally free of all earthly constraints. This is why we cannot be reborn again. That is also why anyone who tells you they have reached enlightenment, is blowing hot air out their proverbial Butt. You cannot exist in this world as an enlightened being, but you can have moments of enlightenment where you really get a deep insight into things. The very act of attaining enlightenment would act to eventually separate us from this world for ever. And so Bubonicus is 100% correct when he states that upon reaching enlightenment or finding Nirvana (one and the same thing) it is time to 'step of the wheel of life' and no longer necessary to follow the teachings of Buddha. So to clarify this just a little,
'step of the wheel of life' means to fully pass away (i.e. not come back in a reincarnated form), no longer necessary to follow the teachings of Buddha is correct because we would now be in a state of existence in which we see all, know all, and understand all just as he did, but are not under the influences of this world. We are liberated, free and released from all sufferings. What happens next, I cant wait to find out.
In answer to the last question...Is this meant to be a goal for this life?....to me, its not so much the goal, as it is the purpose of this life.
Please anyone feel free to pick this apart or to add to it. It is a very interesting topic, but oh so hard to write clearly on.

Asiaprod

Doc Farrell wrote:

a very interesting conversation indeed. thank you.

Do chip in, in Buddhism, everyone has valid points to make. Nothing is ever wasted.

Goodshape

Asiaprod wrote:

Ok this is going to be difficult so please bear with me, also, thanks for giving me the opportunity of getting this down.

And thanks for the reply.

To be honest : no further questions, your honor . The responce was more than I hoped for and I think - along with other things I've read on the subject - I can get a fairly clear understanding from it.

Buddhisim certainly is an interesting 'relisophy' . I feel inspired to learn more.

(also, I found it interesting that after reading and thinking about this before going to bed last night, I had one of the best restful sleeps I've had in a fair while and woke up feeling great probably just a coincedence)

Asiaprod

Goodshape wrote:

I found it interesting that after reading and thinking about this before going to bed last night, I had one of the best restful sleeps I've had in a fair while and woke up feeling great probably just a coincedence)

Probably just that;)
Feel free to question me anytime, its nice to converse with someone on a subject I do know a little about.

bubonicus

Hi ,

looks lke this topic took of without me. Well I'm back from North Carolina and I've been very busy, but here's a little more.

Asiaprod wrote:

The only problem is that while its good to have come to the answer, how do you know that answer is correct. For that matter, what is you answer to it?

That sounds like you are implying that life is meaningless then?

I guess the meaning of life is irrelevant. But If you need a meaning in your life which is what most people need. I would say it is creation and discovery.

Asiaprod wrote:

I am inclined to think that without explaining the Universe and how you see it, it is very hard to see your answer in the proper light. What is the Universe to you? If we are collection points for the Univers`s experience then this emplies that the universe is some kind of sentient entity. Can you define this entity in a way we can better understand it.

I'm talking about the universe on a scientific level. And it still works on a spiritual level. The fact of science is, we are part of the universe. The very fact we have sentient thought makes the universe sentient. All that we experience the universe experiences. If you discover something nothing else in the universe has discovered then the universe has discovered it too. So it goes back to "We are a physical representation of the universe learning to understand itself."

Asiaprod

Good Lord, welcome back Bubonicus, I thought we had lost you. I expected to hear you were living the life of an enlightened man among the craggy Tors of the Scottish highland.;)

Hi looks like this topic took of without me

When the student is ready the teacher will appear,

I guess the meaning of life is irrelevant.

Come on, irrelevant. That is a very depressing outlook. My life is anything but irrelevant.

But If you need a meaning in your life which is what most people need. I would say it is creation and discovery.

Ok, but if you are going to say this, I think you need to explain it. It is not fair to just throw out word. A Buddhist, is supposed to learn and teach others. Individual words are meaningless. Discovery could possibly stand alone, creation cannot.
I am not trying to cut you short on this or undermine in any way what you are saying, so please do not misunderstand any of my reply, I too am still learning. Frankly, I personally am not concerned about the universe on a scientific level. I will leave that stuff to the scientists of which I am not one. The earth was, flat, the earth was round, the earth was hollow, we lived inside it, we lived on it. This stuff just goes on and on.
I am interested in life, in particular, in my life and what I should do with my life going forward. In what tools I have available to me, what teaching and great words apply to me or can show me what to do. I cannot debate on the level of ....We are a physical representation of the universe learning to understand itself...unless you take time to explain just what all that means and how it relates to me.
If it is your own private insight based on you understanding of Buddhism that is wonderful, if it fulfills your life, makes it worthwhile, adds excitement to your day that is wonderful in triplicate. If it can do the same for others, that is wonderful to the extreme. Then please explain it to others. There are too many mystical one-liners floating around that originally sound very knowledgeable and insightful, but at the end of the day say absolutely nothing. That is unless they are explained. I know you have a lot to say from previous dialogues, and now we have a lot more people on board keen to debate and learn.
The floor is your, I am keen to understand this better and learn from you.
Go ahead, teach me, don’t confuse me.:)

bubonicus

Asiaprod wrote:

]Come on, irrelevant. That is a very depressing outlook. My life is anything but irrelevant.

I never said your life is irrelevant. I said the meaning of life is irrelevant. If we are all one because we are all part of the same universe, Our lives are as relevant as everything that makes up the universe. You are made from star stuff and involved in the cosmic cycle of life. Buddha's era could not see past the sky and had thoughts of humanity being the center of everything. I would like to think that humanity has moved on from this(well some). People back then tried to explain there excistence with very limited knowledge. But we know now the unverise is huge and the meaning of our lives becomes irrelevant. If we find out what the universe is, we find out who we are. And even this might not answer our questions. Because then where did the universe come from. But we must strive to find out. Hence we should try and discover as much as possible in our short lives.

Asiaprod wrote:

[Ok, but if you are going to say this, I think you need to explain it. It is not fair to just throw out word. A Buddhist, is supposed to learn and teach others. Individual words are meaningless. Discovery could possibly stand alone, creation cannot.



I am not trying to cut you short on this or undermine in any way what you are saying, so please do not misunderstand any of my reply, I too am still learning. Frankly, I personally am not concerned about the universe on a scientific level. I will leave that stuff to the scientists of which I am not one. The earth was, flat, the earth was round, the earth was hollow, we lived inside it, we lived on it. This stuff just goes on and on.

As a Buddhist or a human. You need to know things on a basic scientific level. Otherwise you are making no better speculations about your life and it's origions than Buddha did. I'm not saying you need to be Stephan Hawkings or anything, but understanding how vast the universe is, humbles me. It stops me looking at humanity from a human perspective. Knowing that one day if humans don't leave earth our race will die. Then what was this conversation ever about. Then all this would be irrelevant.

Asiaprod wrote:

I am interested in life, in particular, in my life and what I should do with my life going forward. In what tools I have available to me, what teaching and great words apply to me or can show me what to do. I cannot debate on the level of ....We are a physical representation of the universe learning to understand itself...unless you take time to explain just what all that means and how it relates to me.
If it is your own private insight based on you understanding of Buddhism that is wonderful, if it fulfills your life, makes it worthwhile, adds excitement to your day that is wonderful in triplicate. If it can do the same for others, that is wonderful to the extreme. Then please explain it to others. There are too many mystical one-liners floating around that originally sound very knowledgeable and insightful, but at the end of the day say absolutely nothing. That is unless they are explained. I know you have a lot to say from previous dialogues, and now we have a lot more people on board keen to debate and learn.
The floor is your, I am keen to understand this better and learn from you.
Go ahead, teach me, don’t confuse me.:)

I'm sorry Asiaprod, I'm not trying to confuse you. It's very hard to say something that seems so simple(ish) to me. But I did take nearly thirty years to get here. Try and stop looking at this from a Buddhist perspective. I'm not saying to stop being a Buddhist(well maybe I am):D . But you need to clear your mind of all pre- programmed way's of thinking. Philosophy is the love of knowledge. But if you look at knowledge from a certain way of thinking in the first place, then that's how you come to understand it. To explain this, you as a Buddhist strive for enlightenment or Nirvana. Well what if there is no Nirvana or Enlightenment?. You need to be open to all possibilites. I only have ideas of who and what we are, but I'm open to all possiblities.

Asiaprod

bubonicus wrote:

I never said your life is irrelevant. I said the meaning of life is irrelevant.

That was a great post bubonicus, I do appologise for missunderstanding what you were trying to say:( ....then again, you did not exactly say it in the easiest of words.:)

There is a lot to talk about here, now I need to hit the Scottish hills myself for some peace to digest all this. However, I do agree very much with your last statement...."You need to be open to all possibilites."

Asiaprod

Hello Bubonicus,
I would like to return to your posting. Like you I have spent 30 years at this and I am very aware that there are many things I have yet to come to grips with. Therfore, I am going to be very direct in asking these questions.

The fact of science is, we are part of the universe. The very fact we have sentient thought makes the universe sentient.

You have two interesting points here 1. The universe is sentient, how do you arrive at that conclusion? To most it would be insentient. I think most would agree that if I kick a rock the likelihood is greater that I am the one that is going to feel the pain. I do not expect to hear the rock say ouch. Yet that rock is also part of the universe and should according to what you say also be sentient?
Number 2. the fact of science is that we are part of the universe. What fact of science and how do you define being part of the universe. I agree that as an entity, i.e human kind, we inhabit a small rock circling a sun in a small corner of the Galaxy so we could therefore be classified as being part of the Galaxy, but that is a geographical issue. That is not what I think you are implying.

All that we experience the universe experiences. If you discover something nothing else in the universe has discovered then the universe has discovered it too. So it goes back to "We are a physical representation of the universe learning to understand itself."

For this to hold true, you have to explain how the universe is sentient. Then, how we are connected to it. Being made of starstuff does not quite cut it as an answer.

If we find out what the universe is, we find out who we are. And even this might not answer our questions. Because then where did the universe come from. But we must strive to find out. Hence we should try and discover as much as possible in our short lives.

OK strait question, what have you found out so far?

As a Buddhist or a human. You need to know things on a basic scientific level. Otherwise you are making no better speculations about your life and it's origions than Buddha did. I'm not saying you need to be Stephan Hawkings or anything, but understanding how vast the universe is, humbles me. It stops me looking at humanity from a human perspective. Knowing that one day if humans don't leave earth our race will die. Then what was this conversation ever about. Then all this would be irrelevant.

I think I am quite accomplished on a scientific level. That is my job, scientific communications. I can go along with all this except for "understanding how vast the universe is, humbles me and It stops me looking at humanity from a human perspective. Why does it humble you? What other perspective is their apart from the human one. What you say here implies that in your journey you have managed to find a way to stop being a human temporarily to enable you to see things from a different perspective. That is a major accomplishment that should be shared, no?

I'm sorry Asiaprod, I'm not trying to confuse you. It's very hard to say something that seems so simple(ish) to me

You could at least try, I do. Knowledge is only knowledge as long as its shared, other wise its nothing more than a secret.

Try and stop looking at this from a Buddhist perspective. I'm not saying to stop being a Buddhist(well maybe I am)

OK, in this thread I am going to adopt a non-programmed way's of thinking, including that maybe I should stop being a Buddhist. Now please explain to me where you are coming from?

You need to be open to all possibilites. I only have ideas of who and what we are, but I'm open to all possiblities.

I believe I have accredited you with this comment in the Karma discussion. My mind is now open, I would like you to now explain to me who and what we are as you see it.