Do right and wrong / good and evil exist

[S:C]

To differentiate between good and evil there has to be some kind of „projection surface“ or „witnessing element“.

 

Judgement is usually a comparison of at least two options made by some instance that is not a part of those or can detach far enough to put those outside of itself by methods of thinking (evaluation).

 

This „projection surface“ can be one individual, a group, a country, all mankind, - in theory.

 

So there is awareness and methods of coming to a conlusion of good and bad / right and wrong within some strand of causal chains.

 

---

Spoiler

getting from the abstract to the concrete e.g. even if you think, it is best to advise a woman who as been emotionally, mentally and physically abused by her husband to get divorced after years of seperation, if you cannot foresee, that she might will have to give half of her pensions to him after the divorce, because she took into account that she’ll have to take her of herself in age, and he didn’t and the law of the country they live in just caluclated that by the written laws.

 

Is the advise for divorce you gave her now still a good one?

 

Why did she even endure all the pain, humiliation, fear and sorrow? Why did she still pamper her husband, threw her hard earned money after him, while he attempted to take her life several times?

There is no rational explanation. Was it something she needed to experience in this life? A psychological misconditioning from her formative years or something that was within her character all along?

 

Is the law good or bad, that forces her to give 50% of her accrued pension claims to the man who despises her, who violated and threatened to take her life, who took her hard earned wage without a ‚thanks!’ and never worked more than 90 days of a fulltime job in his lifetime?

 

In her case – most would agree this would be unjust.

But isn’t the wife not a bit stupid e.g. bad for enduring this? Giving him the possibility to abuse her, hurting (– if you believe so –) her and his innermost (soul? higher self?) and that of their witnessing children and grandchildren down the line?

 

Does the oppressor need the consent of the victim?

That would mean you’d ‚need to go all in’ and die for your ‚self’, your believes and values?

Not everybody’s resurrected, but I believe there’s still lots of self acclaimed martyrs who do not know what damage they do to themselves and those around and even towards the oppressor by acting the way they do.

And despite them believing their sacrifice is for ‚a good cause’ as it’s only themselves’ they are allowing hurt towards to, - it makes me just sick watching it.

 

In most of the cases this law might be observed by the majority as just.

In most of the cases it is used to give the housewife the possibility of „earning“ her own pension claims via a points system for supporting the family doing household chores and childbirth and raising, while the man earns his pension claims working for money and thus supporting the family in his way.

There’s of course always the possibility that someone abuses those possibilities for his own benefit alone, as it happened here.

 

So yes,

---

 

 - good and bad exist in our perception, but are often perceived different by the parties involved.

 

Spoiler

If you ask the husband, I am very sure he does tell a different story, even if the facts stay the same… and is absolutely convinced he did the right thing all along these years of fear, pain, humiliation, abuse and looting.

 

These different perceptions of the same (or other) observed facts give need for regulations, might those be religious, spiritual or those of society (= laws) that show those who are subject to it which consequences the legislature and iudiciary (and sometimes the majority of people) deems right.

 

Written law therefore might be a (good or bad) indicatior for right and wrong (just and moral behaviour) for a specific group of people at a specific timeframe under specific circumstances. Something to orient towards while making decisions about good and bad, right and wrong, maybe. (Written law being independent of justice and moral, as this is the only way to consider a law being right or wrong and correct it.)

 

So what is the ‚right’‚good’, the ‚true’?

Who may be authorized to say "this is it! and not the other." and why not somebody (individual or majorities) or something else (artificial intelligence, heavenly signs through the flight of birds)?

 

Western philosophy of the law has discussed this and came up with two major theories…

 

One: there is some objective higher natural (moral) law that is acknowledged by all beings and somewhat present in all cultures while expressed differently ( = theory of natural law).

 

Two: law is that what is written down (manifested) as such (subjective values within specific time frame, place and group) and exercised by ‚authority’ both via due process and with exeptions of hardship and accepted by those subjected to it (= legal positivism).

 

 

In regards to the theory of natural law, there is the difficulty of how to fixate this ‚rather intuitive feeling’?
(The same difficulty appears for consciously chosen subjective values of humans that are set ad absolutum.)

The closer you get, the more blurred and refracted it gets...

 

Spoiler

 

What is the benchmark of natural law? Nature itself seems mostly careless... when observed. What is the essence of nature itself? Is man part of nature or apart from it (as he watches and witnesses) or both? (...)

But then again what is law?

(...)

 

The closer you get, the more blurred it does become...

having a similarity to Heißenbergs indeterminancy principle or Schrödingers cat, - you never know, if it is there or not.

 

But as safe as the theory of legal positivism seems in contrast, (- because whatever could go wrong with due process of lawmaking and enacting of laws with a people who checks and balances via constitution, revolts and revolutions with whatever is happening -) there’s danger:

 

For one, there is the phenomenon of ‚conscious ignorance’, - not only in smaller circles like stock companies, where share holdes sometimes will not speak up about misbehaviour in the firm with their votes, as the correction will cost them more than what they get out of it.This same principle applies to the whole of a people... most among the many will not care about the ‚simply felt’ unjust rulings and awful laws, as long as themselves have no trouble living with those, (- there’s so much in their lifes that seems more important!), so they will follow orders and answer when asked why they did commit murder – „Because the order given to me by my superior said so!“ (No matter if it’s in war or just politics like e.g. in Germany in the 1930s to 1945s.)

 

 How could that happen? Denial of personal responsibility to evaluate right and wrong and make decisions?

„Give them bread and take away their freedom, as there’s nothing man despises and fears more than dealing with the burden of his conscience and personal responsibility!“ (loosely quoting Dostojewsky here; ...)

 

And on the other hand, how can it be assured, that protest doesn’t happen with every law that is made or felt to be ‚unjust’ in the individual case, so there is the constant clashes, chaos and revolts of civil war? Is a majority of 51% enough to use its power to overthrow its opponents and to enforce their will?

 

Then again, the greed of some, will let them close their eyes towards bribery and otherwise manipulation of the process of lawmaking and enacting of the laws for their own good.

 

So, can we come to the conclusion that we need both for a solid decision of ‚right’ and ‚wrong’? If in which hierarchy?

Does ‚natural law’ as a ‚higher principle’ stand over legal positivism and supercedes it if it breaks the principle? Who decides that again? The closer you get towards it, the more it diffuses again...

 

 

If we look back on the politics in Germany 1930s-1945s, this argument of ‚natural law’ as a ‚higher principle’ can again be turned against itself! You may be rest assured, that the authorities would find some ‚principles’ or ‚reason’, some ‚historic incident’ some ‚cause’ or ‚story’ on which they based their ideology and it was „suffice“ for the social class of judges (not exactly the most uneducated!) to make use of this ideology in the interpretation and reading of ‚vague legal concepts’ and judge-made law and decentralized orders.

 

How could that happen? Denial of the rights of dissidents and public enemies? For some higher cause they called the ‚public cause’? Too vague legal definitions that were used for the purpose?

 

Again, it’s the ‚projection surface’, - the individuum, the group, the people who decide... what action they take, obey or revolt... how they define what they experience in words, what words and definitions they use for their decisionmaking.

Sometimes the decision is made in regard to good and evil, sometimes in regards to prefering one concequence over the other.

 

And still, usually, people do not know all consequences of their actions or sometimes decide the way they do to just avoid those without regard to those for others.

(simplified: „If you don’t go to war to kill others and take the risk to be killed yourself, you and your family will definitly be killed instead!“)

Bearing the consequences later on, (when the perceived probabilities have revealed themselve to result in only one of the possibile results,) in the face of your previously expected outcome might make you quite sceptic in the long run...

 

But that is why it is so necessary that law- / decisionmaking can be observed by the people around and understood and compared with those supporting the decisionmaking process,

so that if one or a majority do not accept what is written there, it can be examined by the courts – or those who do not accept it can try to go into exile instead, overthrow the government or simply accept their fate and concequences while going against the law but follow their feeling of right and wrong in a way of a so called duty of civil disobedience (...).

 

 

Is it possible for the individual to follow this process of consideration (in accord with perceived higher law, in accord with surrounding people, in accord with subjective values) while deciding what is good and what evil?

Or are these challenges too high to demand of everybody all the time? Probably.

That might be why natural law is usually embedded in the constitutions of the people for everybody to voice their opinion and be heard before a court of law (with hopefully due process and competent, attentive and incorruptable judges!) and why it influences the interpretation of laws. And that is why law is usually written down, so that one has some orientation to ponder on (and discuss!) while wandering around here, while looking at it through individual experience and cultural lenses etc.

 

And yet again there arises another question: when determining right and wrong or good and bad, are we looking at intentions or outcomes? Or do we need both?

 

The trouble with looking at intentions is the lack of proof to determine (for yourself and others)  if what happened was due to wilful intent or conditional intend or gross negligence or carelessness? (Isn’t the mind with it’s thoughts and feelings a flaky unreliable thing?!)

 

The trouble with outcomes is, how far and deep can we estimate the results down the causal chain?

Spoiler

one chosen causal chain alone - for enhancement

Can we elaborate all conditions and forsee and evaluate all elements in the chain, even those yet unknown? And what about acts where a will was missing? What about acts where I feel that I have a justification for my actions even though the outcome was as expected? What if I was under the influence of substances or manipulated by somebody else while making my decision?

 

 

There’s help with the concept of „attributability“,  - thus which is not foreseeable, which is not within normal life experience, cannot be attributed to you, (is without your accountability) – and of course help with the concept of self-responsibility and limited areas of responsibility (delegation).

 

Which leaves us with a need for structure and a lot of work for the synapses if we want to consider all of that, while evaluating what is good and bad,  within a limited frame of time and reference via forseeability and cultural lenses of the individal person. Usually of course most of us just run on autopilot...

 

For some element

Spoiler

(all encompassing consciousness? God? the smallest particle and wave in everything? whatever you want to call it)

that might be beyond such limitations, I suppose, it would still be difficult to determine in the whole context if one act of will was good or bad, as the outcome in all directions on all levels must be taken into account: a minus there, a plus there, does it make it equal on a wider scale? In which frame of time and reference is something ‚good’ or ‚bad’, ‚right’ or ‚wrong’?

Maybe it’s more ‚good’ for someone, ‚bad’ for someone else, beneficial (or not!) in the wider (but perceived limited) scheme of things? It sure is easier to determine within a limited context what good and bad is!

 

At what point in which dimension do qualia become indifferent and just act and react within particles and waves? It might be true that it looks mesmerizing and beautiful, this 'belle indifference'. But it doesn’t help much solving everyday problems (e.g. conditions of unrest in movement) in everyday life, especially if you have strong feelings about the specific problem and the readiness to act accordingly!? Interfering with causal chaings outside of your sphere of responsibility might backfire and set you (and those you interfere with) in a greater state of unrest (unforseeability of all effects your action has in the long run, more responsibility, steady assessment etc.) and further away from one desired equilibrium.

 

So if you evaluate a complicated matter and come to the conclusion, that you are willing to take the risk and accept the consequences of your action despite possible fallout, I would argue, that this is the closest way you can come to your personal definition of ‚good’ and ‚bad’, ‚right’ and ‚wrong’ in the specific context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by questionmark
illustration

[old3bob]

On a tangent: I'm not sure how we differentiate between, "dumb and dumber"...could it also be subjective?

 

[Geof Nanto]

How do people feel on watching this video, especially those who claim absolute detachment from any judgement? I know there’s a part of me that would like to see the person addressing the rally hung, drawn and quartered, not as a metaphor but in reality. However, experience has shown me such revenge actions have the sort of consequences @questionmark has so thoroughly outlined above. 

 

And it’s far from the totality of what I feel. I also feel the power of opening my heart in the way Jesus taught. That’s no easy accomplishment, indeed this true essence of Christianity is almost beyond we humans. Yet as I grow older and progress in my inner cultivation, I feel it in smaller, less absolute ways.  To be able to do that, to feel that level of compassion yet remain cohesive as an embodied human, I very much need all my Daoist practice; both xing and ming cultivation and all that entails.

 

From what I’ve glimpsed, opening to the Self does not close one off from the world of suffering but allows one to be big enough to hold it.  

 

 

[steve]

1 hour ago, Yueya said:

From what I’ve glimpsed, opening to the Self does not close one off from the world of suffering but allows one to be big enough to hold it.  

 

🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

[Michael Sternbach]

On 21.12.2021 at 2:23 AM, Daniel said:

What is your opinion of right-and-wrong or good-and-evil?  Do they exist?

 

I vote yes!  They do exist.

 

Theft, Murder, Rape, Kidnapping are all wrong and evil.

 

If wrong and evil exist, then certainly good and right exist.

 

Right. And wrong.

 

Happy New Year!

Michael

[Daniel]

For those who deny that right and wrong exist, do you also deny the "Noble Eight Fold Path" in Buddhism?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#:~:text=In the Mahācattārīsaka Sutta which,release (sammā-vimutti).

 

The eight Buddhist practices in the Noble Eightfold Path are:

1. Right Resolve or Intention: the giving up of home and adopting the life of a religious mendicant in order to follow the path; this concept aims at peaceful renunciation, into an environment of non-sensuality, non-ill-will (to loving kindness), away from cruelty (to compassion).^[25] Such an environment aids contemplation of impermanence, suffering, and non-Self.^[25]
2. Right Speech: no lying, no rude speech, no telling one person what another says about him to cause discord or harm their relationship.^[26]
3. Right Conduct or Action: no killing or injuring, no taking what is not given, no sexual misconduct, no material desires.
4. Right Livelihood: no trading in weapons, living beings, meat, liquor, and poisons.
5. Right Effort: preventing the arising of unwholesome states, and generating wholesome states, the bojjhagā (Seven Factors of Awakening). This includes indriya-samvara, "guarding the sense-doors", restraint of the sense faculties.^[27][25]
6. Right Mindfulness (sati; Satipatthana; Sampajañña): "retention", being mindful of the dhammas ("teachings", "elements") that are beneficial to the Buddhist path.^{[28][note 2]} In the vipassana movement, sati is interpreted as "bare attention": never be absent minded, being conscious of what one is doing; this encourages the awareness of the impermanence of body, feeling and mind, as well as to experience the five aggregates (skandhas), the five hindrances, the four True Realities and seven factors of awakening.^[25]
7. Right samadhi (passaddhi; ekaggata; sampasadana): practicing four stages of dhyāna ("meditation"), which includes samadhi proper in the second stage, and reinforces the development of the bojjhagā, culminating into upekkha (equanimity) and mindfulness.^[30] In the Theravada tradition and the vipassana movement, this is interpreted as ekaggata, concentration or one-pointedness of the mind, and supplemented with vipassana meditation, which aims at insight.
8. Right View: our actions have consequences, death is not the end, and our actions and beliefs have consequences after death. The Buddha followed and taught a successful path out of this world and the other world (heaven and underworld/hell). Later on, right view came to explicitly include karma and rebirth, and the importance of the Four Noble Truths, when "insight" became central to Buddhist soteriology.

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Daniel

[manitou]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

1. soteriology.

 

 

 

Salvation from what?

[old3bob]

58 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

Salvation from what?

 

would seemingly be (stuck)  in converse,  thus wrong view, wrong speech, wrong conduct, etc...

Edited January 5, 2022 by old3bob

[ralis]

For a little perspective.

 

[old3bob]

the seasons on earth (which follow universal law) do not end with eternal winter and thus how could the universe...which also "returns"

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

For those who deny that right and wrong exist, do you also deny the "Noble Eight Fold Path" in Buddhism?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#:~:text=In the Mahācattārīsaka Sutta which,release (sammā-vimutti).

 

The eight Buddhist practices in the Noble Eightfold Path are:

1. Right Resolve or Intention: the giving up of home and adopting the life of a religious mendicant in order to follow the path; this concept aims at peaceful renunciation, into an environment of non-sensuality, non-ill-will (to loving kindness), away from cruelty (to compassion).^[25] Such an environment aids contemplation of impermanence, suffering, and non-Self.^[25]
2. Right Speech: no lying, no rude speech, no telling one person what another says about him to cause discord or harm their relationship.^[26]
3. Right Conduct or Action: no killing or injuring, no taking what is not given, no sexual misconduct, no material desires.
4. Right Livelihood: no trading in weapons, living beings, meat, liquor, and poisons.
5. Right Effort: preventing the arising of unwholesome states, and generating wholesome states, the bojjhagā (Seven Factors of Awakening). This includes indriya-samvara, "guarding the sense-doors", restraint of the sense faculties.^[27][25]
6. Right Mindfulness (sati; Satipatthana; Sampajañña): "retention", being mindful of the dhammas ("teachings", "elements") that are beneficial to the Buddhist path.^{[28][note 2]} In the vipassana movement, sati is interpreted as "bare attention": never be absent minded, being conscious of what one is doing; this encourages the awareness of the impermanence of body, feeling and mind, as well as to experience the five aggregates (skandhas), the five hindrances, the four True Realities and seven factors of awakening.^[25]
7. Right samadhi (passaddhi; ekaggata; sampasadana): practicing four stages of dhyāna ("meditation"), which includes samadhi proper in the second stage, and reinforces the development of the bojjhagā, culminating into upekkha (equanimity) and mindfulness.^[30] In the Theravada tradition and the vipassana movement, this is interpreted as ekaggata, concentration or one-pointedness of the mind, and supplemented with vipassana meditation, which aims at insight.
8. Right View: our actions have consequences, death is not the end, and our actions and beliefs have consequences after death. The Buddha followed and taught a successful path out of this world and the other world (heaven and underworld/hell). Later on, right view came to explicitly include karma and rebirth, and the importance of the Four Noble Truths, when "insight" became central to Buddhist soteriology.

 

hope you get more of answer on this than I did back on page 2...

[Nungali]

46 minutes ago, ralis said:

For a little perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

" I'm  Brahma ! "

[Nungali]

41 minutes ago, old3bob said:

the seasons on earth (which follow universal law) do not end with eternal winter and thus how could the universe...which also "returns"

 

Errrm....  because one is not the other and the seasons on earth are driven by  totally different dynamics than the 'creation and destruction' of Cosmos .  The Cosmos , as someone else put it , is like  'nothingness with twinkles' .   I would add ; rare , occasional and fleeting twinkles.

[natural]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

 

 

 

" I'm  Brahma ! "

I worked with a fella named Bahma by his folks, often called the Bull or Brahma.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

Salvation from what?

 

It's a good question, thank you.  I'm not Buddhist, so I can only offer my minimal knowledge.  I think the wiki article is describing salvation from craving which leads to suffering as well as salvation from the endless cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth.  This is described in the wiki as: 

 

"

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

The Buddha followed and taught a successful path out of this world and the other world (heaven and underworld/hell)

 

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Errrm....  because one is not the other and the seasons on earth are driven by  totally different dynamics than the 'creation and destruction' of Cosmos .  The Cosmos , as someone else put it , is like  'nothingness with twinkles' .   I would add ; rare , occasional and fleeting twinkles.

 

no so in essence although in appearance or scale seemingly so...for at or after the return it all starts over again.
(per Tao)   btw if an eternal winter of black holes  was the end game we would not be here now arguing about it, for that would have  happened already...

Edited January 5, 2022 by old3bob

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

It's a good question, thank you.  I'm not Buddhist, so I can only offer my minimal knowledge.  I think the wiki article is describing salvation from craving which leads to suffering as well as salvation from the endless cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth.  This is described in the wiki as: 

 

 

there is also that saying that goes something like,  "samsara properly understood is Nirvana"...thus freedom from attachments in this or any other world, which is not quite the same as not being in it,  meaning was the historic Buddha still a Buddha while in human form on this earth?   (or anywhere else as He was also depicted in the corners of each realm of and or outside the Tibetan wheel of life)

 

 

A1wheelrealm-56a0c4133df78cafdaa4d32c.webp

Edited January 5, 2022 by old3bob

[Nungali]

51 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

no so in essence although in appearance or scale seemingly so...for at or after the return it all starts over again.
(per Tao)   btw if an eternal winter of black holes  was the end game we would not be here now arguing about it, for that would have  happened already...

 

I agree with the cyclic nature*  but not with the comparison .

 

 

 

*  But not all agree ;

 

.

Though one were strong as seven,

         He too with death shall dwell,

Nor wake with wings in heaven,

         Nor weep for pains in hell;

Though one were fair as roses,

His beauty clouds and closes;

And well though love reposes,

         In the end it is not well.

 

From too much love of living,

         From hope and fear set free,

We thank with brief thanksgiving

         Whatever gods may be

That no life lives for ever;

That dead men rise up never;

That even the weariest river

         Winds somewhere safe to sea.

 

Then star nor sun shall waken,

         Nor any change of light:

Nor sound of waters shaken,

         Nor any sound or sight:

Nor wintry leaves nor vernal,

Nor days nor things diurnal;

Only the sleep eternal

         In an eternal night.

[Nungali]

23 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

there is also that saying that goes something like,  "samsara properly understood is Nirvana"...thus freedom from attachments in this or any other world, which is not quite the same as not being in it,  meaning was the historic Buddha still a Buddha while in human form on this earth?   (or anywhere else as He was also depicted in the corners of each realm of and or outside the Tibetan wheel of life)

 

 

A1wheelrealm-56a0c4133df78cafdaa4d32c.webp

 

Very early on in my journey , I discovered this  (in another way )  from 'white gnosticism ' * .   I was taught that Hinduism only goes so 'far' , Buddhism will take you further  ... but not far enough , there is a crucial misunderstanding 'hidden' within .   Beyond this is a 'type of Hinduism' that goes again  further than ' the trance of sorrow ' .

 

And again .... a type of   ( I'll leave terms like 'white gnosticism, Buddhism and Hinduism behind now )  ... 'enlightenment ' beyond even this  ' "samsara properly understood is Nirvana".   Of course, its hard to perceive from a single incarnations viewpoint , but as we expand that  viewpoint  it comes more into 'view' .. . . .  I feel best described in this  ode to 'THE END '  ( which follows the one to 'DEATH'  .... or to be recited at a funeral ... for those appropriately  'Gnostically Enlightened ' ;

 

 

The End

The DEACON: Unto them from whose eyes the veil of life hath fallen may there be granted the accomplishment of their true Wills; whether they will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with their chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labour and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star, or aught else, unto them may there be granted the accomplishment of their wills.

 

Of course, people like the Australian Aboriginals lived in this  state of Samsara / Nirvana   ... before invasion .    They where people inhabiting a vast 'Garden of Eden ' .... who never got expelled , but the garden got invaded  by other types, who did not seem to have a clue what was going on, about life, spirituality and a whole range of other human traits.

 

Sure, death was ever present , but your spirit just go back to waterhole and  later, live again, your material aspects are passed on to descendants , through you from ancestors , so you 'live again through them , continually' .   Indigenous people didnt have such a sense of isolated individual 'self' that lives and dies , like much of modern man has .   'Self' is 'smeared' through generations , but also very ancient  and possibly 'immortal' (as long as 'the people' survive ) .  Its not too hard a realisation if one can connect with ones genetic consciousness  - ' 7th. circuit '  .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-circuit_model_of_consciousness#Seventh_Circuit

 

 

[old3bob]

18 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Very early on in my journey , I discovered this  (in another way )  from 'white gnosticism ' * .   I was taught that Hinduism only goes so 'far' , Buddhism will take you further  ... but not far enough , there is a crucial misunderstanding 'hidden' within .   Beyond this is a 'type of Hinduism' that goes again  further than ' the trance of sorrow ' .

 

And again .... a type of   ( I'll leave terms like 'white gnosticism, Buddhism and Hinduism behind now )  ... 'enlightenment ' beyond even this  ' "samsara properly understood is Nirvana".   Of course, its hard to perceive from a single incarnations viewpoint , but as we expand that  viewpoint  it comes more into 'view' .. . . .  I feel best described in this  ode to 'THE END '  ( which follows the one to 'DEATH'  .... or to be recited at a funeral ... for those appropriately  'Gnostically Enlightened ' ;

 

 

The End

The DEACON: Unto them from whose eyes the veil of life hath fallen may there be granted the accomplishment of their true Wills; whether they will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with their chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labour and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star, or aught else, unto them may there be granted the accomplishment of their wills.

 

Of course, people like the Australian Aboriginals lived in this  state of Samsara / Nirvana   ... before invasion .    They where people inhabiting a vast 'Garden of Eden ' .... who never got expelled , but the garden got invaded  by other types, who did not seem to have a clue what was going on, about life, spirituality and a whole range of other human traits.

 

Sure, death was ever present , but your spirit just go back to waterhole and  later, live again, your material aspects are passed on to descendants , through you from ancestors , so you 'live again through them , continually' .   Indigenous people didnt have such a sense of isolated individual 'self' that lives and dies , like much of modern man has .   'Self' is 'smeared' through generations , but also very ancient  and possibly 'immortal' (as long as 'the people' survive ) .  Its not too hard a realisation if one can connect with ones genetic consciousness  - ' 7th. circuit '  .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-circuit_model_of_consciousness#Seventh_Circuit

 

 

 

we have our own experiences... and btw. there are many forms of Buddhism and Hinduism and unless one has fully traversed such paths then any conclusions about them is only and really just second hand hear-say about how far they go or don't go... so thanks anyway but I'm not buying it.  

Edited January 6, 2022 by old3bob

[manitou]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

Only the sleep eternal

         In an eternal night.

 

 

I'm ready.

[manitou]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

Of course, people like the Australian Aboriginals lived in this  state of Samsara / Nirvana   ... before invasion . 

 

Like a baby before it learns to smile.

[manitou]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

no so in essence although in appearance or scale seemingly so...for at or after the return it all starts over again.
(per Tao)   btw if an eternal winter of black holes  was the end game we would not be here now arguing about it, for that would have  happened already...

 

 

It's all happening Now.

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

It's all happening Now.

 

except evolution takes time and space...(which Now is big enough for)

 

...To be great is to go on,

To go on is to be far,

To be far is to return..."  from Chap 25 of the T.T.C.

[Nungali]

On 06/01/2022 at 12:32 PM, old3bob said:

 

we have our own experiences... and btw. there are many forms of Buddhism and Hinduism and unless one has fully traversed such paths then any conclusions about them is only and really just second hand hear-say about how far they go or don't go... so thanks anyway but I'm not buying it.  

 

 

You are not buying it  ? 

 

 

Ummmmm .... you 'started it  '  with your own  ' just second hand hear-say'  ;

 

On 06/01/2022 at 10:08 AM, old3bob said:

 

there is also that saying that goes something like,  "samsara properly understood is Nirvana"...thus freedom from attachments in this or any other world, which is not quite the same as not being in it,  meaning was the historic Buddha still a Buddha while in human form on this earth?   (or anywhere else as He was also depicted in the corners of each realm of and or outside the Tibetan wheel of life)

 

 

 

Unless you can cite where in Buddhism  it teaches   "samsara properly understood is Nirvana"..  ?