Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Paul91]

It seems that when people go through general anesthesia, that may be the closest "experience" of death. When one wakes up, there is no memory of anything, not even of time elapsing. You cannot experience non-perception, so let me say this:

There was no experience, therefore the individual experiencer was ABSENT (apart from the unconscious brain tissue). It might be that the individual experiencer was no more or less "there" than their "experience"/non-experience before their own physical conception/birth.

Perhaps there IS experience before conception or after death that is so profound that there is no waking experiential reference point to pin it down, thus zero recall after experience of "unconsciousness".

Thoughts?

How did good householder come here, what made him take birth? Why did he take on account?

Good question.

If it involves "dependent arising", we inherit pre-existing "structures" in a unique form in the context of space and time. These forms do not stand alone, thus continual arising of perceptions occur to the newborn, as the newborn develops over time (and not necessarily in a linear fashion).

Perhaps there is an eternal soul with a unique "stamp", but is bound within a constantly changing universe. Something I find hard to fully elucidate.

[Samana Johann]

As if death would be an end, good householder. If so, people would seek such as an escape, and surely those having such dangerous ideas, do so, meeting the fruits of evil by thoughts, words, speech.

Rather, most seek continuation rather than escape. Hence the popularity of the concept of eternal life, despite there being scant evidence for it.

I would not worry about "evil". That's just concentrated local entropy, which happens from time to time.

Have you always believed in ancient superstitions or were you converted? Why believe in superstitions without solid evidence?

Evidence... what evidence of Sublime or even beyond, would an ant, for example have, relay on. How one remembers, perceives, so one thinks, good householder. Everybody not arrived at the Dhamma, the truth, relays simple on superstitions, simply foolish believes, yet there are perceptions leading upwardly and beyond and perception which just nourish wandering on, and those leading downwardly.

Relaying, seeking refuge in what is subject to aging, sickness, decay, while one self is subject of such, isn't smart at all. At least seeking after more lasting refuge, heavens, would be the first wise step, but to go for such requires to see 1. the uselessness of ants-existence and 2. faith into release, that such is possible.

Dhamma is timeless, good householder, yet it is hard to ever see, meet.

It's right that being, "knowing" or total unaware, seek wandering on, nobody else in charge of existance or non-existance then craving and not-knowing, even in realms of Gods, if not put an end to ignorance (not-knowing).

It's all very well for you, good simian, to denigrate the meaning of an ant's life, to deem it "useless". Ants, like us simians, are part of this planet's great chain of being, whose potentials are greater than we are capable of imagining.

The simile was chosen to get an idea and not to get touched personaly, so maybe good householder likes to give it a new try that leads to higher rather then to dark and small.

Also this simile is useful for developing smart and not unwise conceit: [url=https://forum.sangham.net/index.php?top ... 85#msg8985]The proud beetle in a lump of cowdung[/quote]. Again, not for the purpose to get wrong touched, but for releasing reflection, by proper attention.

[Samana Johann]

It seems that when people go through general anesthesia, that may be the closest "experience" of death. When one wakes up, there is no memory of anything, not even of time elapsing. You cannot experience non-perception, so let me say this:

There was no experience, therefore the individual experiencer was ABSENT (apart from the unconscious brain tissue). It might be that the individual experiencer was no more or less "there" than their "experience"/non-experience before their own physical conception/birth.

Perhaps there IS experience before conception or after death that is so profound that there is no waking experiential reference point to pin it down, thus zero recall after experience of "unconsciousness".

Thoughts?

How did good householder come here, what made him take birth? Why did he take on account?

Good question.

If it involves "dependent arising", we inherit pre-existing "structures" in a unique form in the context of space and time. These forms do not stand alone, thus continual arising of perceptions occur to the newborn, as the newborn develops over time (and not necessarily in a linear fashion).

Perhaps there is an eternal soul with a unique "stamp", but is bound within a constantly changing universe. Something I find hard to fully elucidate.

Like parents, there had been those who provided for becoming, taking account, but it was because of seeking for existance, for certain food, that good householder took on the Gods gift, whether well thought offered, or with selfish thoughts.

[Paul91]

It seems that when people go through general anesthesia, that may be the closest "experience" of death. When one wakes up, there is no memory of anything, not even of time elapsing. You cannot experience non-perception, so let me say this:

There was no experience, therefore the individual experiencer was ABSENT (apart from the unconscious brain tissue). It might be that the individual experiencer was no more or less "there" than their "experience"/non-experience before their own physical conception/birth.

Perhaps there IS experience before conception or after death that is so profound that there is no waking experiential reference point to pin it down, thus zero recall after experience of "unconsciousness".

Thoughts?

Within the kinds of Annihilationism or other wrong views, goodhouseholder will find the reasoning behind his idea. To his suggested also Fortuitous-arising:

“There are, monks, devas called Beings without Perception.[19] But, with the arising of perception, they fall from that company of devas. Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness-concentration such that he recollects the arising of perception, but nothing prior to that. He says, ‘The self & the cosmos are fortuitously arisen. Why is that? Because before I wasn’t; now I am. Not having been, I sprang into being.’

If there is pure awareness without content, it could exist in a timeless state of pure Being. However, can such a state even exist in itself? Perhaps it would be easier to argue that objects pertaining to perception CAN exist without a perceiver. Perhaps there cannot be pure awareness, but rather "pure phenomena" or noumena without any "external" awareness or observation. So as an alternative, if perception involves time, it functions to bring external awareness of Self, which is the eternal, timeless existence of noumena. That would be the object of perception. Pure Being would simply be conscious in itself, holistically, without the necessary split in the process of self-consciousness as it would see itself in its various mirror reflections.

[Samana Johann]

It seems that when people go through general anesthesia, that may be the closest "experience" of death. When one wakes up, there is no memory of anything, not even of time elapsing. You cannot experience non-perception, so let me say this:

There was no experience, therefore the individual experiencer was ABSENT (apart from the unconscious brain tissue). It might be that the individual experiencer was no more or less "there" than their "experience"/non-experience before their own physical conception/birth.

Perhaps there IS experience before conception or after death that is so profound that there is no waking experiential reference point to pin it down, thus zero recall after experience of "unconsciousness".

Thoughts?

Within the kinds of Annihilationism or other wrong views, goodhouseholder will find the reasoning behind his idea. To his suggested also Fortuitous-arising:

“There are, monks, devas called Beings without Perception.[19] But, with the arising of perception, they fall from that company of devas. Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness-concentration such that he recollects the arising of perception, but nothing prior to that. He says, ‘The self & the cosmos are fortuitously arisen. Why is that? Because before I wasn’t; now I am. Not having been, I sprang into being.’

If there is pure awareness without content, it could exist in a timeless state of pure Being. However, can such a state even exist in itself? Perhaps it would be easier to argue that objects pertaining to perception CAN exist without a perceiver. Perhaps there cannot be pure awareness, but rather "pure phenomena" or noumena without any "external" awareness or observation. So as an alternative, if perception involves time, it functions to bring external awareness of Self, which is the eternal, timeless existence of noumena. That would be the object of perception. Pure Being would simply be conscious in itself, holistically, without the necessary split in the process of self-consciousness as it would see itself in its various mirror reflections.

Maybe good householder likes to go through all extreme views pointed out following the link, to possible step forward liberating. To be or not to be isn't a (releasing) question on the path.

[Paul91]

It seems that when people go through general anesthesia, that may be the closest "experience" of death. When one wakes up, there is no memory of anything, not even of time elapsing. You cannot experience non-perception, so let me say this:

There was no experience, therefore the individual experiencer was ABSENT (apart from the unconscious brain tissue). It might be that the individual experiencer was no more or less "there" than their "experience"/non-experience before their own physical conception/birth.

Perhaps there IS experience before conception or after death that is so profound that there is no waking experiential reference point to pin it down, thus zero recall after experience of "unconsciousness".

Thoughts?

How did good householder come here, what made him take birth? Why did he take on account?

Good question.

If it involves "dependent arising", we inherit pre-existing "structures" in a unique form in the context of space and time. These forms do not stand alone, thus continual arising of perceptions occur to the newborn, as the newborn develops over time (and not necessarily in a linear fashion).

Perhaps there is an eternal soul with a unique "stamp", but is bound within a constantly changing universe. Something I find hard to fully elucidate.

Like parents, there had been those who provided for becoming, taking account, but it was because of seeking for existance, for certain food, that good householder took on the Gods gift, whether well thought offered, or with selfish thoughts.

In terms of the why, I believe we to start this life with grace, but learn to "return" this gift through either altruistic/co-operative means or by selfish/competitive means.

[Samana Johann]

How did good householder come here, what made him take birth? Why did he take on account?

Good question.

If it involves "dependent arising", we inherit pre-existing "structures" in a unique form in the context of space and time. These forms do not stand alone, thus continual arising of perceptions occur to the newborn, as the newborn develops over time (and not necessarily in a linear fashion).

Perhaps there is an eternal soul with a unique "stamp", but is bound within a constantly changing universe. Something I find hard to fully elucidate.

Like parents, there had been those who provided for becoming, taking account, but it was because of seeking for existance, for certain food, that good householder took on the Gods gift, whether well thought offered, or with selfish thoughts.

In terms of the why, I believe we to start this life with grace, but learn to "return" this gift through either altruistic/co-operative means or by selfish/competitive means.

Graditude and knowing being given, knowing goodness, sacrifices, offers, knowing that driven by desires and relay on others, is the root of right view, yet, when seeing the hopless wheel of dependency without visible end and begin, gives rise to Samvega and possible Passada. Suggestion: if good householder would find effort to let go of maintaining own views and reasonings for his stand, and go with light heart through the previous links out, such would be of much real gain for him, yet of course total dependent on own choice. Not seeing suffering in own ideas and perceptions, it's not easy, even temporarily, to abound the relay on them.

[Sy Borg]

Rather, most seek continuation rather than escape. Hence the popularity of the concept of eternal life, despite there being scant evidence for it.

I would not worry about "evil". That's just concentrated local entropy, which happens from time to time.

Have you always believed in ancient superstitions or were you converted? Why believe in superstitions without solid evidence?

Evidence... what evidence of Sublime or even beyond, would an ant, for example have, relay on. How one remembers, perceives, so one thinks, good householder. Everybody not arrived at the Dhamma, the truth, relays simple on superstitions, simply foolish believes, yet there are perceptions leading upwardly and beyond and perception which just nourish wandering on, and those leading downwardly.

Relaying, seeking refuge in what is subject to aging, sickness, decay, while one self is subject of such, isn't smart at all. At least seeking after more lasting refuge, heavens, would be the first wise step, but to go for such requires to see 1. the uselessness of ants-existence and 2. faith into release, that such is possible.

Dhamma is timeless, good householder, yet it is hard to ever see, meet.

It's right that being, "knowing" or total unaware, seek wandering on, nobody else in charge of existance or non-existance then craving and not-knowing, even in realms of Gods, if not put an end to ignorance (not-knowing).

It's all very well for you, good simian, to denigrate the meaning of an ant's life, to deem it "useless". Ants, like us simians, are part of this planet's great chain of being, whose potentials are greater than we are capable of imagining.

The simile was chosen to get an idea and not to get touched personaly, so maybe good householder likes to give it a new try that leads to higher rather then to dark and small.

Also this simile is useful for developing smart and not unwise conceit: [url=https://forum.sangham.net/index.php?top ... 85#msg8985]The proud beetle in a lump of cowdung

. Again, not for the purpose to get wrong touched, but for releasing reflection, by proper attention.
[/quote]
Nonetheless, good simian, all life has value to the one doing the living, even if those lives seem unimportant to others.

Looking up, looking down, what is the difference? It's all just part of the larger panorama.

[Samana Johann]

Evidence... what evidence of Sublime or even beyond, would an ant, for example have, relay on. How one remembers, perceives, so one thinks, good householder. Everybody not arrived at the Dhamma, the truth, relays simple on superstitions, simply foolish believes, yet there are perceptions leading upwardly and beyond and perception which just nourish wandering on, and those leading downwardly.

Relaying, seeking refuge in what is subject to aging, sickness, decay, while one self is subject of such, isn't smart at all. At least seeking after more lasting refuge, heavens, would be the first wise step, but to go for such requires to see 1. the uselessness of ants-existence and 2. faith into release, that such is possible.

Dhamma is timeless, good householder, yet it is hard to ever see, meet.

It's right that being, "knowing" or total unaware, seek wandering on, nobody else in charge of existance or non-existance then craving and not-knowing, even in realms of Gods, if not put an end to ignorance (not-knowing).

It's all very well for you, good simian, to denigrate the meaning of an ant's life, to deem it "useless". Ants, like us simians, are part of this planet's great chain of being, whose potentials are greater than we are capable of imagining.

The simile was chosen to get an idea and not to get touched personaly, so maybe good householder likes to give it a new try that leads to higher rather then to dark and small.

Also this simile is useful for developing smart and not unwise conceit: [url=https://forum.sangham.net/index.php?top ... 85#msg8985]The proud beetle in a lump of cowdung

. Again, not for the purpose to get wrong touched, but for releasing reflection, by proper attention.

Nonetheless, good simian, all life has value to the one doing the living, even if those lives seem unimportant to others.

Looking up, looking down, what is the difference? It's all just part of the larger panorama.
[/quote]
The difference lies in regard of liberation, good householder. And one who has no faith that is possible, thinking "all equal", would neither strive for higher nor beyond, just wasting off old merits. It's to that account that life and possibilities matter much, it's to that amount that one has made good use of the many old sacrifices made to come till here, the huge amount of past suffering of oneself and so many others, some liberal, most forced. If one does not value ones own good efforts, hardships, past burdens, how could one ever develop even gratitude and appreciation toward all others.
One who thinks "all equal" has no respect and gratitude toward himself nor toward others, yet his own choice being a little in charge of old gains.

While, once gained an ants existance, one is incapable to understand values beyond the five sense objects and limited kind of known food and fixed livelihood, gotten a seldom to obtain human existance, being not stupid and even meet the truth, is possible to come till the surface at least, and take a look around. One who really values live does not only abound harming others and abound taking of what isn't free given, but also strives to make the best of what so hard to gain. Human life is short, yet no where else so great possibilities, donwardly, up and even beyond.

One caught in the most dangerous conceit of "equal am I" will hardly value anything beyond the food he shares with his kind, denying sublime and freedom from desire for food, nourishing, entertaining.

[Samana Johann]

Right conceit, to go on, to make an effort, is very required. Not striving even for better in the world, denying more sublime, gods, refined existances, how could one even strive to go beyond brith, aging, sickness, and death? It's because of this that wrong view leads to inaction, lazyness, waste and doesn't value anything.

[Samana Johann]

My person thought to leave a door on the topic behind, not wishing to "disturb" much further here: (seeking) Association with the Devas/Gods - associated Rebirth

[Sy Borg]

It's all very well for you, good simian, to denigrate the meaning of an ant's life, to deem it "useless". Ants, like us simians, are part of this planet's great chain of being, whose potentials are greater than we are capable of imagining.

The simile was chosen to get an idea and not to get touched personaly, so maybe good householder likes to give it a new try that leads to higher rather then to dark and small.

Also this simile is useful for developing smart and not unwise conceit: [url=https://forum.sangham.net/index.php?top ... 85#msg8985]The proud beetle in a lump of cowdung

. Again, not for the purpose to get wrong touched, but for releasing reflection, by proper attention.

Nonetheless, good simian, all life has value to the one doing the living, even if those lives seem unimportant to others.

Looking up, looking down, what is the difference? It's all just part of the larger panorama.

The difference lies in regard of liberation, good householder. And one who has no faith that is possible, thinking "all equal", would neither strive for higher nor beyond, just wasting off old merits. It's to that account that life and possibilities matter much, it's to that amount that one has made good use of the many old sacrifices made to come till here, the huge amount of past suffering of oneself and so many others, some liberal, most forced. If one does not value ones own good efforts, hardships, past burdens, how could one ever develop even gratitude and appreciation toward all others.
One who thinks "all equal" has no respect and gratitude toward himself nor toward others, yet his own choice being a little in charge of old gains.

While, once gained an ants existance, one is incapable to understand values beyond the five sense objects and limited kind of known food and fixed livelihood, gotten a seldom to obtain human existance, being not stupid and even meet the truth, is possible to come till the surface at least, and take a look around. One who really values live does not only abound harming others and abound taking of what isn't free given, but also strives to make the best of what so hard to gain. Human life is short, yet no where else so great possibilities, donwardly, up and even beyond.

One caught in the most dangerous conceit of "equal am I" will hardly value anything beyond the food he shares with his kind, denying sublime and freedom from desire for food, nourishing, entertaining.
[/quote]
Indeed, young simian, all is not equal. I have no doubt that an ant's larvae are vastly more important to it than any human, which it would see as a mobile mountain that sometimes smells of food. Likewise, I value my nephew and old dog over most other entities. You no doubt have your own primary circle of concern.

Certainly, young simian, some of us remain proud of the fact that we simians have larger brains and opposable thumbs than other species. I see it as a matter of gratitude rather than pride. I have respect for most other life, and especially so for chordates. I don't care that I'm smarter than them, capable of humans' clever babble and navigating a human society well enough to survive, attributes that they lack. Rather, they have value in their own right, and certainly to themselves. It strikes me as simian arrogance to declare another species' existence to be "worthless" (and that's putting aside their contribution to the natural environment).

[Samana Johann]

It strikes me as simian arrogance to declare another species' existence to be "worthless" (and that's putting aside their contribution to the natural environment).

Then, why not act accordingly and make desire for food, relay on own suffering and suffering of others and end, or stive at least for refined existance, nourishing on joy beyond sensuality, blamless, harmess? By only wishing and merely demanding, one still wouldn't see one's own outcome of deeds, eats. What does good householder rejoice on when touched by nephew and dog? Aren't they just his food for sensual joy. And when apart reason for suffering? What could he give them not taken from others at first place, real own? It requires right conceit to overcome conceit, and nothing then there to blame, if one has gained total release like the Arahats.

[Sy Borg]

It strikes me as simian arrogance to declare another species' existence to be "worthless" (and that's putting aside their contribution to the natural environment).

Then, why not act accordingly and make desire for food, relay on own suffering and suffering of others and end, or stive at least for refined existance, nourishing on joy beyond sensuality, blamless, harmess? By only wishing and merely demanding, one still wouldn't see one's own outcome of deeds, eats. What does good householder rejoice on when touched by nephew and dog? Aren't they just his food for sensual joy. And when apart reason for suffering? What could he give them not taken from others at first place, real own? It requires right conceit to overcome conceit, and nothing then there to blame, if one has gained total release like the Arahats.

Whatever, young simian, I have made my point that human lives are not the only ones that matter.

[Samana Johann]

It strikes me as simian arrogance to declare another species' existence to be "worthless" (and that's putting aside their contribution to the natural environment).

Then, why not act accordingly and make desire for food, relay on own suffering and suffering of others and end, or stive at least for refined existance, nourishing on joy beyond sensuality, blamless, harmess? By only wishing and merely demanding, one still wouldn't see one's own outcome of deeds, eats. What does good householder rejoice on when touched by nephew and dog? Aren't they just his food for sensual joy. And when apart reason for suffering? What could he give them not taken from others at first place, real own? It requires right conceit to overcome conceit, and nothing then there to blame, if one has gained total release like the Arahats.

Whatever, young simian, I have made my point that human lives are not the only ones that matter.

The topic is about that, good householder, and wise if not sacrificing and associating downwardly, but upwardly.

Where could there be prosperity if only seeing equal and lower (easier to let one feel comfortable, sacrificing downwardly)? Who would even recognise the goodness of his first gods, ones parents?