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

[Belinda]

Not all of us can relinquish the egoself because if everybody did so there would be no possible way the saints and seers could live to tell the tale.

If good householder joins than the relation grows to 1:999,999. And as if good householder ever gave even a spoon to saints... A mind dwelling in wrong view is small, ugly, hateful, stingy,... a mind corrupted by Marx.

Ad hominem from Samana.

When encouraging people to do good, and that there is no need to follow fools, they regard it as ill-will. So what to do with deluded small-minded who can't even imagine a refined sphere, fearing that their usual hell get's lost.

If something told was wrong, may good householder let it be known. Social means to give rightly obtained, by own sweat accumulated.

Idolatry is accepting an idea without first subjecting it to reason, conscience, and experience.

It's impossible for frail children of time and relativity to imagine a "refined sphere" that is , refined of time and relativity.
Social means to give to those who need and take from those who can give. If you are not in need, Samana, you may thank whatever God you worship that you are not in need.

[Samana Johann]

Robin hoods, thieves, don't ever have access to heavens. Immoral has no access. Wrong, for whom ever, is wrong. And stingy greedy wishing to play good, just leads to destruction. Who is that lazy poor who like to judge of whom deserves what, who are those ugy children of lazy Marx who bring unrest all over this world.

[Sy Borg]

One can imagine that something like the Garden of Eden (probably multiple) existed within the fertile crescent of ancient times.

No doubt that the myth refers to humans' move from sentience to sapience. Human awareness of time passing, resulting in an awareness of death, has its survival advantages but it also has its costs.

We have more to fear because we perceive unfolding events up ahead rather than responding to each event as it comes. We worry about the sexual impact of our nakedness on others rather than just letting it all flow. We lose that perpetual flow state, no longer living in the present like other animals, but instead we are burdened with our past mistakes and future concerns.

Thus, we were cast out of Eden, never to return (in the mythology, Eden is guarded by cherubim - which are not cute, plump archers but an angelic being, huge and formidable, with the face of a lion, an ox, a human, and an eagle).

I feel the lesson from this myth is understanding. We are all in the same boat. We are flawed, and life is not easy. We can stand in judgement of everything, or we can try to appreciate the dynamics that lead humans to do problematic things.

[Belinda]

One can imagine that something like the Garden of Eden (probably multiple) existed within the fertile crescent of ancient times.

No doubt that the myth refers to humans' move from sentience to sapience. Human awareness of time passing, resulting in an awareness of death, has its survival advantages but it also has its costs.

We have more to fear because we perceive unfolding events up ahead rather than responding to each event as it comes. We worry about the sexual impact of our nakedness on others rather than just letting it all flow. We lose that perpetual flow state, no longer living in the present like other animals, but instead we are burdened with our past mistakes and future concerns.

Thus, we were cast out of Eden, never to return (in the mythology, Eden is guarded by cherubim - which are not cute, plump archers but an angelic being, huge and formidable, with the face of a lion, an ox, a human, and an eagle).

I feel the lesson from this myth is understanding. We are all in the same boat. We are flawed, and life is not easy. We can stand in judgement of everything, or we can try to appreciate the dynamics that lead humans to do problematic things.

"Sentience to sapience" sums up the message of the Garden of Eden myth. Human knowledge of death , past, and future is feelingly described by Robert Burns in his poem "To a Mouse". I too feel the lesson from the Eden myth is understanding, exactly as you describe . Your "never to return" with your explanation of what cherubim actually were ----to the author of the myth----- is especially sad . Sapience gives us freedom that mice lack, and sapience also gives us responsibility, would you not agree. Would you like to comment on the nature and extent of this responsibility in today's troubled world especially as regards personal political stances?

https://www.rcsdk12.org/cms/lib/NY01001 ... lation.pdf

[Sy Borg]

Darn Scots, why don't they speak English? :) I had a Scottish friend for many year and I swear I only understood 70% of that thick Scottish brogue. Maybe. Great guy but it was exhausting having to concentrate as he spoke.

I don't think sapience necessarily beings responsibility. I've seen no evidence of such responsibility, based on history. What I've seen are highly effective players in a fiercely competitive game of life, where each sentient/sapient animal can only survive by killing or exploiting other life forms. The dog-eat-dog system seemed more reasonable before the evolution of brains.

A zero sum world combined with advanced brains that hope for morality and justice is a rather cruel configuration, but that's the situation ... at this stage.

[Sushan]

Thank you for your thoughtful interpretation and the references, which enrich our understanding of Buddhist cosmology and the Dhamma's practical applications.

Your description of the Garden of Eden through a Buddhist lens—as a metaphorical higher realm within the sensual world—provides a compelling perspective that invites us to consider the existential dimensions of myths and spiritual teachings across cultures.

It's intriguing to explore the parallels you draw with the concept of Right View and the implications of believing or denying certain existential realms. This reminds us of the pragmatic approach used in the sutras, where actions and beliefs are seen not merely in terms of doctrinal correctness but also for their practical impacts on ethical living and spiritual progress.

Given the texts you cited, I am particularly interested in discussing how these views on realms and existence might inform our actions within our communities and interactions with the environment, especially in times of global uncertainty. How do you see these teachings guiding us in addressing broader social and ethical challenges today?

"Times/conditions" are always uncertain, insecure. Given that a heavenly existence has an extreme longer lifespan "security" and much suffering can't be met there, was always the reason for building relations to higher realms.

In days where the lowest equal factor is praised as refuge, those realms are far away for most.

How ever, the Sublime Buddha provided a complex set of arguments for all kind of "philosophers" in the "Safe Bet" Sutta, just simple to guide to a better and secure. To accept right view works for this world benefical, even if there would be no next world.

One who, at least, believes that Big brothers are always watching and encouraging toward better, wouldn't tend to be heedless, wouldn't hope that evil can be hidden.

Btw. the partical externalism view, like most religions, are well explained in how they come to be and why there are those falling out of the paradise: zugangzureinsicht*org/html/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.than_en.html#dn1sec5

Spoken on environment: refined realms are Pari-thana (neighboring realms) and certain there is a terrible relation globally, which naturally leads to the situation that refined support and protection nearly got lost.

It's the nature of going after destroying of Sublime, that those who disregarded their lord will find themselves helpless in the desert. It's to doubt that most devoted Brahma-google will help to increase long-life esteem happiness and strange.

As for those who think maybe good to give it a try to start to build up good relation with more sublime being, here an encouragement:

In whatever place
a wise person makes his dwelling,
— there providing food
for the virtuous,
the restrained,
leaders of the holy life —
he should dedicate that offering
to the devas there.
They, receiving honor, will honor him;
being respected, will show him respect.
As a result, they will feel sympathy for him,
like that of a mother for her child, her son.
A person with whom the devas sympathize
always meets with auspicious things.

So even if one does not strive for other then another human existence, it's smart not to neglect them, like a villager is smart if honor and respect the village chief and authorities, a child elders.

You aptly point out the transitional nature of 'times/conditions,' suggesting a philosophical alignment with existentialism, which emphasizes individual freedom, choice, and the inherent uncertainty of the human condition. In existential thought, much like in the Buddhist understanding, there is recognition of life's impermanence, which prompts a search for meaning or stability in higher or more stable realms.

Your analogy of the current social admiration for the "lowest equal factor" can be contrasted with the existential quest for authenticity. This quest often challenges societal norms that may prioritize conformity over genuine individual expression—akin to wearing 'masks' in societal interactions, which Buddhism might equate to the illusions or 'maya' that cloud true understanding.

The practical aspect of your message, encouraging respect and offerings to those who embody virtuous lives, resonates with the philosophical notion of 'reciprocity' found in many cultures and ethical theories, such as the Golden Rule found in Christian contexts or the Confucian practice of mutual respect and familial piety.

In light of our discussion about the Garden of Eden, whether as fact or metaphor, your points enrich the dialogue by suggesting that such paradises or pure lands—whether Eden, Nirvana, or the heavenly realms described in the suttas—serve as symbols or targets for ethical living and spiritual striving. These stories or beliefs, whether literal truths or instructive myths, guide individuals towards a life of virtue and contemplation, aiming for a state of existence beyond the ordinary sufferings of life.

Would you say that the stories of these realms serve as both ethical and spiritual guides in the Buddhist tradition? How do they inform the daily practices and long-term goals of the modern Buddhist community?

One should not think that modern "Buddhist" lay communities have taken/take the medicine right, good Sushuan.
The teaching and training is a step by step one. As long as one shows no signs of joy in generosity, sees no benefit, fruits from it, one would not be taught on virtues (since to attached to possession, no place for moral), seeing benefit in virtue, joy, one gets taught on heavens, andcthe path to them. ...the danger of sensuality/birth... renouncing... and only when seeing benefit in renouncing (seeing danger and debts all around) taught the Ariya Dhamma and path for ending stress (till meditation).

Teaching meditation to someone without right view, leads just to wrong liberation, increasing of wrong.

In daily practice of those with faith the honor, devotion and sacrifices toward refined beings all around increases "environmental" care, goodwill and gratitude. The praised reflection on the goodness equal gods within oneself (once gained) leads one to joy with oneself, easy leads into "garden of edens" all the time, and this joy, when absence of sensuality, can lead into the Brahma realms, to meditation that is path-factor as well.

It motivates and gives drive that's not of flesh. Similar like thoughts on much money in the future motivate to work, to keep rules... yet those things are where insecure and sure to be lost. Having gained what is called Ariya-teasures, nobody can take them away and one has always and everywhere means to escape burdens and joy with oneself, since rich, really rich.

Doing merits, good deeds, is still a little common in old world. Instead of eating off old merits to gain short joy, people with religion serve and do good to gain more sublime joy gotten the possibility by having done their common tasks, work, well. It's much more joyful and meaningful if a family serves Brahmas, Gods and Saints instead of low sensuality, "lowest equal" or more worth.

So other than the Marxist addoption of meditation practice without right view, traditional Buddhist dwell with Devas, Brahmas, deities day in day out, have means to lift their mind into refined worlds and meet easy auspicious things.

And to add, of course everybody would be able to reach heavens and Brahmas, if going the right path to. It's just gone in most peoples perceptions. Of course one could not come, wouldn't do efforts, if denying as an ant (for example) that there is a human world, humans around. An meditation without believe is like wishing to go to America but denying the existence of it's inhabitants.

It requires to let go of common perceptions/experiances to make place for refined. At least also those who deny heavens and gods, seek nothing but god-like existences and their garden of eden, yet just like angry children building fakes, not joining tasks for it.

While traditional Buddhism and its pathways have their own values and uses, expecting modern man to believe on certain aspects like deities or heavens may not be a very practical approach. Modern human is a one who looks at things more scientifically, hence he (or she) tends to have suspicions on many things. A more practical approach would be going for mindfulness and awareness practices, that can later be converted into much deeper teachings in Buddhism, when the followers are more into believing non tangible things and ready to follow the paths.

Although the Buddhist practices are explained in linear paths for easy understanding, I do not think that they are made to be necessarily followed up in such a linear path. One can start from wherever they want or can, but has to fulfil and complete all the steps by the end to achieve the final results.

Yes, secular adaptations have their negative aspects. But their appeal to a larger audience is a good thing for a beginning.

[Sushan]

I do believe that the garden of Eden did exist but I don't think it has been seen with the ordinary eyes of man. God used a cherubim to keep men away from there. I do not think it is a myth like most people say.

Well, I respect your beliefs and it is good for that it enhances your faith. You mentioned that it is not seen by ordinary eyes of men. Does that mean it is situated on the earth? If so where could it possibly be?

[Sushan]

I do believe that the garden of Eden did exist but I don't think it has been seen with the ordinary eyes of man. God used a cherubim to keep men away from there. I do not think it is a myth like most people say.

I hope you will be able to revise your beliefs as you learn more about such ideas as "God" , "cherubim", and "myth".

What do you think about the word 'literal' as in 'literal belief' ?

Good point. In other words, this is similar to abstract thinking vs concrete thinking. Earlier days the writers used metaphors and symbolic representations to express deep concepts. But many just took their literal meaning, giving no concern for the actual concept hidden beneath, and ultimately going towards mythical beliefs rather than enlightenment.

[Sushan]

Btw. the Buddhas Dhamma also reports about "Garden of eden", yet not in a creation manner, but in pattern of cause and effect. A small account from DN27 on the Eden part:

...There comes a time, Vāseṭṭha, when, sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world passes away. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn in the World of Radiance; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. There comes also a time, Vāseṭṭha, when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased from the World of Radiance, usually come to life as humans. And they become made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory, and remain thus for a long, long period of time.

Now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vāseṭṭha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savour was spread out in the waters. Even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear. It became endowed with colour, with odour, and with taste. Even as well-made ghee or pure butter, so was its colour; even as the flawless honey of the bee, so sweet was it.

Then, Vāseṭṭha, some being of greedy disposition, said: Lo now! What will this be? and tasted the savoury earth with his finger. He thus, tasting, became suffused with the savour, and craving entered into him. And other beings, following his example, tasted the savoury earth with their finger. They thus, tasting, became suffused with the savour, a craving entered into them. Then those beings began to feast on the savoury earth, breaking off lumps of it with their hands. And from the doing thereof the self-luminance of those beings faded away. As their self-luminance faded away, the moon and the sun became manifest. Thereupon star-shapes and constellations became manifest. Thereupon night and day became manifest, months too and half-months, the seasons and the years. Thus far then, Vāseṭṭha, did the world evolve again....

Thank you for mentioning this. Yes, that is how Lord Buddha has explained how life happened to be and how humans are trapped in the endless cycle of samsara. While this explanation is having many similarities with the scientific explanations, still many of these are just metaphorical and symbolic explanations and not to be taken literally. And also, Lord Buddha said an ordinary man cannot simply understand the universe, so such an attempt will be just a tiring endeavour without an ending.

[Sushan]

Btw. the Buddhas Dhamma also reports about "Garden of eden", yet not in a creation manner, but in pattern of cause and effect. A small account from DN27 on the Eden part:

...There comes a time, Vāseṭṭha, when, sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world passes away. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn in the World of Radiance; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. There comes also a time, Vāseṭṭha, when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased from the World of Radiance, usually come to life as humans. And they become made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory, and remain thus for a long, long period of time.

Now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vāseṭṭha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savour was spread out in the waters. Even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear. It became endowed with colour, with odour, and with taste. Even as well-made ghee or pure butter, so was its colour; even as the flawless honey of the bee, so sweet was it.

Then, Vāseṭṭha, some being of greedy disposition, said: Lo now! What will this be? and tasted the savoury earth with his finger. He thus, tasting, became suffused with the savour, and craving entered into him. And other beings, following his example, tasted the savoury earth with their finger. They thus, tasting, became suffused with the savour, a craving entered into them. Then those beings began to feast on the savoury earth, breaking off lumps of it with their hands. And from the doing thereof the self-luminance of those beings faded away. As their self-luminance faded away, the moon and the sun became manifest. Thereupon star-shapes and constellations became manifest. Thereupon night and day became manifest, months too and half-months, the seasons and the years. Thus far then, Vāseṭṭha, did the world evolve again....

Not all of us can relinquish the egoself because if everybody did so there would be no possible way the saints and seers could live to tell the tale.

The questions "who am I? And what is the purpose of life?" have been asked by many and many have tried to answer, and still are trying. If no one asked those questions at the first place, I believe that there won't be any saints or seers, and the world will be of less problems.

[Sushan]

Btw. the Buddhas Dhamma also reports about "Garden of eden", yet not in a creation manner, but in pattern of cause and effect. A small account from DN27 on the Eden part:

...There comes a time, Vāseṭṭha, when, sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world passes away. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn in the World of Radiance; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. There comes also a time, Vāseṭṭha, when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased from the World of Radiance, usually come to life as humans. And they become made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory, and remain thus for a long, long period of time.

Now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vāseṭṭha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savour was spread out in the waters. Even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear. It became endowed with colour, with odour, and with taste. Even as well-made ghee or pure butter, so was its colour; even as the flawless honey of the bee, so sweet was it.

Then, Vāseṭṭha, some being of greedy disposition, said: Lo now! What will this be? and tasted the savoury earth with his finger. He thus, tasting, became suffused with the savour, and craving entered into him. And other beings, following his example, tasted the savoury earth with their finger. They thus, tasting, became suffused with the savour, a craving entered into them. Then those beings began to feast on the savoury earth, breaking off lumps of it with their hands. And from the doing thereof the self-luminance of those beings faded away. As their self-luminance faded away, the moon and the sun became manifest. Thereupon star-shapes and constellations became manifest. Thereupon night and day became manifest, months too and half-months, the seasons and the years. Thus far then, Vāseṭṭha, did the world evolve again....

Not all of us can relinquish the egoself because if everybody did so there would be no possible way the saints and seers could live to tell the tale.

If good householder joins than the relation grows to 1:999,999. And as if good householder ever gave even a spoon to saints... A mind dwelling in wrong view is small, ugly, hateful, stingy,... a mind corrupted by Marx.

I don't understand why you are so repulsive towards Marxism. Anyway, yes, the clergy of any religion are necessary for a society because we all human beings have different thoughts and beliefs regarding the afterlife, although we do not admit or discuss such matters openly, and we all require people to guide us through that afterlife. So the society feeds and maintains the clergy. But the idea that giving even a spoon for a virtuous person is highly meritorious need to be discussed on what grounds the virtuosity is measured and who or what judges such acts of generosity.

[Sushan]

Not all of us can relinquish the egoself because if everybody did so there would be no possible way the saints and seers could live to tell the tale.

If good householder joins than the relation grows to 1:999,999. And as if good householder ever gave even a spoon to saints... A mind dwelling in wrong view is small, ugly, hateful, stingy,... a mind corrupted by Marx.

Ad hominem from Samana.

When encouraging people to do good, and that there is no need to follow fools, they regard it as ill-will. So what to do with deluded small-minded who can't even imagine a refined sphere, fearing that their usual hell get's lost.

If something told was wrong, may good householder let it be known. Social means to give rightly obtained, by own sweat accumulated.

Since you have mentioned 'fear of change', I would like to direct the same thing towards you. So far in this discussion you have criticised the modern ways. But even Lord Buddha has told that the only certain thing in this world is uncertainty. Then why do you expect for the ways taught in Buddhism to be certain, and resist any adaptations or modifications?

[Sushan]

The question of interpreting the Garden of Eden might seem out of date to some, especially in a modern, scientific era, but it's quite relevant given the diversity of belief systems that exist today. Just as some people continue to believe in a flat Earth despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, the discussion about the Garden of Eden—whether as a historical site, a metaphor, or a blend of both—retains significance in various cultural, theological, and philosophical contexts.

The existence of diverse and sometimes conflicting beliefs is a hallmark of our intellectual landscape, and discussing them can promote a deeper understanding of different worldviews and the reasons they persist. What are your thoughts on approaching such topics with curiosity rather than dismissal?

On the premise that the literal existence of a GofE is not true, what have we left?
Any mythcal, cultural, social, metaphorical significance has been subsumed by the rather embarassing fact that science has a good account of when and how life - especailly human life emerged on earth.

So you are claiming that "retains significance in various cultural, theological, and philosophical contexts." is simply a false claim, if as you also seem to be claiming that people believe the story to have literal truth.

The point I am making is that since it would be absurd to entertain anyone who takes this literally we are only left with a 2800 year old metaphor from which the cultural and endemic assumions are now wholly lost and irrelveant to the present

It's important to appreciate that the significance of myths like the Garden of Eden can be deeply personal and vary widely from one individual to another.

Dismissing such beliefs because they don't align with scientific understanding may overlook the profound cultural, philosophical, and theological roles these stories play in many people's lives. While I personally don't believe in a literal interpretation, such as a flat Earth, I firmly support the principle that all views deserve respect and recognition, as long as they do not harm others. This approach fosters a more inclusive and understanding society.

How do you think we can better bridge the gap between scientific understanding and religious or mythological beliefs?

How, by relegating religion to the dumpster of history. Leave them behind. They will catch up, change or die out.

The story of he G of E, is meaningless since we no longer accept the same endemic assumptions they did then.
In the same way the story of the crucifixion is completely lost on anyone other than historians who have tried to get their heads in to the mindset that took the concept of sacrifice as redemption which we no longer share. It is simply not part of any thing we now accept.

You have a point there. People are just disregarding religious teachings and beliefs because they are loosing their credibility and values with the evolution and modernization of the society. If the religious teachings were more flexible and join hands with science, they would have survived as well as served the society in a much useful manner. But religions and their leaders are adamant enough not to change their ways and beliefs, hence parting from the common human being.

[Sushan]

If good householder joins than the relation grows to 1:999,999. And as if good householder ever gave even a spoon to saints... A mind dwelling in wrong view is small, ugly, hateful, stingy,... a mind corrupted by Marx.

Ad hominem from Samana.

When encouraging people to do good, and that there is no need to follow fools, they regard it as ill-will. So what to do with deluded small-minded who can't even imagine a refined sphere, fearing that their usual hell get's lost.

If something told was wrong, may good householder let it be known. Social means to give rightly obtained, by own sweat accumulated.

Idolatry is accepting an idea without first subjecting it to reason, conscience, and experience.

It's impossible for frail children of time and relativity to imagine a "refined sphere" that is , refined of time and relativity.
Social means to give to those who need and take from those who can give. If you are not in need, Samana, you may thank whatever God you worship that you are not in need.

I would like to add something. Yes, one can be grateful to whatever the means that they remain without any issues and have a good life, in most cases their parents or ancestors, or if one wish to can thank the God. But what we see most often is the opposite. People just give up when they are faced with difficulties thinking that they are supposed to have such a life for some reason. While I believe Idolatry is bad, this sort of Idolatry is quite harmful, and needs to be avoided at any cost.

[Sushan]

Robin hoods, thieves, don't ever have access to heavens. Immoral has no access. Wrong, for whom ever, is wrong. And stingy greedy wishing to play good, just leads to destruction. Who is that lazy poor who like to judge of whom deserves what, who are those ugy children of lazy Marx who bring unrest all over this world.

I agree. Theft is unacceptable whether it is done for a good cause. And also it is inherently a wrong action. But in Robin Hood's case what he actually stole was what the rich and powerful people of those day's society took from the innocent villagers as tax, in other words legal theft. So I think it is fair to assume that both parties never saw the heaven, or got access to the Garden of Eden.