Why are we here ?

[WeAllMightBeNuts]

Why are we here?

 

To help and to be helped.

[M30USA]

Really? Tell me more about the atheistic belief system.

 

The atheist belief system equates, in one way or the other, to secular humanism--which is a set of morals created by an individual or a group of individuals to fit what they perceive to be the most beneficial code of behavior at any given time. This code is subject to change, depending on what the given society wants or intends to create.

[Tres]

Why is it that you think unconditional love a good thing? I'm aware that it sounds nice at first, but do you really think that loving everybody no matter what they do is possible or even a good thing? Do you really love people that unrepentently treat others horribly? Do you really think that you should?

 

Isn't the conditional nature of love, and the fact that it's reserved for a handful of people, what makes it special?

 

Any attempt to extend "love" to include everybody only serves to strip it of value and meaning.

 

I was talking about the meaning of unconditional love which is mentioned in the New Testament. If you want to talk about the complex abstract ideas, it might be good to read about them in the New Testament. Your understanding of love is just human understanding. Humans cannot be perfect but they can try to become better. IMO There is a lot of grey area between no love and unconditional love.

[wuggle]

But if we knew "everything" there would be nothing left to discover. No new technology to pursue, nothing to work towards, no great insight left to learn about. Life would be very strange.

 

Sorry for not being clear, I think I meant 'knew everything about our origins\God or the lack of'. Hopefully there will always be stuff to learn, I was trying to speculate that if we as a species stopped wasting so much time on one particular line of enquiry it would free up lots of resources to develop everything else.

 

to live. and yes, it really is that simple. anything more than those two words are mere excuses.

 

Again, I hope there is more to it that this. If this is all there is then life has no objective meaning, each makes up their own meaning with no universal meaning at all.

 

Why are we here?

 

To help and to be helped.

 

Again for the reason stated above I hope\believe that this isn't true. If this is the case then we are all helped but to what end ?

 

The atheist belief system equates, in one way or the other, to secular humanism--which is a set of morals created by an individual or a group of individuals to fit what they perceive to be the most beneficial code of behavior at any given time. This code is subject to change, depending on what the given society wants or intends to create.

 

You know that is probably the first thing you have said that I can get behind, I like the sound of that, particularly the last bit. I love the honesty in a set of guidelines being open to change when people realise they didn't know everything in the first place, this is one of my big problems with organised religions, were right, your not attitude.

 

I was talking about the meaning of unconditional love which is mentioned in the New Testament. If you want to talk about the complex abstract ideas, it might be good to read about them in the New Testament. Your understanding of love is just human understanding. Humans cannot be perfect but they can try to become better. IMO There is a lot of grey area between no love and unconditional love.

 

I read the new testament a couple of times, some lovely stories in there (and the old testament tbh but a bit more blood-thirsty). Agree humans can become better and agree there is a world of difference between 'no' and 'unconditional' love. But if life is just about love again what is the point ? imagine taking your ideas to the nth degree, everyone loves everyone else (to varying degrees) what is the aim ? is the reason for life so that we can all just walk around happy loving each other, again it seems so pointless

 

again, thanks for all the responses

 

(still secretly hoping Gandhi, Gengis Khan, Alexander et all will chip if soon with a convincing argument, but at the moment there seems to be no sound argument for anything other than a purely subjective meaning of life, this just seems wrong.)

[runner]

 

Again, I hope there is more to it that this. If this is all there is then life has no objective meaning, each makes up their own meaning with no universal meaning at all.

 

but why should there be ? (i don't mean this to be a flippant question). speaking for myself, i'm perfectly happy to define my entire existence in two words; altho i don't expect other's to agree with me and i'm fine with that.

 

but why should there be an 'objective' or 'universal meaning' ? are we somehow less valuable as a species without one ?

 

again, thanks for all the responses

 

(still secretly hoping Gandhi, Gengis Khan, Alexander et all will chip if soon with a convincing argument, but at the moment there seems to be no sound argument for anything other than a purely subjective meaning of life, this just seems wrong.)

 

why is it wrong for individuals to create meaning for themselves ? i do it all the time and i feel more correct than most

 

interesting thread, wuggle

[florence of suburbia]

Why do you think life should have a meaning that can be articulated as a cohesive paragraph? If it did, then would it be worth living? Think of life as a great story, like some of the world's masterpieces of art and literature. If Romeo and Juliet could be articulated in a paragraph, would it have been worth writing? What about the Mona Lisa? What is its "meaning"? The fact that these can't be quantified or summarized is what makes them worth creating.

[wuggle]

...but why should there be an 'objective' or 'universal meaning' ? are we somehow less valuable as a species without one ?

 

Don't get me wrong, if the answer to the question is that there is NO objective reality, and this can be proved, then I will accept it. It's the not knowing that is the problem. Whilst I do not believe in god, I am struggling with the concept of a purely subjective (and therefore IMO completely meaningless) existance.

 

It seems to me that every entity or system is created for a purpose (whatever that may be), if this is true of me then the search for that reason must be the most important thing, otherwise how do I know that I am not doing completely the wrong thing. If I am helping people or loving them, how do I know that I was not created to be doing exactly the opposite ?

 

If there is NO objective purpose for me being here then surely my life is completely meaningless, if the only meaning is one that I create myself, then why would I bother ? to what end ?

 

A lot of this is simply born out of a misguided need for certainty in an uncertain world.

 

It seems silly to me to carry on doing whatever I am without knowing that I am not doing completely the wrong thing, I don't see the quest for a reason for existence to be misguided, completely the opposite. I see the lack of this quest as misguided, without knowing what you are supposed to be doing how do you know you are not completely doing the wrong thing ? ie not what you were created for in the first place.

 

 

Why do you think life should have a meaning that can be articulated as a cohesive paragraph? If it did, then would it be worth living? Think of life as a great story, like some of the world's masterpieces of art and literature. If Romeo and Juliet could be articulated in a paragraph, would it have been worth writing? What about the Mona Lisa? What is its "meaning"? The fact that these can't be quantified or summarized is what makes them worth creating.

 

I don't need to believe that the reason for existence has to be encapsulated in any paragraph, I would be happy with a whole set of books, as long as it was definitive and there was a reason. It doesn't seem right to me that my existance has no meaning, everything created by us has a meaning or purpose, however grand (in the case of a great work of art) or puny (in the case of a cd) but all has some purpose, even the follies, created to entertain.

 

I don't believe that the mona lisa can't be quantified, it is a lovely piece or art that makes people think, created by a man to satisfy a desire to create. That's good enough for me, even if it is not 'fully' quantified, that at least is a good start. Some things we can quantify, some given lack of information we cannot. If my life is similar, ie has a purpose that I will never be able to fully understand due to lack of information, that is OK, but I don't even have a reliable starting point or point of reference, no one can give me a definitve point to start from.

 

I am here, I have evolved from my ancestors. Why ? what is the end goal of evolution ? to purely evolve doesn't seem to make much sense, any evolving system must have a definitive end point or objective ?

 

Is my existence pointless ?

[WeAllMightBeNuts]

Don't get me wrong, if the answer to the question is that there is NO objective reality, and this can be proved, then I will accept it. It's the not knowing that is the problem. Whilst I do not believe in god, I am struggling with the concept of a purely subjective (and therefore IMO completely meaningless) existance.

 

It seems to me that every entity or system is created for a purpose (whatever that may be), if this is true of me then the search for that reason must be the most important thing, otherwise how do I know that I am not doing completely the wrong thing. If I am helping people or loving them, how do I know that I was not created to be doing exactly the opposite ?

 

If there is NO objective purpose for me being here then surely my life is completely meaningless, if the only meaning is one that I create myself, then why would I bother ? to what end ?

 

 

 

It seems silly to me to carry on doing whatever I am without knowing that I am not doing completely the wrong thing, I don't see the quest for a reason for existence to be misguided, completely the opposite. I see the lack of this quest as misguided, without knowing what you are supposed to be doing how do you know you are not completely doing the wrong thing ? ie not what you were created for in the first place.

 

 

 

 

I don't need to believe that the reason for existence has to be encapsulated in any paragraph, I would be happy with a whole set of books, as long as it was definitive and there was a reason. It doesn't seem right to me that my existance has no meaning, everything created by us has a meaning or purpose, however grand (in the case of a great work of art) or puny (in the case of a cd) but all has some purpose, even the follies, created to entertain.

 

I don't believe that the mona lisa can't be quantified, it is a lovely piece or art that makes people think, created by a man to satisfy a desire to create. That's good enough for me, even if it is not 'fully' quantified, that at least is a good start. Some things we can quantify, some given lack of information we cannot. If my life is similar, ie has a purpose that I will never be able to fully understand due to lack of information, that is OK, but I don't even have a reliable starting point or point of reference, no one can give me a definitve point to start from.

 

I am here, I have evolved from my ancestors. Why ? what is the end goal of evolution ? to purely evolve doesn't seem to make much sense, any evolving system must have a definitive end point or objective ?

Is my existence pointless ?

 

Only if you fall in the woods and there is no one there to hear it.

[TaraMaiden]

The primary question is not "Why are we here?"

 

This is the secondary question.

 

The primary question, on everyone's lips, should be -

 

"Who Am I?"

 

First, establish that to your complete satisfaction, then, ask the secondary question.

 

 

BUT remember:

Your name, is not who you are, it's how you are identifiable to others.

 

Your familial status is not who you are, it's what you are to others.

 

Your job/hobby is not who you are, it's what you do.

 

your gender and/or sexual persuasion is not who you are, it's how you are identified biologically.

 

your religion is not who you are, it's what you give credence to.

 

so, casting all of the above aside as definitions of 'what you are' and not 'WHO you are'....

 

WHO are you?

[TaraMaiden]

That's not the focus of the question...

the focus is what is your purpose?

 

But even that cannot be answered without answering the 'primary question' first.

If that doesn't interest you at all, then I have to respectfully ask why you felt it necessary to post something so non-committal?

 

The answer is that your Ego impelled you to contribute a clever riposte...

 

And that's fine, I'm not criticising.... but every thought put down 'on paper' for others to read and appreciate, is a pronouncement of our ego's need to be validated.

 

And I don't exclude myself, at all....

 

If your ego needs to be validated, by posting a comment you clearly want others to read and consider definitive and even clever - then there's a "Why we are here" - right there.

 

[TaraMaiden]

I'm sorry you think I was on my High horse, but I'm so short anyway, my high horse is everybody else's miniature Shetland pit-pony!

That wasn't my intention...

I would merely ask you to think on what I said, and about our ego needing validation.

 

An ego is not a bad thing, and there was no implication of that, btw....

We all have one....

 

I might at this point add that I know Wuggle IRL, and he's a good buddy of mine, so he'll understand where I'm coming from (though not necessarily agree with it.) He'll also tell me where to go....

[TaraMaiden]

On the contrary, I have exactly the same respect for you as I do for everyone else.

I've been here a while, so I'm quite well known... it is what it is...

 

[wuggle]

Tara\Sutter - stop arguing like spoilt children :p:p

 

All contributions welcome.

 

I am here because my parents had sexual intercourse and my mother chose to give birth.

Life is what you make of it. YMMV.

None of us will know what happens when we die until we die.

The answers really aren't that complicated.

 

I get that, but I'm not really after why am I (as an individual) here, but rather why are WE here, and by that I'm not just limiting the question to humans, because as such you could argue that all life is evolving towards some end. I am not sure I believe that 'life is what you make it' ie a purely subjective existance, for many reasons, including an apparent 'pointlessness; in multiple subjective existences (eg one person could decide that they are here to kill as many people as possible, another that they are here to 'save' as many as possible). Most systems that I know of, especially ones capable of evolving towards a higher level of existance, will ultimately have an end point or goal ? if we are evolving, what is the end point ?

 

The primary question is not "Why are we here?"

 

This is the secondary question.

 

The primary question, on everyone's lips, should be -

 

"Who Am I?"

 

You know, I've thought about that, and will continue to, but to me you can't answer one without the other, so effectively they are the same. I cannot know who I am until I know why I am here. If it turns out that i\we were put here to 'grow tomatoes' (silly example just to illustrate the point ) then I am a 'tomatoe grower' (however embroiled in that I am), but if I\we were put here to kill tomatoes then I am a tomatoe killer ? Until I can answer the question about who I am I need to have the answer to the question "why am I here".

 

Without that answer I am at best "someone trying to find out why I am here" - which works fine if as others have postulated all existence is purely subjective, but no good if there is an objective reality.

 

What does Buddhism say about the nature of existance ? is all subjective or is there a universality\objectivity ?

 

p.s keep the answer simple, you know I ain't that smart :laugh:

[TaraMaiden]

 

What does Buddhism say about the nature of existance ? is all subjective or is there a universality\objectivity ?

 

p.s keep the answer simple, you know I ain't that smart :laugh:

 

Buddhism talks about Duality.

 

It talks about self/not self.

It talks about 'Dependent Origination'

and it talks about Impermanence of all things, irrespective of what they are, be they material or psychological.

 

Duality and Self/Not-Self.

 

In basic simple terms, things exist, yet they also do not exist.

a table exists, yet it was once a tree, and it will be woodworm food. It is a transient thing, which has undergone transformation to make it into a table, and will undergo further transformation to make it into sawdust.

Yet walk into a dark room in the night, and you feel it painfully when you knock your bare toes against the damn leg. Because right now, it is.

Yet on a molecular, atomic level, it is constantly undergoing change....

 

You are a composite of different things, which go to make the being we know as 'Wuggle'. You exist, because i've seen you, I know what you look like and I've spoken to you.

Yet - you are also constantly changing and altering; as the photograph of you and your spouse would attest, you have changed - and you are continuing to change. In fact, anatomically speaking, you are a completely renewed human being to the 'you' that existed 10 years ago. In that time, the entire fabric of your body has changed and renewed itself, from the tiniest braincell to the entire skeletal structure.

But you have a conscious identity, a persona everyone knows as 'who you are'.

So you are your 'Self' but you are also Not-Self.... hence the duality.

this applies to every existent object or being on the planet... and beyond....

 

Dependent Origination

All phenomena only exist because we perceive them as they are. A tree is a tree, but it is dependent on our perception to be recognised as a tree. in fact, it was once a seed, a sapling a young tree, and it had different foliage and will have different foliage and is constantly moving, growing, dying off, changing, bending, twisting and altering itself as each nanosecond passes... but for it to be called a tree, we must first agree we see the tree, and accept what it is in that one second....all things depend on our perception... and this becomes more subtle when we argue with someone, or we go through a series of emotions.... for anger to originate, we must first perceive it to be anger... for sadness to originate, we must first recognise it as that....feelings are dependent on our thought processes and perceptions, for them to originate....

 

Without our minds to originate something, that 'something' cannot arise... it is dependent on our perception for them to exist as we perceive they exist....

 

Impermanence

all compounded phenomena are impermanent. There is nothing, anywhere, that lasts for ever, or is not transitory and ephemeral.

everything has a beginning, a middle and an end, everything from Stonehenge to a mayfly... all will eventually cease to exist... all things are temporary, be they materials under a preservation order, or our thoughts on what the bankers did today....

so all things which depend on us for their origin, and are, but are not, are figments.

Which is why, you are neither a tomato-grower, nor a tomato-killer. They are things you do, but they do not define who you are.

 

you MUST answer the first, before ever hoping to go on to the second.

And once you have answered the first, the second will become all the more poignant - and all the more inconsequential - at one and the same time.

[Crusoe]

And once you have answered the first, the second will become all the more poignant - and all the more inconsequential - at one and the same time.

 

Exactly. Superb stuff, Tara.

[wuggle]

I can not address the rest of your question because I do not agree that we are evolving as a people. 30 seconds of Jersey Shore is proof of that.

 

I cannot honestly believe that you seriously think we are not evolving as a people. Consider where humans were 5000 years ago and where we are now. (agree with you on the Jersey Shore thing though)

 

Buddhism talks about Duality.

 

It talks about self/not self.

It talks about 'Dependent Origination'

and it talks about Impermanence of all things, irrespective of what they are, be they material or psychological.

 

I'm happy with impermanence, I accept that everything that is, once wasn't and won't be in the future. I accept that 'I' am an impermanent thing, but 'We' (and by that I don't limit to humanity, this could be all life on earth) are progressing from point A in 'evolution' to point B (and I can accept an impermanence beyond point B for arguments sake). But what was\is the point in the journey from point A to point B ?

 

Why are we going from one point to another ? What is the reason for this ? why am I (as a life form) on this path between point A and Point B ?

 

So you are your 'Self' but you are also Not-Self.... hence the duality.

 

I don't understand this.

 

Dependent Origination..All phenomena only exist because we perceive them as they are......

Without our minds to originate something, that 'something' cannot arise... it is dependent on our perception for them to exist as we perceive they exist....

 

This I just don't agree with (I will if someone proves it). I have read many of our finest scientific minds and philosophers postulate the same thing, yet my experience, and every ounce of common sense I posses tells me this is just wrong. I cannot belive in an observer created reality. When I die, all I percieved will not cease to exist. To accept that it would is the same as accepting a completely subjective reality. It just feels incorrect.

 

Do you belive that the house that you live in, the street that you see every day, the sun that shines down etc will all just cease to be when you are no longer there to percieve them ?

 

so all things which depend on us for their origin, and are, but are not, are figments.

Which is why, you are neither a tomato-grower, nor a tomato-killer. They are things you do, but they do not define who you are.

 

you MUST answer the first, before ever hoping to go on to the second.

And once you have answered the first, the second will become all the more poignant - and all the more inconsequential - at one and the same time.

 

But again, if I do not agree that all reality is subjective and there is an objective reality outside my own perception or creation then there must be an answer to the question "why am I here" before I can hope to answer "who am I"

 

Does Buddhism essentially say that all reality is subjective ?

Edited July 3, 2012 by wuggle

[TaraMaiden]

 

I'm happy with impermanence, I accept that everything that is, once wasn't and won't be in the future. I accept that 'I' am an impermanent thing, but 'We' (and by that I don't limit to humanity, this could be all life on earth) are progressing from point A in 'evolution' to point B (and I can accept an impermanence beyond point B for arguments sake). But what was\is the point in the journey from point A to point B ?

 

Why are we going from one point to another ? What is the reason for this ? why am I (as a life form) on this path between point A and Point B ?

Why not?

If evolution is a natural progression, then we will carry on until we die out... but there doesn't necessarily have to be a definitive reason for it... it's what in Buddhism is known as an "Unconjecturable".

 

there are 4 the Buddha spoke of...

The one you're pondering would come under the 4th one... trying to discern a definitive answer would, and I quote, ".... bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

 

 

 

I don't understand this.

Ok, breaking it down even more simply, everybody you know, knows you as 'Wuggle'...let's say, for the sake of argument that the following is possible... it's the only way I can think of trying to simplify what I mean....

 

Let us for argument's sake, say that in an altruistic state of self-sacrifice, you decide to donate your limbs and organs, to medicine. 'however, you retain you torso and all your mental faculties...

Does this mean you are no longer 'Wuggle'? you are still able to see, hear, touch, feel and smell.... you are still perfectly operative without the remainder of your body... so if your body is not who you are, and your existence cannot be defined by what you look like or how you appear to others... are you any less 'you'?

You are who you are - and the living, breathing walking talking living dude that you are.... but your body is disposable, renewable, dispensable and regenerative....Your 'Self' is not yourself, because your Self is not dependent on impermanent factors to exist....You have the composite, which is Self... but the transitoriness of your current state means you are Not-Self....

 

 

 

This I just don't agree with (I will if someone proves it). I have read many of our finest scientific minds and philosophers postulate the same thing, yet my experience, and every ounce of common sense I posses tells me this is just wrong. I cannot belive in an observer created reality. When I die, all I percieved will not cease to exist.

Yes it will.

To you.

That is why all that you perceive is a product of your own perception. Its existence in your Mind is dependent on your absorbing the presence of objects and all phenomena.

 

To accept that it would is the same as accepting a completely subjective reality. It just feels incorrect.

this is because your attachment to reality is hard to release and let go of. Simply because you refuse to let go of the illogical conclusions, doesn't make them right. We crave permanence, and solidity. to be confronted with the truth that everything is perception, shatters our belief rooted in a reality that is actually false.

 

Do you belive that the house that you live in, the street that you see every day, the sun that shines down etc will all just cease to be when you are no longer there to percieve them ?

"If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody there to witness it, does it still make an audible sound?"

 

They tell me there is an island off the coast of Africa, which I have never seen. Apparently though, it exists. It will only be a concrete reality for me, when I lay my eyes on it myself. Until then, it is merely a projection given to me by others.... I have to rely on hearsay to believe it is there. But I can't prove it, any more than they can.

Perception is subjective, and reality is fractured, because nothing stays the same.... It's like returning to a place you knew in your childhood, and seeing exactly the same things, through adult eyes. It's not how you remember it, everything is exactly the same - yet - different....

 

 

But again, if I do not agree that all reality is subjective and there is an objective reality outside my own perception or creation then there must be an answer to the question "why am I here" before I can hope to answer "who am I"

Why?

 

Does Buddhism essentially say that all reality is subjective ?

yes.

Can you prove to me it isn't?

[wuggle]

Tara, Having read and disgested your responses I was going to discuss each at length, but to me it all boils down to the honest short and sweet answer to my question "does buddhism say that all reality is subjective ?" to which you answered Yes.

 

Can I prove this is wrong ?

 

No.

 

Can I prove it is right ?

 

No.

 

This is my problem.

 

On one point we can agree, when the buddha said that this unconjecturable would lead to madness and vexation, I agree. Having driven myself nearly mad for decades with this unconjecturable, whilst I can happily say that may attachment to reality is now quite weak, I cannot accept a completely subjective and observer created reality. Every ounce of logical reasoning I can muster tells me this cannot be so.

 

If that were the case then everything I 'decide' to be so, would be so, thus rendering everything irrelevant. For everything to be as I percieve it would mean that I am the 'creator' of everything, or in other words I am my own 'God', yet some 'thing' or 'process' created me, how can something create that which creates everything ? and I believe that my descendants will be better than me. Therefore they would be more that 'God'

 

If all reality is subjective it can have no meaning short of that we impose on it, which given the contradictory 'views' of 7 billion humans and multiple trillions of other beings on the planet makes this meaning pretty desolate.

 

I could 'decide' that I am a devil or I could 'decide' that I am an angel. Each equally valid and therefore invalid.

[TaraMaiden]

Tara, Having read and disgested your responses I was going to discuss each at length, but to me it all boils down to the honest short and sweet answer to my question "does buddhism say that all reality is subjective ?" to which you answered Yes.

 

Can I prove this is wrong ?

 

No.

 

Can I prove it is right ?

 

No.

 

Whereas Buddhism can... and does....

 

 

On one point we can agree, when the buddha said that this unconjecturable would lead to madness and vexation, I agree. Having driven myself nearly mad for decades with this unconjecturable, whilst I can happily say that my attachment to reality is now quite weak, I cannot accept a completely subjective and observer created reality. Every ounce of logical reasoning I can muster tells me this cannot be so.

 

Reasoning is only logical if it arrives at a logical conclusion. If it cannot do this, your reasoning, no matter how concentrated, determined studious and persistent - is illogical.

 

If that were the case then everything I 'decide' to be so, would be so, thus rendering everything irrelevant.

This is further illogical reasoning.

 

Why would everything be rendered irrelevant?

Simply because your perception permits you to consider things as real in the moment, but mind-wrought in the long-term, does not render them irrelevant.

On the contrary, everything you perceive in this very instant, at this moment, right now, is of the highest importance. It is, after all where your existence and perception, is the strongest.

 

For everything to be as I percieve, it would mean that I am the 'creator' of everything, or in other words I am my own 'God', yet some 'thing' or 'process' created me, how can something create that which creates everything ?

This then, is the 'unconjecturable' you must be willing to 'let go' of. Because in spite of all your outspoken conviction against what organised, dogmatic theological religion tells you - you still maintain the deeply-rooted conviction that 'some outside seen powrful force' is rresponsible for your presence.

This is not necessarily the case - and current, continuing scientific research would appear to confirm that.

But as matters stand, we really do not know.

Why do you need to know?

What difference would that make?

Is it comfort you seek?

If so, when you cease to exist, what do you think will happen to 'you' as a result?

You see, the being born, isn't hugely significant; the living is also, not hugely significant. What makes your question all the more critical, is the dying.

Now, to really render your question "Why are we here" more significant - the follow-on question has to be, "What happens next?"

 

and I believe that my descendants will be better than me. Therefore they would be more that 'God'

Your descendants are no more important to your existence, than your ancestors are to you, because everything boils down to this moment, and this moment alone, for you.

What are you doing with it?

 

If all reality is subjective it can have no meaning short of that we impose on it, which given the contradictory 'views' of 7 billion humans and multiple trillions of other beings on the planet makes this meaning pretty desolate.

You're looking on too broad a scale. The past is a stepping stone, the future is unquantifiable. You know how as kids we used to put our address down and then continue adding lines after the country...

'Europe, the world, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe....'

 

too big. Too much for our consciousness to wrap itself around.

Focus.

you know about intricate, close detailed work.

That's what life is actually about.

Intricate, close, detailed work.

The saying goes, "Don't sweat the small stuff." Well guess what?

Don't sweat the 'big' stuff either. There is no obligation to have every answer to every conceivable dilemma.

sometimes, things are the way they are, because that's the way they are. And stop protesting and try accepting.

You are where you are due to a series of choices. YOU got yourself to where you are today. Everything that has happened in your life has been as a result of your choosing a specific course of action, in response to a perceived outside incident. Whatever has happened to you verbally or actively, you have responded to. You have used a thought process, maybe voiced it, then acted upon it. But all the time, the whole way through, your life has unfolded this way, because of your choices.

That's a pretty big responsibility.

and one you shoulder, uniquely.

so if you are "The Master of your Fate" - why would some unseen 'thing or process' have had anything to do with putting you here?

Does this 'thing's' power extend only to 'putting you here'?

If so, what's its point?

That's like a machine that makes vases with no bottoms....

 

I could 'decide' that I am a devil or I could 'decide' that I am an angel. Each equally valid and therefore invalid.

Which do you think you would prefer to be?

Edited July 4, 2012 by TaraMaiden

[wuggle]

Whereas Buddhism can... and does....

 

How ? , how can Buddhism prove that all existence is subjetcive ? I don't believe it can.

 

 

Reasoning is only logical if it arrives at a logical conclusion. If it cannot do this, your reasoning, no matter how concentrated, determined studious and persistent - is illogical.

 

Again, I disagree. Most of the best minds working in the field of quantum physics have used their best logic and reasoning and reached a completely illogical conclusion, often summarised in the statement that "if you think you understand quantum physics, you really dont understand quantum physics"

 

This is further illogical reasoning.

Why would everything be rendered irrelevant?

 

Again, I disagree. IMO if all existance is subjective then it must be irrelevant, because I could decide to be a good person or I could decide to be a nasty person. If I choose the first it is irrelevant because the latter could just have easily be chosen and vice versa. All value in either decision is totally subjective and irrelevant. If I create reality, then I create all value systems, therefore all is irrelevant. In my 'world' killing a homeless person would be just as good as giving them loads of money.

 

... everything you perceive in this very instant, at this moment, right now, is of the highest importance. It is, after all where your existence and perception, is the strongest.

 

I would argue completely the opposite. Until I have an objective reason for existance, the point of the moment is of no importance. Until I know why I am here and what I should be doing, what I am doing 'now' has no meaning. It is just a filler, waiting until I know what I should be doing.

 

...you still maintain the deeply-rooted conviction that 'some outside seen powrful force' is rresponsible for your presence.

This is not necessarily the case - and current, continuing scientific research would appear to confirm that.

But as matters stand, we really do not know.

 

I don't maintain this. If it can be PROVED that all reality is subjective I will have it, but I have seen no proof yet.

 

 

Why do you need to know?

What difference would that make?

Is it comfort you seek?

If so, when you cease to exist, what do you think will happen to 'you' as a result?

You see, the being born, isn't hugely significant; the living is also, not hugely significant. What makes your question all the more critical, is the dying.

Now, to really render your question "Why are we here" more significant - the follow-on question has to be, "What happens next?"

 

It is a question that arose naturally from my growing up and abandoning the 'religion' that was handed to me by my parents, one I have asked myself constantly for the last 20-30 years. IMO until a person knows the answer to this question then all that they do 'may' be completeley wrong. If I don't know why I am here then I can never know that all I am doing is wasted. I am not seeking comfort, not in the slightest. If I was I think I would have simply 'accepted' any one of the myriad of 'answers' that have been passed my way over the years. The though of a loving God who created me is very comforting.

 

But my brain will not allow me to accept these 'soft' options.

 

I have no problems with that being it, nothing, etc after I die, I am happy with the impermenance.

 

I am resigned to the fact that I may never know the answer to the question, I am resigned to the fact that it is maddening.

 

But I cannot acept that which doesn't make sense to me.

 

'Letting go' is IMO just the same as giving up. It is the soft option.

 

You're looking on too broad a scale....

too big. Too much for our consciousness to wrap itself around....

sometimes, things are the way they are, because that's the way they are.... And stop protesting and try accepting.

 

Again this just seems like a cop out, a 'giving in' to the easy option. The question is too big so don't answer it, your brain can't take it! but if the whole of my existance could potentially be wasted until I do know the answer then logic dictates that I should not 'give up' or 'give in'

 

so if you are "The Master of your Fate" - why would some unseen 'thing or process' have had anything to do with putting you here?

Does this 'thing's' power extend only to 'putting you here'?

If so, what's its point?

That's like a machine that makes vases with no bottoms....

 

But if I don't 'believe' in a subjective reality, which I don't because I have been presented with no proof of such and my everyday experience tells me this is wrong, then that only leaves an objetcive reality, of some description. Therefore I am not the master of my own fate ?

 

Bottom line, What is the best proof that buddhism has to offer for a completely subjective reality ???

[wuggle]

There are lots of answers to be found. There are even some which are logical, based on evidence and can help us attain contentment and live what we would consider a good life. They are perfectly valid paths to take, but they will never fit the criteria you are seeking.

 

I do not understand what you mean. I am seeking no criteria by which to lead a 'good life'. Indeed if you read my earlier responses you shoud see that if I clearly state that if reality IS subjective then the destinction between good and bad is completely meaningless. I really have no interest in leading a 'good' life. I merely seek an answer to the question "why are we\I here".

 

As I said earlier if there is proof that all of reality is subjective I will accept it.

 

To summarise, do you believe reality is entirely subjective ? do you have any proof (either way) ?

[florence of suburbia]

all of reality is subjective

 

 

The statement below is true.

The statement above is false.

[TaraMaiden]

Everything else, all of religion (Buddhism included, I'm sorry to say Tara, though it admittedly has done better than most) and much of philosophy, is seeking something that cannot actually be found.

 

You are mistaken here.

Buddhism seeks nothing, because what we seek is already available, at our fingertips.

 

The Buddha stated that the singular purpose of his teachings was to teach the origin of suffering, and the cessation of suffering.

That's it - in a nutshell.

 

I have pointed out on may occasions that the word 'suffering' is a poor translation of the original - dukkha - and that in fact, closer and more accurate interpretations of this word would be 'stress', 'imbalance' and 'dissatisfaction'.

 

The origin of Dukkha is clinging and grasping unskilfully to all compounded phenomena, ranging from our car, home or loved one, to ephemeral emotions, ideas and impressions.

 

And this is precisely the kind of Suffering/stress/imbalance/dissatisfaction Wuggle is experiencing now, because he cannot let it go.

I have also pointed out to him that his question is largely an unconjecturable.

He has further admitted this.

Yet he persists.

There's his own self-imposed Suffering/stress/imbalance/dissatisfaction, right there.

 

It really doesn't matter whether there is a concrete definitive answer or not.

It won't help him pay his bills, mow the lawn, choose a shirt in the morning or drive his car.

Because they are all current realities, to which he must turn his mind (different to 'brain') at the moment he has to do them.

 

What really matters is right now - yet so many countless people spend their time reminiscing, yearning, missing wanting an aspect of the past, or planning, looking forward, discussion and worrying about the future. and they miss the best part.

Right now.

Yet they cannot realistically 'be' anywhere else....

[TaraMaiden]

....I clearly state that if reality IS subjective then the destinction between good and bad is completely meaningless. .....

NO!!

The DISTINCTION between Good and Bad is completely SUBJECTIVE!

 

This IS CORRECT!

 

Even Shakespeare said the same thing, 400 years ago -

From Hamlet -

"...there is nothing either good or

bad, but thinking makes it so."

 

Kipling:

"If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same..."

 

Fhu Shi:

Things are not always what they seem,

Nor are they otherwise."

 

Good and bad are subjective, because it depends on your own personal perception and evaluation as to what is wrong.

 

As I said earlier if there is proof that all of reality is subjective I will accept it.

I've outlined the proof. You're the one refusing to examine it in detail to see it's correct, and are dismissing it out of hand - in spite of - and I quote you - ..many of our finest scientific minds and philosophers postulating the same thing - yet you claim your logic and reasoning lead you to contradict them all.

Where, may I ask is the logic in that?

 

you cannot refute something which has been examined by the 'finest scientific minds' and refute it simply because you can't can't bring yourself to believe it.

[TaraMaiden]

Sorry to say (again), but this is just a platitude. It doesn't matter where a thing is, even if right under our nose, it must be sought if it is to be found. My point is that all religions represent the attempt to address these unanswerable questions that humans have wrestled with.

 

That's my point; The Buddha quite explicitly advised us to not waste time on unanswerable questions.

 

He quite emphatically said, that time spent pursuing such a quest is both wasted and utterly frustrating.

 

There is nothing addressed within the Dharma/Dhamma and teachings of Buddhism, which encourages the study of, and spends time speculating on, matters and questions which cannot be answered.

 

If we, as Buddhists, have questions which cannot be answered it is we who are seeking unnecessarily and needlessly - not Buddhism that encourages us to do so.