Idealism

[Lunitik]

Yes, of course! We should all think like you!

It is exactly thought which creates complications out of something so peaceful...

There is no natural ecosystem in the world which doesn't take care of itself perfectly without our input. It is exactly our effort to better the world which is screwing with every aspect of life.

Humans are the only creature on this planet which thinks, and we are moments away from destroying it.

 

[Lunitik]

Feel free to disagree, lunitik. That is your right after all, but don't expect everyone to jump on your bandwagon of indifference. You act as if because some care and act that we are fueled by our egos when the reality is that we are fueled by love, compassion, and a genuine concern for the well-being of others. Who said anything about good and evil, we are speaking about basic human needs, Food, shelter, medicine, etc.

I am exactly indifferent, it is humorous you have used it in a negative light here though... I do not see difference in the extremes, and see what is as perfect as it is. It is very unnatural to fight nature.

Furthermore, you speak of heaven and hell as if we all believe in them. Many do not, nor do I think heaven or hell should be one's motivation in life. If your hearts desire is to live for self and do nothing to make the lives of others better than that is your choice, but why down play the efforts of those of us who have found purpose in living for the betterment of our world and for those we share this world with?

It is to make a point that I discuss heaven and hell, they are the choices after death and the direction you have taken the thread is exactly out of fear of death so it is very related. You want to feel you left the planet better than you found it, this is your ego trip. You want to feel the world was lucky to have you...

We obviously do not meet up to your expectations, but Rome wasn't built in a day. It takes time, and effort, perseverance to achieve ANYTHING worth achieving. Although you do not recognize the fruits, doesn't mean that fruits are not being produced in the lives touched by the charities you seem so hostile towards. I guess if you were a starving child in Africa, you'd rather die an excruciating death instead of being fed, or perhaps you would be content drinking sewage water instead of drinking fresh from a well dug by those fruitless charities.

I have no expectations.

It is funny you bring up the topic of Rome though, it was a very disgusting society which took credit for the work of Greeks and killed or repressed multitudes of people - most of the known world. Humans have had something like 50,000 years, all we have done is gradually degrade a planet that was doing fine without us.

I have not said it hasn't touched loves, I simply question whether the effects are genuinely worth anything. I would certainly rather die than prolong a life full of suffering, yes. If life isn't enjoyable you are already dead, so what difference is there? Again, you fear death, and if you let another die then it presents your own mortality.

 

[Lunitik]

Humans are probably the worst thing to happen to this planet, but we are too self righteous to see why it is so. Why can't we just leave things alone? Everything we do to better our lives just makes things worse. It is utterly futile, we are costing entire species their existence, we are removing our own air supply yet making our limited supply almost poisonous. Yet, what we consider improvement is ensuring people are barely surviving so they can watch how much worse we can make things.

Don't get me wrong, I am not life negative, I simply see that it is our own doing that is making others lives unlivable. It is wealth which creates poverty, it is indulgence in food which creates hunger, these things are completely intertwined - albeit indirectly. For all our knowledge, we really aren't very intelligent, our greed does not permit us to consider the consequences more deeply. Instead of realizing that it is our excess that creates poverty, we go on treating the symptoms. We do not seem to care that it is our technology which is creating the poor environmental conditions because we benefit too much from electricity and gasoline, finding a better source of energy would be too expensive and difficult.

Instead of treating the disease, we go on treating the symptoms and not seeing how they are related. We destroy the environment and then treat the sick animals that suffer, we dirty the water supply then feel good about providing water which is clean. We are only cleaning up our own messes, and not very well, but this makes us feel good because we do not realize it is our own doing.

I say, instead of trying to help in futile ways, we engage in avenues which genuinely help - enter fields of alternative fuel production, spend a little extra on a low emissions car, eat less foods that are created in damaging ways, there is so much you can do directly. We are too busy pretending to help on the other side of the planet, but we are unwilling to change our own situations, the disease creating the symptoms. We cannot see that our efforts are improving nothing when it is across the world, so we can imagine it is making a great difference. This is, of course, far more rewarding. Reality is not something most people are comfortable with, they want to mold it to their own liking.

I say rejoice in existence rather than competing with it, because your violence against the natural course does not create peace. Only your overflowing love can cause that rejoicing, that contentment, but we would rather see the bad and become miserable.

 

[Lunitik]

Something else I find quite alarming:

Sixteen kilograms of grains and legumes are required
to create one kilogram of beef. Ninety percent of all the
grains and legumes grown in the United States are fed to
animals - they consume ten times more protein and food
calories than the American people themselves.
Huge areas of rainforest are destroyed to grow food for
beef production. Meanwhile millions of people are mal-
nourished or starve to death for lack of the grains and
legumes that are fed to cattle. Meat is literally murder.
Milk and dairy products are unhealthy and exploitive;
they are also an inefficient protein source. Dairy produc-
tion tortures animals, wastes essential resources and
causes extensive environmental degradation. Soya milk
and other healthy and more resource efficient alterna-
tives are readily available.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I am exactly indifferent, it is humorous you have used it in a negative light here though... I do not see difference in the extremes, and see what is as perfect as it is. It is very unnatural to fight nature.

It comes quite natural to fight for our survival. Self preservation is one of our most basic instincts. This is not a bad thing, as if we didn't have this instinct we would never seek life. You act as if wanting to live is a bad thing, wanting to live without hunger is a bad thing, wanting to live without sickness and disease is a bad thing. Death will come to us all, but while we are here we may as well live our lives in a manner beneficial to our neighbors and in a manner beneficial for future generations.


Nature is perfectly acceptable as it is, but mankind is not. We seek power and greed, we think only of self instead of thinking of the entire "tribe", thus many don't consider their fellow man. Our actions affect the lives of others, even those who will live long after we are gone. It is because of this and because many have grown indifferent that we destroy this earth, that we destroy each other.

It is to make a point that I discuss heaven and hell, they are the choices after death and the direction you have taken the thread is exactly out of fear of death so it is very related. You want to feel you left the planet better than you found it, this is your ego trip. You want to feel the world was lucky to have you...

Actually, it is out of love and compassion for others, not fear of death. We will all face death one day, but there is no need to allow children to die of hunger or to die because they don't have clean water to drink, or to freeze to death because they have no home. All men have the right to a good life and all men "could" have a good life if humanity would only open their hearts and give more than they take. It's not about wanting the to feel like the world was lucky to have me, but rather as I have stated many times in this thread; it is out of love and compassion for my fellow man, love for my children and love for every other child who will be born into this world.

I have no expectations.

I do .... Great expectations at that! It is our destiny to rise above!

It is funny you bring up the topic of Rome though, it was a very disgusting society which took credit for the work of Greeks and killed or repressed multitudes of people - most of the known world. Humans have had something like 50,000 years, all we have done is gradually degrade a planet that was doing fine without us.

As with every other nation, lunitik. We were never meant to rule, but rather we were meant to be caretakers.

I have not said it hasn't touched loves, I simply question whether the effects are genuinely worth anything. I would certainly rather die than prolong a life full of suffering, yes. If life isn't enjoyable you are already dead, so what difference is there? Again, you fear death, and if you let another die then it presents your own mortality.

You assume far too much. Death is a part of life and nothing to fear. Also, life isn't about riches and pleasures we can attain by living, but it "is" about love and service and caring for one another. You can't imagine living an enjoyable life aside from your pleasures, but many of us derive great joy by helping others and by building life long friendships in the process. Without love life is empty no matter how many dragons (Pleasures) you chase in the process. In the end, you are who you are and I'm sure you are far from being alone. You do your thing; I'll do mine. You live the best you know how, and I will do the same.


Take care,

 

[Lunitik]

Nature is perfectly acceptable as it is, but mankind is not.

Man is part of nature, we just have fancy habitats from our destruction of environments.

All men have the right to a good life and all men "could" have a good life if humanity would only open their hearts and give more than they take.

It is not about give and take, it is about your overall affect. If you have a huge carbon footprint every year, but gave a few thousand to charity, you haven't opened your heart you have only eased your mind.

I do .... Great expectations at that! It is our destiny to rise above!

Above what?

It is about advancing consciousness, but most do not even bother to look. We are too busy distracting ourselves with external things to ever look within. We cannot even look at the effect our actions have, let alone look deep.

You can't imagine living an enjoyable life aside from your pleasures, but many of us derive great joy by helping others and by building life long friendships in the process.

I derive great joy without needing to pretend I am helping others, without the necessity for people around me distracting from myself.

Without love life is empty no matter how many dragons (Pleasures) you chase in the process.

I am love, and I do not chase anything, not service or hobbies or anything else which can be called a pleasure seeking activity. I do not call it love when you seek to change the object of affection though, I call that possessiveness. True love is about allowing the freedom of the object, not clinging or trying to control.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Man is part of nature, we just have fancy habitats from our destruction of environments.

So why are you indifferent to this?

It is not about give and take, it is about your overall affect. If you have a huge carbon footprint every year, but gave a few thousand to charity, you haven't opened your heart you have only eased your mind.

Indeed it is about overall affect, and again helping others isn't about easing one's mind; it's about loving your neighbor, doing for them what they cannot do for themselves.

Above what?

Above our propensity to destroy.

It is about advancing consciousness, but most do not even bother to look. We are too busy distracting ourselves with external things to ever look within. We cannot even look at the effect our actions have, let alone look deep.

Like it or not we live in an external environment, but our inner environment is just as important as the one without. I disagree with not being able to see the affect of our actions. We have years of history to clue us in. Love, compassion, charity, a genuine concern for those we share our world with have positive consequences, whereas indifference does nothing for our societies.

I derive great joy without needing to pretend I am helping others, without the necessity for people around me distracting from myself.

If what you do works for you, then keep on keepin on!

I am love, and I do not chase anything, not service or hobbies or anything else which can be called a pleasure seeking activity. I do not call it love when you seek to change the object of affection though, I call that possessiveness. True love is about allowing the freedom of the object, not clinging or trying to control.

Change the object of affection? Boy oh boy do you have it wrong! It's called helping those in need. Who's trying to change who others are? What many do do is help feed, help cloth, help shelter, and help comfort those in need of these things. How can you claim to be love when you are so indifferent? You claim to be God also, but by claiming such make it so?

 

[Lunitik]

So why are you indifferent to this?

It has already happened, so being against it serves no purpose. I am more interested in waking people up so they can see the errors they are making clearly. I am not interested in fighting the issue at all, there is no need when they are fully conscious to reality, when they understand its nature.

Indeed it is about overall affect, and again helping others isn't about easing one's mind; it's about loving your neighbor, doing for them what they cannot do for themselves.

You seem sure about this, but where has the desire to do for them come from? The natural condition is further your own existence, to better your own situation. This idea is unnatural, but you are not awake so it is a borrowed sentiment.

Like it or not we live in an external environment, but our inner environment is just as important as the one without. I disagree with not being able to see the affect of our actions. We have years of history to clue us in. Love, compassion, charity, a genuine concern for those we share our world with have positive consequences, whereas indifference does nothing for our societies.

If we had the ability to learn from history there would be no violence at all, but history has a habit of repeating itself. What I mean, however, is that we always look to assist through outward actions, through our affects on others. We never look at ourselves and see how we can change to benefit society at large. We are using a computer right now, we probably have lights on, maybe an AC, refrigerator, microwave, VCR, we go on eating meat, dairy products, driving our cars everywhere, none of this is really noticed. All of these luxuries are causing harm to the environment in one way or another, but instead of working on them we just write a check and maybe work a few weekends at a donation bank and tell ourselves we are doing good.

Change the object of affection? Boy oh boy do you have it wrong! It's called helping those in need. Who's trying to change who others are? What many do do is help feed, help cloth, help shelter, and help comfort those in need of these things. How can you claim to be love when you are so indifferent? You claim to be God also, but by claiming such make it so?

We aren't really helping though, we are creating a dependence which is a form of control. It is very dirty indeed, but most don't see the difference.

I have defined what I meant by indifference, that there is no difference between these things. It is all a play, an entertainment for existence. Look at your own choice in movies, what is your favorite genre? Do you watch romantic movies? I would bet your favorite is action...

The statements of "I am love" or "I am God" are not different at all, the Bible states "If you have not known love you have not known the father, for God is love" (1 John 4:8). It is not an attached love though, it is a love for existence not for something within existence, not for an aspect of existence, for the whole. The whole includes what you call evil, it includes what you call good, they are both necessary. The negative is merely the contrast that allows you to know the positive, but you identify with one and so naturally you appose the other - this is always the case.

 

[Ciel]

I'm with you Gatekeeper ........... because I see with you love and compassion flows, is real, is truth. I feel it in your words. It lives...........

Lunitik,
Enlightenment has many facets.... I have known the one you walk with at present, see how it induces you to pontificate......It is not the only way.
Are you truly awake or sleeping under the veil of the seduction of bliss.

- c -

 

[IowaGuy]

There is no natural ecosystem in the world which doesn't take care of itself perfectly without our input. It is exactly our effort to better the world which is screwing with every aspect of life.....Nature is in a natural balance....

I agree that Mother Nature doesn't need our help in any way, shape, or form. She doesn't need us to "save the whales," "save the rainforest," etc. Mother Nature was doing just fine before humans came on the scene 200,000 years ago and she will do just fine if/when we exterminate ourselves.

I agree that nature has a natural balance. Prey is abundant so predators flourish. Predators flourish causing prey species to diminish. Prey diminishes causing starvation in predators and their offspring which lowers predator populations. Fewer predators means more prey, starting the cycle over again. (the lynx/snowshoe hare cycle is a prime example of nature's balance) All the "sustainability" examples I can think of in nature have some element of overharvest of vegetation or prey, and starvation/disease. The pendulum swings in one direction and then the other. Always towards a balance.

Early cultures lived in a very sustainable balance with nature for thousands of years. As nomadic hunter/gatherers with low populations, they basically lived on the earth's surplus. While they may have shaped their immediate environment with prescribed fire and small-scale forest clearing, their overall impact on the global environment was farily minimal (for the most part the only traces you can find of their ancient cultures are some pictographs/petroglyphs, a few artifacts, and extinct wooly mammoths).

Throughout time nature has kept human populations in check (Irish potato famine, black plague, smallpox, etc). Although modern humans have "outsmarted" some of nature's efforts to control our populations (via modern agriculture, reduced childhood mortality, creating vaccines for diseases, etc), if we continue our population growth nature will someday reduce our numbers to be back in balance with our available resources. Either through disease, famine, or both (assuming we don't kill ourselves first with modern warfare). Mathus has some good writings on this (e.g. Mathusian Catastrophe).

Ideally the advance of humans would be a balance between environmental degredation and "progress." However, I believe the Tragedy of the Commons/Mathusian Catastrophe is unavoidable as time marches on unless we find a way to encourage/implement global population control.

If anything, the worldwide situation is getting worse......It is not possible to change the world, I have been saying that the very effort to make it better is what is making it worse.

I disagree that by trying to better the world that we make it worse. Human quality of life is much better today because of human efforts: increased lifespan (75 years today compared to 40 back in Native American days); increased opportunities for knowledge with books & internet (compared to just learning your culture's oral tradition thousands of years ago); more leisure time so we can ponder spirituality instead of 80 hours per week of hard labor just to feed our family.

Do you think we should revert back to the "olden days" of hard labor, short lifespans, and no books/internet? I don't see you personally following this path (as you obviously use the internet and apparently have ample leisure time as you post a lot) so clearly you think some advances in quality of life worthwhile and you apply them to your life.

I personally think the main driver towards making the world worse is overpopulation. Humans were just another part of nature when we numbered in the millions (300 million at the time of Christ). Now with increased technology and population near 7 billion, we cumulatively have some major impacts which will only get worse as global population increases to 10 or 15 billion. Ironically, some of the areas of greatest population growth are the areas with the fewest natural resources and least means to feed themselves. (see interactive map at NOVA | Human Numbers Through Time).

for me, countries should go away and UN should control a global police force

Reminds me of another Lennon quote

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."

- JOHN LENNON (1940-1980)

Are you not alive? Have you ever investigated that which gives you life? Do you not exist? Can you be distinct from existence? Do you think God is distinct from existence? If you are saying yes, you are saying God doesn't exist...

Lunitik - it seems as though you share many pantheist beliefs. Would you be willing to clarify whether you consider "God" and Nature to be the same thing? If not, how do they differ in your view?

You want to feel you left the planet better than you found it, this is your ego trip.......I say, instead of trying to help in futile ways, we engage in avenues which genuinely help - enter fields of alternative fuel production, spend a little extra on a low emissions car, eat less foods that are created in damaging ways, there is so much you can do directly.

Lunitik you are contradicting yourself here. Obviously you wouldn't advocate for green energy, small carbon footprint, veganism, etc if you didn't want to make the planet better a better place, would you?

I do agree with many of your stated environmental viewpoints (I have a M.S. in Environmental Science, am a hunter-vegan, spend 20 days/year solo in the wilderness, and strive towards self-sufficiency). However, if you truly think it's "not possible to change the world" and that nature finds its own balance and "can take care of itself perfectly without our input", why would you worry about and advocate for living sustainably? Why not just let nature run her course, whatever result that may bring for humanity?

Do you believe some environmental degradation is acceptable in order that humans have increased quality of life? (i.e. Thoreau's axe - he always complained about the environmental impact of trains but yet they carried quality-of-life items such as his axe) From reading your posts you apparently think we've overreached in modern times; where on the timeline of human "progress" do you think this balance was reached?

I personally believe it IS possible to change the world, but obviously one individual can only do so much. I strive to "be the change I wish to see in the world" and let Mother Nature sort out the rest...

 

[Lunitik]

Enlightenment has many facets.... I have known the one you walk with at present, see how it induces you to pontificate......It is not the only way.
Are you truly awake or sleeping under the veil of the seduction of bliss.

I have always enjoyed debate, so of course this is going to shine through after awakening. It is not that I am trying to force others to my side though, it is that to debate you must take sides. Truth is always the middle of the two statements and I have attempted to work to that also, I have said that action with love is always good but it is still being read that I am saying laziness and passivity is the correct path.

This could not be further from my genuine stance, I believe I even brought up my distaste for Gandhi in this thread because his form of action is just as violent for me as a Hitler. It seems we can excuse him though because he is violent to himself only, and because his hostility is not outward. Hitler, for me, is at least more authentically violent - he isn't trying to hide behind a veil of non-violence, which is just the other side of the coin. I have also brought up Krishna, who in the Bagivad Gita has convinced Arjuna of the benefits of war. I have even brought up Buddha killing a man, very violent and shocking for a Buddhist I think. It is not that I am picking sides, it is that I have apparently hit a nerve with the futility of charity and the conversation cannot move past it.

I have stated that war, when engaged as an individual for the goal of personal freedom, is perfectly good. It is only the group-think and utter hatred towards the enemy that makes war disgusting. Enlightenment is all inclusive, it cannot disregard anything of existence. If you choose, you are not enlightened, but at the same time debates are very uninteresting when both are making the same points...

 

[Lunitik]

I disagree that by trying to better the world that we make it worse. Human quality of life is much better today because of human efforts: increased lifespan (75 years today compared to 40 back in Native American days); increased opportunities for knowledge with books & internet (compared to just learning your culture's oral tradition thousands of years ago); more leisure time so we can ponder spirituality instead of 80 hours per week of hard labor just to feed our family.

I have said that we should be investing our resources into less harmful forms of energy. For me, this is the only way forward, it is plainly obvious that our use of fossil fuels is damaging the world. It is utterly greedy that we are refusing to transfer to another resource simply because the current hasn't been totally used up yet.

I think that, on the surface, our lives are much improved. They appear far more beneficial and worth while, and yet suicide rates and homicides are escalating per capitol. Our technology is bringing us further apart, but making it seem like we are closer - I think this is having a negative effect on our psyches.

Overall, no, I do not want us to go backwards, but I am not sure that it is so clear cut that our lives are superior to those that came before. At best, we can only say they are different. I do not say "good old days", they are past and looking backwards for me is a sin. I just hope that going forward we are more wise to how we might effect life on this planet, I hope we are more compassionate to life wider than just the human race.

I personally think the main driver towards making the world worse is overpopulation. Humans were just another part of nature when we numbered in the millions (300 million at the time of Christ). Now with increased technology and population near 7 billion, we cumulatively have some major impacts which will only get worse as global population increases to 10 or 15 billion. Ironically, some of the areas of greatest population growth are the areas with the fewest natural resources and least means to feed themselves. (see interactive map at NOVA | Human Numbers Through Time).

We actually can perfectly sustain 10 billion on this planet simply by becoming vegetarian. The food we give to animals that eventually are killed to be put in our grocery stores is vastly higher than the nutrients we extract. At the same time, they are giving off a lot of gas and of course we breed them in high numbers because so many want to eat them. Much can be improved by this simple measure, but Pythagoras started saying this 2500 years ago and it is not catching on still.

That said, it maddens me a great deal that the Catholic Pope has the nerve to preach about contraception being evil. Most of the religious organizations are this way though, we fear death and so we make life sacred. When life is sacred, we must continue to breed in large number. This simply isn't sustainable and these out dated religious ideas need to be re-evaluated. Life is not sacred at all, this is a stupid idea. Life is merely the middle ground between birth and death, it is another structure of reality, only the eternal is sacred but we are all that - science has proven energy cannot be removed, it can only change form.

Reminds me of another Lennon quote

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."

- JOHN LENNON (1940-1980)

I completely agree with him, religious organizations are just like politics, they are just two examples of the prisons we go on ignoring. The politician puts socialism against capitolism, communism against democracy. The religious leaders put Hindu against Muslim, Christian against Buddhist. The government puts India against Pakistan, Greece against Turkey. It is stupid, because we actually seek out these prisons. We become proud of our particular prison, we identify so much with them. It is a very strange situation.

Lunitik - it seems as though you share many pantheist beliefs. Would you be willing to clarify whether you consider "God" and Nature to be the same thing? If not, how do they differ in your view?

I have no beliefs at all, I have experienced something like pantheism. Existence is one being, it is not divided at all, cannot be divided. For me, God is merely another word for existence, it is the cosmic consciousness that many have experienced down the ages. They differ only depending on your definition of existence. God is not the gross world we experience on a day to day basis, God is the subtle aspect of reality scientists are calling quanta.

For me, however, it is not particularly useful to discuss God. You are attempting to see some confirmation of your own ideas, but my answer cannot help you experience God. You can find God if you are open to it, simply allow it.

Think of a circle, things like good/bad, rich/poor, birth/death, health/illness, these are as lines through the circle but they remain on the circumference. From each point, imagine a radius to the middle of each, if you can do this you will find your own center. Surrender to that, inquire deeply into that, and you will find reality, the true nature of existence, and your true self. This is what religions call God/Dharmakaya/Brahman/Allah/Yehweh/etc - what you call it is utterly irrelevant.

Lunitik you are contradicting yourself here. Obviously you wouldn't advocate for green energy, small carbon footprint, veganism, etc if you didn't want to make the planet better a better place, would you?

I seem contradictory because you have a certain idea of what should be stated, do not try to force me into a box!

What I have been doing is trying to remove the self-righteousness of charity statements in this thread, and pointed out that this person is probably not even doing what they can do in their immediate surroundings.

I am attempting to show that both are egotistical, the charity is given because it makes people feel less guilty, but the more direct things aren't done because it directly affects them and makes life less comfortable.

I have not really made any personal statements in this thread, I am merely making points that show the flaws in the current system.

I do agree with many of your stated environmental viewpoints (I have a M.S. in Environmental Science, am a hunter-vegan, spend 20 days/year solo in the wilderness, and strive towards self-sufficiency). However, if you truly think it's "not possible to change the world" and that nature finds its own balance and "can take care of itself perfectly without our input", why would you worry about and advocate for living sustainably? Why not just let nature run her course, whatever result that may bring for humanity?

I have already answered why I seem to be arguing for sustainability. For me, though, if we are damaging the planet too much, the planet will simply destroy us. We see this in the natural disasters, nature is not at our whim. The natural order insists that things are always in balance, if we change that too much, it will correct on its own. Our own steps are an attempt to show we are more powerful, that we are in control, and I simply disagree with any such sentiments.

That said, I would prefer not to see such suffering, so if we can manage a certain balance ourselves nature needn't intervene. We have to lose this attitude that we are important though, we simply do not matter at all. It is more about the attitude we have within the process, rather than the process itself.

Do you believe some environmental degradation is acceptable in order that humans have increased quality of life? (i.e. Thoreau's axe - he always complained about the environmental impact of trains but yet they carried quality-of-life items such as his axe) From reading your posts you apparently think we've overreached in modern times; where on the timeline of human "progress" do you think this balance was reached?

No, we are not more important than nature, we are a part of that. If we degrade nature, our lives will inevitably suffer. I also do not say we have overreached, I just think we are making stupid decisions that will cost us dearly if not corrected. I do not look backwards: the past is dead, its only remnant is the effects it has on today. In my life time, we are going to run out of petroleum, I see no infrastructure being prepared for another form of electric. This is not smart at all, the entire world needs to be converted and it will take a long time. We need to be switching now and using the old resources in areas that have not yet been converted. In Cities like Los Angeles they are directly linking fumes to cancer and other cardiovascular issues, yet we are in no rush to clean things up. We saw a whole school of fish simply die off the shore of California but apparently this hasn't alarmed anyone...

 

[Lunitik]

While I say God is not the gross aspect of reality, at the same time, this the lowest aspect of God. It is the same for humans, our body is the gross aspect, our soul is the subtle aspect. A human cannot be without both, and so both must be grown. Eventually, both are transcended and you discover your whole - this, for me, is the true holy person.

Down the ages, we have gone on rejecting the gross in favor of the subtle, but this has created a schizophrenia in man, most humans are walking civil wars. Most religious people are very hypocritical, they say one thing but they want to do another. I seem hypocritical at times, but it is for a different reason. I am authentic, I have not chosen a particular aspect of my whole, so often if you are looking for consistency, you will see I am contradictory. This isn't the same, as each side is coming from the same source, but in the religious man - the saint, the sage - they go on repressing one aspect and accentuating the other. This is utterly false, it is bound to have very negative effects. If you go on obsessing about a repression, you are going to act on it, not only this but you begin to hate those that are not suppressing things. This is the world we live in today, everything is one extreme or the other. Priests repressing sexual desire because of celibacy and then molesting members of the church is not at all surprising, it is surprising it hasn't happened more. They are utterly going against nature, nature always wins.

I want a more authentic people to come about, I think that if you can find your core first, there is no need for this whole stupidity to continue. If you deeply understand the nature of existence, everything you do will be virtuous. Our so called morals are not helping though, it can only cause rebellion and our prison systems show this quite clearly. Authentic people do not want to be chained, and people never really go beyond the childish state in the world today. If you tell them know, it only creates a curiosity. When you create a law, you have only provided an idea, you have not stopped anyone from breaking it. Authentic people are bound to rebel against this, but if they know deeply what they truly are, you needn't even have laws.

The gross world is simply dense energy filtered through our perceptions, our senses. The nature of that energy is love, but not a directed love. Buddha calls it mette - loving compassion - this is perhaps the best word for it. Words can only point though, so I say all should venture to experience. There are many devices for this experience, I have provided one above.

Mostly, they all point to zipping up reality, bringing the opposites together and understanding they are not different at all in their nature - just like a number line, 1 necessitates -1 because 0 is the balance. This is also why I say that exaggerating good is not going to help... if good is increased to 3498759437 then bad must increase to -3498759437 - there is always balance because the extremes are merely aspects of the real, of the 0. If you remove good entirely, bad does not exist, but then there is less variety and life becomes a little dull.

 

[IowaGuy]

Our technology is bringing us further apart, but making it seem like we are closer

I agree and is one reason why I gave up television years ago and don't wear a watch. I think the Amish have a good philosophy when they carefully examine new technology to see if it is a net benefit to their life before adopting it.

We actually can perfectly sustain 10 billion on this planet simply by becoming vegetarian. The food we give to animals that eventually are killed to be put in our grocery stores is vastly higher than the nutrients we extract.

Agreed, here in the heartland that is in our face every day. Most livestock require between 3 to 6 grams of plant protein to make 1 gram of meat protein.

That said, it maddens me a great deal that the Catholic Pope has the nerve to preach about contraception being evil.

Agreed, but I think this will one day change as world opinions towards overpopulation evolve. The Catholic church will one day view contraception in the same light as a flat earth.

Life is not sacred at all, this is a stupid idea. Life is merely the middle ground between birth and death

If you don't think life is sacred, do you think killing another human or sentient being is wrong and why?

I have no beliefs at all, I have experienced something like pantheism.

OK, I'm starting to see where you're coming from...

 

[Lunitik]

If you don't think life is sacred, do you think killing another human or sentient being is wrong and why?

It is not a clear cut situation, circumstances are important to consider...

For instance, we keep people alive in vegetative states, I think it is more compassionate to kill them if we do not know how to bring about cognition. There are many situations like this, where we keep people alive medically because we cannot bear for them to die, but it is quite selfish. If you cannot assure a quality of life, you should not sustain it.

If we cannot correct babies with certain birth defects that ensure no quality of life, we should not bring them to term. This is another area the Church refuses to acknowledge, we can fix these issues, but stem cell research is apparently a sin, and cell manipulation is too. Clearly their God is not perfect, makes mistakes but has created in us the ability to correct it. It is wrong to force people to live with certain conditions.

I also think Korvorkian was on to something great. If a person has chosen to die, it is their right, we should make it as comfortable as possible for them to die.

If someone is impeding on your freedom, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to ensure your freedom. It is your instinct, and you should not compete with nature. So, in war, in self defence, whatever the situation, you should preserve your gift of life even if it costs another theirs.

Essentially, my rule is love without selfishness, but a love for yourself as well as the other - indeed for the whole. In todays world, love is very selfish, we keep people alive in awful conditions simply because we cannot bear to let them die. Death is a beautiful thing, and it is the only event we can be utterly sure of in life. Of course, the religions today need you to fear it, it is their whole device. They are manipulating you based on this fear, they are saying that if you believe in them, you can live forever. Then, if you buy this, they present you with a choice: do exactly as you're told, and you can go to heaven, otherwise you will go to hell. So now, hell becomes the substitute for death and you don't want that. You become greedy though when you hear about heaven, you are promised your hearts desires. It is funny that in the Islamic heaven, there will be wine and prostitutes of both sexes. Heaven is basically exactly what you have had to repress during life, but no one sees. It is a very strange situation that everyone agrees this makes sense, it is idiotic.

It is all founded on fear of death though, for me death is more sacred than life.

 

[donnann]

No, existence is merely the gross manifestation of God. Nothing that exists is separate from that, we merely have forgotten. The many mystic schools attempt to reintroduce us to our true reality, but the organizations are more interested in creating slaves and earning money for themselves - few actually understand what they are saying in my experience.

Many stumble across this truth in other paths, but it is purely by accident usually and thus they are not aware of what to do about it. It is depressing to me that this is even surprising to some, though. I believe it is the Bible which says God is closer than your life vain? Always, God is taught as something other, though, and this is fundamentally erroneous to the reality we live in. We are as a cell of God, only we have the ability to be conscious of this fact. In Catholicism, this is known as theosis, but of course every tradition teaches this in some way. If you are not Christian - this is an assumption on my part - then I can discuss it in terms of another tradition. If you are, though, I would recommend looking into Meister Eckhart - the Catholic mystic - as no other Christian has expressed it so beautifully in the history of the faith. I include Jesus himself in this statement, because not even he has talked so plainly of it.

For me, this is the fundamental foundation that interfaith dialog should be built on - the conclusions of the mystics. The details of a particular enlightened ones life are not at all important, leave it to the history books to record the past. Instead, though, we cling to the organizations that have attached themselves to particular enlightened ones and dispute which is most correct. In truth, they are all correct, they all are saying the same thing in fact. We do not realize it, though, because we insist on looking only at the surface. We see the words are different, the promises and practices are different, so we say they are utterly unrelated and worse even opposed to each other. We cling to the utterly irrelevant and so we fight among ourselves.

There is a great significance to Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge and this being called the first fall. We have created a scholarly exercise out of something experiential, we have worshiped something because we have failed to understand. It is easier to say they are a God than engage in experiencing the same, then we build rules based on another persons experience because we say it is the word of God. It is just unnecessary, if we teach people how to experience the same then these scriptures can be utterly ignored. The laws merely reflect the ramifications of all being part of a single whole, if we can experience that we are part of the whole, know it intrinsically, then we will not require laws anymore at all.

I agree with a lot of what you say. The tree of life is the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven. I believe they replaced the word love with worship. I believe god just wants us to love him and one another. I was raised primarily catholic however I have come to see the truth in all religions but also misconceptions. There is a heavenly kingdom that independantly exists out side this universe that this universe was modeled after. And yes there are elohim and eloher. That universe consists , is made up of more light than this one. Human beings will never be as big or consist of as much light as heavenly beings so they will be like gods and goddesses.

 

[Lunitik]

The tree of life is the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven.

The Tree of Life is the knowledge of death, for only when you face death directly can you reach the Kingdom of Heaven before you taste death. This is why I said for me death is more sacred than life in my last post.

I believe they replaced the word love with worship.

Inaccurate, worship is an expression of love, a deep gratitude for existence.

I believe god just wants us to love him and one another.

Worshiping God means to express love towards existence. Indeed, the Bible says God is love, and I have said God is the whole, thus all that exists is love. We are to know this, to realize this, but we are distracted with competition in life, a kind of hatred for others and favoritism for our self.

I was raised primarily catholic however I have come to see the truth in all religions but also misconceptions. There is a heavenly kingdom that independantly exists out side this universe that this universe was modeled after. And yes there are elohim and eloher. That universe consists , is made up of more light than this one. Human beings will never be as big or consist of as much light as heavenly beings so they will be like gods and goddesses.

This strikes me as utter tripe, where have you gathered this information? Is it your personal experience? If you knew from experience, you would know that all are totally in agreement in actuality. There is nothing independent of this existence, God is merely the whole. When we die, we join back to the whole, but we can know it while we are still alive. This is from direct experience, not something I have studied with teachers that are clueless. Heaven or Holy Spirit or Kingdom, these all refer to the subtle aspect of existence, just as soul is the subtle aspect of you. Science has confirmed this, they call it quanta, although my experience is not derived from scientific study either - I have merely experienced for myself and found accurate depictions in various circles.

You must understand that most of religion is tripe, though, most of it is merely to answer the foolish questions of those that have come to the master - founder or leader. Very little in the religious texts today actually talk about the nature of reality because the masses cannot grasp it. They instead talk about he ramifications of truth, and they put these forward often in the form of laws.

 

[donnann]

The Tree of Life is the knowledge of death, for only when you face death directly can you reach the Kingdom of Heaven before you taste death. This is why I said for me death is more sacred than life in my last post.





Inaccurate, worship is an expression of love, a deep gratitude for existence.



Worshiping God means to express love towards existence. Indeed, the Bible says God is love, and I have said God is the whole, thus all that exists is love. We are to know this, to realize this, but we are distracted with competition in life, a kind of hatred for others and favoritism for our self.



This strikes me as utter tripe, where have you gathered this information? Is it your personal experience? If you knew from experience, you would know that all are totally in agreement in actuality. There is nothing independent of this existence, God is merely the whole. When we die, we join back to the whole, but we can know it while we are still alive. This is from direct experience, not something I have studied with teachers that are clueless. Heaven or Holy Spirit or Kingdom, these all refer to the subtle aspect of existence, just as soul is the subtle aspect of you. Science has confirmed this, they call it quanta, although my experience is not derived from scientific study either - I have merely experienced for myself and found accurate depictions in various circles.

You must understand that most of religion is tripe, though, most of it is merely to answer the foolish questions of those that have come to the master - founder or leader. Very little in the religious texts today actually talk about the nature of reality because the masses cannot grasp it. They instead talk about he ramifications of truth, and they put these forward often in the form of laws.

In the bible says for example there is reference to the Song of Moses. This song is interpreting these books with a divine mind and knowing if you read a passage and it sounds evil that it means the opposite and then you have correct interpretation. Most of the books are written in this language. The word wasnt sent to only the jew or the christian or the buddhist or the hindu. It was sent to everyone but written in this form. Do you take a word from these texts or action and apply the meaning to mean what people here define the word or action as or do you put on a divine mind and say god may have a different defination for this word since hes all good? An example is beheading. Have you ever seen a painting that depicts John the Baptist with his head intact but also his head on a silver platter that he is holding. This is a key in correct interpretation. It really means to replace the carnal mind with the divine mind it doesnt in gods kingdom mean to harm a person and actually cut off their head. Most people interpret it to mean the evil action because there is a lack of understanding of the divine mind and they only go by what THEY know as far as definition it doesnt occur to them that GOD means something opposite.

 

[donnann]

I agree that Mother Nature doesn't need our help in any way, shape, or form. She doesn't need us to "save the whales," "save the rainforest," etc. Mother Nature was doing just fine before humans came on the scene 200,000 years ago and she will do just fine if/when we exterminate ourselves.

I agree that nature has a natural balance. Prey is abundant so predators flourish. Predators flourish causing prey species to diminish. Prey diminishes causing starvation in predators and their offspring which lowers predator populations. Fewer predators means more prey, starting the cycle over again. (the lynx/snowshoe hare cycle is a prime example of nature's balance) All the "sustainability" examples I can think of in nature have some element of overharvest of vegetation or prey, and starvation/disease. The pendulum swings in one direction and then the other. Always towards a balance.

Early cultures lived in a very sustainable balance with nature for thousands of years. As nomadic hunter/gatherers with low populations, they basically lived on the earth's surplus. While they may have shaped their immediate environment with prescribed fire and small-scale forest clearing, their overall impact on the global environment was farily minimal (for the most part the only traces you can find of their ancient cultures are some pictographs/petroglyphs, a few artifacts, and extinct wooly mammoths).

Throughout time nature has kept human populations in check (Irish potato famine, black plague, smallpox, etc). Although modern humans have "outsmarted" some of nature's efforts to control our populations (via modern agriculture, reduced childhood mortality, creating vaccines for diseases, etc), if we continue our population growth nature will someday reduce our numbers to be back in balance with our available resources. Either through disease, famine, or both (assuming we don't kill ourselves first with modern warfare). Mathus has some good writings on this (e.g. Mathusian Catastrophe).

Ideally the advance of humans would be a balance between environmental degredation and "progress." However, I believe the Tragedy of the Commons/Mathusian Catastrophe is unavoidable as time marches on unless we find a way to encourage/implement global population control.




I disagree that by trying to better the world that we make it worse. Human quality of life is much better today because of human efforts: increased lifespan (75 years today compared to 40 back in Native American days); increased opportunities for knowledge with books & internet (compared to just learning your culture's oral tradition thousands of years ago); more leisure time so we can ponder spirituality instead of 80 hours per week of hard labor just to feed our family.

Do you think we should revert back to the "olden days" of hard labor, short lifespans, and no books/internet? I don't see you personally following this path (as you obviously use the internet and apparently have ample leisure time as you post a lot) so clearly you think some advances in quality of life worthwhile and you apply them to your life.

I personally think the main driver towards making the world worse is overpopulation. Humans were just another part of nature when we numbered in the millions (300 million at the time of Christ). Now with increased technology and population near 7 billion, we cumulatively have some major impacts which will only get worse as global population increases to 10 or 15 billion. Ironically, some of the areas of greatest population growth are the areas with the fewest natural resources and least means to feed themselves. (see interactive map at NOVA | Human Numbers Through Time).




Reminds me of another Lennon quote

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."

- JOHN LENNON (1940-1980)




Lunitik - it seems as though you share many pantheist beliefs. Would you be willing to clarify whether you consider "God" and Nature to be the same thing? If not, how do they differ in your view?




Lunitik you are contradicting yourself here. Obviously you wouldn't advocate for green energy, small carbon footprint, veganism, etc if you didn't want to make the planet better a better place, would you?

I do agree with many of your stated environmental viewpoints (I have a M.S. in Environmental Science, am a hunter-vegan, spend 20 days/year solo in the wilderness, and strive towards self-sufficiency). However, if you truly think it's "not possible to change the world" and that nature finds its own balance and "can take care of itself perfectly without our input", why would you worry about and advocate for living sustainably? Why not just let nature run her course, whatever result that may bring for humanity?

Do you believe some environmental degradation is acceptable in order that humans have increased quality of life? (i.e. Thoreau's axe - he always complained about the environmental impact of trains but yet they carried quality-of-life items such as his axe) From reading your posts you apparently think we've overreached in modern times; where on the timeline of human "progress" do you think this balance was reached?

I personally believe it IS possible to change the world, but obviously one individual can only do so much. I strive to "be the change I wish to see in the world" and let Mother Nature sort out the rest...

I believe veganism, green energy ect is the way. I did it for about years and was made fun of, called a tree hugger, just treated horribly. I became tired of being treatd that way so I stopped doing it. People dont understand when you tell someone who thinks they are doing all the right things that say for example killing and eating animals is wrong and isnt gods way they get angry and abusive and most people believe that god gave them permission to do that because they have a lack of understanding as to what the texts really mean. However no one should be treated badly but thats how people react to being told that they are not living the way they should be. After goin through that I understand why jesus was crucified but also why he said father forgive them for they know not what they do.

 

[Lunitik]

In the bible says for example there is reference to the Song of Moses. This song is interpreting these books with a divine mind and knowing if you read a passage and it sounds evil that it means the opposite and then you have correct interpretation. Most of the books are written in this language. The word wasnt sent to only the jew or the christian or the buddhist or the hindu. It was sent to everyone but written in this form. Do you take a word from these texts or action and apply the meaning to mean what people here define the word or action as or do you put on a divine mind and say god may have a different defination for this word since hes all good? An example is beheading. Have you ever seen a painting that depicts John the Baptist with his head intact but also his head on a silver platter that he is holding. This is a key in correct interpretation. It really means to replace the carnal mind with the divine mind it doesnt in gods kingdom mean to harm a person and actually cut off their head. Most people interpret it to mean the evil action because there is a lack of understanding of the divine mind and they only go by what THEY know as far as definition it doesnt occur to them that GOD means something opposite.

I am not even particularly interested in dead scriptures, your interpretation of scripture is utterly irrelevant if you have not know what is being pointed at experientially.

It is the situation in the religious organizations that the blind are leading the blind today, many priests actually condemn seeking God yourself.

For me, Moses is just a man. For me, Krishna is just a man. For me, Sidhartha was just a man. For me, Jesus was just a man. They are normal men with only one difference: they are awake, are are Buddhas. I am interested in Buddhahood, not emulating a Buddha because of false promises or because I was born into a certain prison. None of the men listed have restricted themselves to the prisons of their time, Jesus was killed exactly because he hasn't catered to the status quo, but now, his rebellion towards truth has become a disgusting thing, it has become an organized lie - and it is the same for each of the men listed.

Buddha has killed, Krishna has had 16,000 women, Moses was utterly insane wandering in a desert for 40 years, Jesus has cursed a bush and whipped animals - not to mention how he treated his birth mother. I have no idea why these are the people we look to for spiritual guidance, although they have certainly provided pointers. There are far greater religious people through the history of man, these are quite poor choices for me.