What is "evil"?

[zippy2006]

I guess I don't know what "evil" specifically is.
Suffering serves a purpose, I don't know if it is "evil".
Ignorance of the four noble truths is unskillful, for sure.
Cessation of suffering is skillful.

One very simple and universal understanding is as follows: good is that which ought to be desired and evil is that which ought to be shunned. You might answer my post with that in mind.

Else, is skillfulness good, and unskillfulness evil? Should skillfulness be sought, and unskillfulness be shunned?

 

[ananda]

One very simple and universal understanding is as follows: good is that which ought to be desired and evil is that which ought to be shunned. You might answer my post with that in mind.

Else, is skillfulness good, and unskillfulness evil? Should skillfulness be sought, and unskillfulness be shunned?

Who determines what "ought" to be desired and shunned?

Is it all relative? Something that is skillful for one person may not be skillful for another.

 

[zippy2006]

Who determines what "ought" to be desired and shunned?

Is it all relative? Something that is skillful for one person may not be skillful for another.

So when you told me that suffering serves a purpose, ignorance of the four noble truths is unskillful, and cessation of suffering is skillful, you meant to say that, "Suffering serves a purpose for me, but it may not serve a purpose for others. Ignorance of the four noble truths is unskillful/evil for me, but it may not be for others. Cessation of suffering is skillful/good for me, but it may not be for others."

If it's not skillful/good for others, then why should anyone follow Buddhism? If the four noble truths are just subjective preferences, then why call them truths? And why is suffering unskillful/evil for some, but not for others? Is suffering beneficial or enjoyable to some people?

 

[ananda]

So when you told me that suffering serves a purpose, ignorance of the four noble truths is unskillful, and cessation of suffering is skillful, you meant to say that, "Suffering serves a purpose for me, but it may not serve a purpose for others. Ignorance of the four noble truths is unskillful/evil for me, but it may not be for others. Cessation of suffering is skillful/good for me, but it may not be for others."

Yes, that is true. I cannot judge for others if they determine the same things to be skillful or unskillful.

If it's not skillful/good for others, then why should anyone follow Buddhism? If the four noble truths are just subjective preferences, then why call them truths? And why is suffering unskillful/evil for some, but not for others? Is suffering beneficial or enjoyable to some people?

Buddhism is skillful for those who recognize that it is skillful for them. Buddha never forced others to follow his Path, but encouraged everyone to follow what they know for themselves to be the truth.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, that is true. I cannot judge for others if they determine the same things to be skillful or unskillful.

So why call it skillfulness? Isn't that a misnomer? Skill is objectively observable, and has little to do with subjective preferences.

Buddhism is skillful for those who recognize that it is skillful for them. Buddha never forced others to follow his Path, but encouraged everyone to follow what they know for themselves to be the truth.

It seems simply nonsensical to talk about "Knowing for oneself what is true." This is because you mean neither knowledge nor truth when you write the sentence. When you know what is true, it goes beyond oneself. Apparently you think someone could "Know for themselves the truth that green is the very best color." Again, this has nothing to do with knowledge or truth.

It would therefore probably be more accurate to say that the Buddha encouraged everyone to do what they like, to follow their subjective preferences.

 

[ananda]

So why call it skillfulness? Isn't that a misnomer? Skill is objectively observable, and has little to do with subjective preferences.

It seems simply nonsensical to talk about "Knowing for oneself what is true." This is because you mean neither knowledge nor truth when you write the sentence. When you know what is true, it goes beyond oneself. Apparently you think someone could "Know for themselves the truth that green is the very best color." Again, this has nothing to do with knowledge or truth.

It would therefore probably be more accurate to say that the Buddha encouraged everyone to do what they like, to follow their subjective preferences.

In a sense, we are each creators of our own universes, and we are each sitting in judgment of all that is in our universe.

 

[Winken]

... how does that address my comment?

Your comments remind me of existential analytic psychotherapy. Certainly could fit in the world view of Gestalt therapist Fritz Perls. The world is. You are. I am. It is what it is. There was no place in the mind of Fritz Perls for God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Salvation, eternal life. There was only "the moment." One lived in "the moment." No reason to investigate, explore, or discuss the past and the future. For him, there was only "the now." He wrote:

"I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
and you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped."

 

[Colter]

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:

Only those who are limited in space and time have the ability to "choose", because choices imply that the chooser possess a variety of options to choose from. And, if someone has multiple options, then that means that that person is limited, within spacetime.

Therefore, I state that your god seems to be within spacetime, and, thus, limited.

Man is in space time, God the I AM is an absolute that transcends both space and time.

 

[Jeshu]

So you would say Bad intention is evil?

Yes I would say that bad intention is evil, in varying degrees of intensity - it depends on how bad our intention is.

To love to kill, harm, oppress, belittle, imprison, or enslave life to your will is evil, be it done individually or socially. Such evil is born because the carrier believes lies about God, him or herself or other life. Life ought to be loved and free, The Truth sets us free and loves and takes care of us, but believing lies will always end up killing life, either spiritually or physically.

We cannot allow evil to rule us as we do today and survive as a species, to serve agape love and seek out and dwell in Christ's Truth is the answer to escaping death and destruction.

I found that once I find what is true I better hold onto it for dear life, such gems, don't you reckon? Always serving me, but lies, like evil, who wants that living inside? Better off in 't fiery lake I say.

 

[Jeshu]

It's strange, confused stuff ('it is unlawful to be afraid of Ea'huah', 'Ea'huah is afraid', 'Elohym.. will... convince them to believe a lie' ?), but frightening?

Although, I suppose if you believed in an omnipotent God of love and compassion who's afraid of not being in control, and deliberately deceives people, fear might be appropriate - if it wasn't unlawful by decree...

I Don't know how you got my name above something I didn't write.

and no I don't believe in such a god either.

I believe in a God who suffers our evil deeds and went to hell and back again to get us out of trouble - loving us with an undying love.

 

[zippy2006]

In a sense, we are each creators of our own universes, and we are each sitting in judgment of all that is in our universe.

True, yet the strange part is that you seem to deny the even more obvious fact that "In a sense, we all belong to the same universe."

 

[Laureate]

Sounds very Buddhist, where things are either skillfull or unskillful.

Resurrection or Reicarnation
Karma, or Do unto others as you would have another do unto you
Shinto or שת (spelled Shyn TW), 'Seth' the only surviving son of Adam (since the flood wiped out the others), he is Shinto 'the ancestor of ancestors', and because we are the many members of his body, plus him being the express image of Elohym, means he came back as Y'shua the Christ, who also claimed to be Shinto 'the door.

The disciples were told to go preach, but do not go into Asia.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I Don't know how you got my name above something I didn't write.

Sorry about that Jesu, I was replying to Laureate; the system seems to have inserted the wrong quote link. Just for the record, I've edited the post to correct it.

 

[Laureate]

To have a "will", one must have access to choices. Is your god limited that he has arrays of choices to choose from?

Elohym can not stop existing, for he is existence itself, neither can he (the male and female/hermaphroditic deity) tell a lie, neither can he go outside of his being and bring something back into it, so yes he has his limitations, notwithstanding, for everything he is unable to do, he is capable of achieving the equivalent thereof.

To say 'Skillful or Unskillful in Biblical Hebrew is the same as saying בינ ואין בין 'Wisdom & Understanding, or Without Wisdom & Understanding' (the same words translates 'Skillful, or Unskillful;

According to proverbs 'Wisdom is a tree of life...', therefore the tree of knowledge of good and evil is Without Wisdom, it is easy to stumble over vocabularies, and diverse terminologies.

For יהוה 'Existence' to transform his being into a universe, it took a decision on his behalf, to make a reproductive microcosm of himself required a decision, now that he has made many souls after his image, and in his likeness there has to be rules for cohabitation, which were unecessary prior to his creation of other souls.

He did not create the world to play God over others, but to have friends, and loved ones, with places to go, and things to do (as if it were) outside of his body, for none of these concepts existed before he invisioned them, and decided to make them so.

But why? you ask, Was he not already perfect, and content? From where then did all of a sudden these desires come for him to do such things?

Basically, you were content, till you began to imagine what it would be like to interact with another person/soul, to accomadate your imagination you also had to imagine as if there were another location.

Because you are Existence and there is nothing beside you, you were not just the only living soul, you were also the only location; In your vision you more or less imagined a perfect version of the world which we live in.

After you awoke from your vision like realistic dream, it did not take long for you to experience for the very first time the feeling of loneliness, and you also felt a longing for the family and friends who lived in your vision, after so many return visits you finally decided to make your vision your reality.

 

[Laureate]

You were like a child who discovered Disneyland X 10

 

[paulm50]

If a man were say for instance gay, and you were able to make him hetrosexual. Would it be evil to kill that man, or more loving to change his ways?

Is killing an animal as a sacrifice evil?

 

[ananda]

Resurrection or Reicarnation
Karma, or Do unto others as you would have another do unto you
Shinto or שת (spelled Shyn TW), 'Seth' the only surviving son of Adam (since the flood wiped out the others), he is Shinto 'the ancestor of ancestors', and because we are the many members of his body, plus him being the express image of Elohym, means he came back as Y'shua the Christ, who also claimed to be Shinto 'the door.

The disciples were told to go preach, but do not go into Asia.

The disciples of Jesus? I thought he reportedly said "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" Mt 28:19

 

[ananda]

Man is in space time, God the I AM is an absolute that transcends both space and time.

Then it seems that your god should have no choices or will ...

 

[Colter]

Then it seems that your god should have no choices or will ...

I don't understand your way of thinking, why would God not have volition, mind, choice or will?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't understand your way of thinking, why would God not have volition, mind, choice or will?

Clearly, because those involve a sequential process, which requires time.


eudaimonia,

Mark