Why Is Immortality/Eternal Life Desirable?

[elman]

Self is annihilated in your dissolution process. How much of the parts that are left are self being alive? Answer none. Result your dissolution is exactly the same as annihilatation.

Our experience of self is dissolved, not self as a whole in the sense of the skandhas. This seems to be your misunderstanding. Self is not just what we experience, it's a cluster of various things, such as sense, perception, judgments and consciousness. Those are all parts of a self. There is no self except as a whole composed of parts.

And none of the parts survive, correct? If none of the parts survive then the whole does not survive either.

Being concerned about someone because you love them is not your negative clinging and attachment. It is a positive state of relationship.

Anything positive is such and so because of moderation.

I agree and anything negative is such and so because of lack of moderation.

Observing the meaninglessness of prefering non existence because of some facination with the worms still being alive when I die, is not staying steadfast to a tiny little anthill. It is simply recogonizing meaninglessness and rejecting it as a profound philosophy or theology.

You believe it is meaningless that things still exist even after you die, but that is meaningful in a certain way.

In what way is it meaningful to the dead?

Originally Posted by elman
The problem is your lack of consistency. You do sometimes say non existence is preferable to existence but then you say otherwise. I believe life is both good and bad. I suspect, if you really do believe in Buddhism, you really do not profess that, but wish to escape the suffering in this life ultimately by seeking the bliss of oblivion. I wish to avoid the destiny of oblivion. I look for and hope for better than that. I think Christianity and Buddhism have similar ways of reaching their goals, both are about being kind and loving to others, but the goal in Buddhism is not a good goal and the goal of everlating life in my opinion is a good goal.

I wouldn't call nirvana oblivion, but that's another discussion entirely about the nature of enlightenment in relation to dukkha, anicca and anatta. I have a thread for it in Christianity and World Religion.

As I understand it, it is obllivion of the self, the individual.

I don't deny that Buddhism and Christianity have similarities. I have a decent amount of texts, even a collection of parallel sayings of Jesus and Buddha that I can reference occasionally.

This is a difficulty that is perspective based. You think life is to be attached to as the end in itself, whereas I want to surpass life and death in a sense, you might say.

And you think death is to be attached to as the end in itself.

You want life everlasting, am I right? I want to simply escape life and death, one might say. Therein is one of our differences

There is no escape from life and death. One of them is our destiny and the other is not. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[razeontherock]

This was a hypothesis as to why you'd argue that a relationship with God is desirable.

No, that's not what I was saying. There is a LOT of content in the context of this, that I think would be greatly beneficial to you understanding what you're pursuing. Backtracking to this and giving it another go is highly recommended.

2 things; Firstly we should not see ourselves as superior to animals in all ways and have no reason to view them as expendable or even somehow less worth our concern, since they are just as much suffering in many ways that we don't even usually realize.

This doesn't speak to G-d's command to be fruitful and multiply, and have dominion over the earth and everything in it. Yes I do fathom your perspective, which is the only way I can address your false preconceptions re: C. Which this is one of

Secondly, we have not subdued all the creatures of the earth. There are more wild animals than domesticated or tame animals and for you to say otherwise is to fly in the face of the evidence. People are killed by wild animals, which already demonstrates we have not subdued them by any stretch of the definition of subdue. Lions are not all tamed, only certain lions are tamed,

Missing the point. We have the G-d given ability to follow the commandment, and have been proving it for a VERY long time.

then you encounter a problem in your line of argumentation that I can understand it from my more Eastern perspective, it appears.

No I didn't argue that. I suggested the possibility, and still haven't formed any opinion. We'll see.

Is it completely impossible for you to communicate things about God that could be agreed upon even by nonbelievers in some sense?

Really? How can you even ask that? The subject is by definition something you don't agree exists, so .., yes, it's a complete impossibility. By starting this thread you reached out into the area of what you don't agree to.
For me to compromise the Truth would not be doing you any favors.

I can imagine eternal life in that it is life that persists on for an unending amount of time. How is that not grasping eternal life in some sense?

Well that's probably about as good as it gets, but the problem here is it is still within the confines of time. We can't really relate to anything happening w/o it ...

TIme becoming meaningless seems to have no relation to our will to live on. That's a matter of us not wanting to succumb to death and persist in living in spite of death around us. But when time becomes meaningless, there are repercussions that would seem to render us less than human

Notice the word I emphasized. That's a preconception, and a false assumption. Why less, and not more? Different, that much we know.

Even if I could understand it, it doesn't mean I will accept it. Understand that before you begin this endeavor.

Goes without say. And even at that, we've said this sort of thing to one another how many times now?

That would still make you an atheist, (ironically) in some sense of the word in that you understand people believing in other gods, but you refuse to believe in them as reality

Disagreed. Instead, G-d has been showing Himself to our species in all times in all places. None of us have gotten the complete picture yet.

So you're suggesting the analogy needs new qualifications that don't really exist to my knowledge with the lizard and actually seems to only confuse the issue more? If we don't really lose it, then either you're suggesting our memory remains or the actual physical 'arm' still remains. The second arm is more of a new growth instead of a replacement, so the difficulty you're suggesting seems to be that we sever that previous 'arm' permanently and then move on with the new 'arm'.

I appreciate your effort at paraphrasing; this is fruitful to understanding. The parts before I colored it red are accurate, but the red part is not. The difficulty is that the previous arm can NOT be severed permanently, yet we still have to move on via using the new arm instead.

What to do with the old arm? Enter the cross ...

not exactly a "desirable" picture.

But this just seems to be again dualism in terms of values. There are certain things that are considered absolutely useless and others that are absolutely useful, but I don't see it that way.

2 distinct personalities. This is the essence of humility before G-d! (And absolutely necessary before moving into any first-hand experience of EL)

Your comment re: values is noted. Hopefully soon we will have enough understanding to compare those, within an accurate framework, at which time let's not forget to come back to this thought.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

And none of the parts survive, correct? If none of the parts survive then the whole does not survive either.

This is a misunderstanding both of what I said and what seems to be the case with the skandhas in theory and practice. I never said the parts did not survive. Of course they survive, in the same way lego blocks survive when you break apart a construction of lego blocks.

The various parts of our self survive the dissolution of our experience of self, though using any possessive pronouns would potentialy miss the point, since our self is not really ours in Buddhist understanding.

I agree and anything negative is such and so because of lack of moderation.

A general thing we agree on, not unlike how Aquinas was able to use Aristotle in terms of Catholic apologetics, or how Augustine used Platonic ideas in his Christian philosophy.

In what way is it meaningful to the dead?

It isn't meaningful to the dead except in that they would be relieved temporarily of their attachment to self. But, as you seem to continue to misunderstand, Buddhism doesn't believe in general that any individual self survives death, but that it dissolves into the skandhas.

I'd think of a metaphor, but the best thing coming to mind would be a complex chemical compound composed of 5 elements. Break them down and you have the 5 elements separately, but they can be combined again to make that compound. This is somewhat how the skandhas work, though my understanding might be flawed.

I would take Augustine's position that funerals are meaningful to the living, not the dead, which does work for that context. For death in general, we are less inclined to think it benefits us because we are attached to our survival to an unrealistic extent in believing in a soul such as Christians tend to. But that could be considered tangential to the OP.

As I understand it, it is obllivion of the self, the individual.

No, not oblivion of the self, but its dissolution. I don't destroy peanut butter and jelly when I am able, by unknown means, to separate peanut butter and jelly from a mixture of them that you can buy in stores. They still survive when I dissolve the original compound.

Just because you or I as individuals are basically destroyed does not mean absolute annihilation of psychological constituents entirely. No more than destroying anything means it is completely destroyed. Wood turns to ash, but something still remains when the chemical reaction is complete.

And you think death is to be attached to as the end in itself.

No, death is not my attachment, but life is not my attachment either. I seek to transcend them in some sense, though not in any idea of immortality. I accept that I will die, but I do not view death as my salvation, since in Buddhist terms, I may still be reborn, though technically it won't be me that is reborn.

There is no escape from life and death. One of them is our destiny and the other is not. They are mutually exclusive.

I don't see why this must be the case and you asserting these claims without support for them is not making your argument more convincing, but only more logically invalid and unsound. Death is not our destiny any more than life is.

Death and life are a cycle. That doesn't make them both useless, but in fact it makes them both able to be appreciated when you are able to see death as the end in one sense, but a beginning in another sense.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, that's not what I was saying. There is a LOT of content in the context of this, that I think would be greatly beneficial to you understanding what you're pursuing. Backtracking to this and giving it another go is highly recommended.

So you don't think I have a "God shaped hole" but you nonetheless think it is in my benefit to have a relationship with God? You'd need to elaborate

This doesn't speak to G-d's command to be fruitful and multiply, and have dominion over the earth and everything in it. Yes I do fathom your perspective, which is the only way I can address your false preconceptions re: C. Which this is one of

I don't care about the commandment, it doesn't benefit us to see everything around us as a possession or somethign to control. It just reinforces delusions of grandeur and anthropocentrism. You hardly seem to fathom my perspective except in the sense that you already dismiss it as less enlightened.

Missing the point. We have the G-d given ability to follow the commandment, and have been proving it for a VERY long time.

On the contrary, there are animals we have no real capacity to dominate; like a freaking blue whale; nor should that be our goal in every context. Letting wild animals roam free in their habitat is just as beneficial, if not moreso than the isolated examples of domesticated or tamed animals that we have.

No I didn't argue that. I suggested the possibility, and still haven't formed any opinion. We'll see.

'
You told me yourself that you thought there was the possibility I'd find a parallel in Eastern philosophy. That wasyour hypothesis, don't try to recuse yourself of responsibility of that claim. You're starting to turn into a Pyrrhonist.

Really? How can you even ask that? The subject is by definition something you don't agree exists, so .., yes, it's a complete impossibility. By starting this thread you reached out into the area of what you don't agree to.
For me to compromise the Truth would not be doing you any favors.

You aren't listening to me when I say God is conceptual. I don't outright deny God's existence in teh conceptual sense, but I don't assent to any actual existence of such a being. It isn't a complete impossibility, but from my perspective, it's both highly unlikely empirically speaking and highly irrelevant, existentially speaking. The Truth in the ultimate sense would be beyond either of our capacities to speak it, seems to me.

Well that's probably about as good as it gets, but the problem here is it is still within the confines of time. We can't really relate to anything happening w/o it ...

Then my point remains that any eternal existence renders time and a vast part of our human existence neutered and impotent, or castrated to use somewhat extreme terms.

Notice the word I emphasized. That's a preconception, and a false assumption. Why less, and not more? Different, that much we know.

Different in such a sense that, as I said above, it would basically castrate us, or divest us of a key portion of our human psychological experience of the world.

Goes without say. And even at that, we've said this sort of thing to one another how many times now?

You don't seem to have comprehended that completely, but only to the extent that you seem to think I'm being stubborn in not accepting what you think is the truth for everyone.

Disagreed. Instead, G-d has been showing Himself to our species in all times in all places. None of us have gotten the complete picture yet.

This makes you sound more syncretist or Baha'i in that God progressively reveals itself through all religions.

I appreciate your effort at paraphrasing; this is fruitful to understanding. The parts before I colored it red are accurate, but the red part is not. The difficulty is that the previous arm can NOT be severed permanently, yet we still have to move on via using the new arm instead.

What to do with the old arm? Enter the cross ...

not exactly a "desirable" picture.

The metaphor breaks down then in that you're suggesting that there is any so called biological benefit of having an extra useless arm.

2 distinct personalities. This is the essence of humility before G-d! (And absolutely necessary before moving into any first-hand experience of EL)

Your comment re: values is noted. Hopefully soon we will have enough understanding to compare those, within an accurate framework, at which time let's not forget to come back to this thought.

To say than any Christian is completely useless or distinct from their other personality before they were a Christian is disingenous. I am not the same as I was before, but I am also not completely distinct from my self 10-20 years ago. Buddhist self metaphysics gets complicated like that

You'd need to explain why there are certain things that are supposedly completely useless, when i don't see it that way.

 

[razeontherock]

So you don't think I have a "God shaped hole" but you nonetheless think it is in my benefit to have a relationship with God? You'd need to elaborate

Again, this is not at all what i was addressing. I'll leave it to you to find the original context.

I don't care about the commandment, it doesn't benefit us to see everything around us as a possession or somethign to control. It just reinforces delusions of grandeur and anthropocentrism. You hardly seem to fathom my perspective except in the sense that you already dismiss it as less enlightened.

What I'm saying is you have a false preconception about what is meant by "dominion." In this case, specific to over all living things on Earth. But why chase another definition when we have a much more central on the table?

Focus

You told me yourself that you thought there was the possibility I'd find a parallel in Eastern philosophy.

A possibility does not a hypothesis make.

I don't outright deny God's existence in teh conceptual sense, but I don't assent to any actual existence of such a being.

This is because you have no direct experienced with Him. And none of what you say here comes from me "not listening." The concept of G-d is quite central to C. [In fact if you want to really understand what Genesis is saying in the beginning, you need to view it as "our concepts are better than ... anyone else's. That's exactly what it's there for, but I digress]

The Truth in the ultimate sense would be beyond either of our capacities to speak it, seems to me.

Which is why it is unrealistic for you to expect me to wrap up the answer to your main purpose for this thread in one tidy little sentence. Or post. Or book.

We can still make headway though!

Then my point remains that any eternal existence renders time and a vast part of our human existence neutered and impotent, or castrated to use somewhat extreme terms.

And yet we are told the exact opposite, that everything that makes life desirable is unimaginably better. (All except for the no reproduction part and no sex either, which I don't quite fathom but it does address what so many on CF naively address, population control)

Different in such a sense that, as I said above, it would basically castrate us, or divest us of a key portion of our human psychological experience of the world.

Please notice the trend of your preconceptions that immortality would be bad: they are all based upon false premises. A house of cards! Placed on sand. In high wind.

"our human psychological experience of the world"

After the world is destroyed and the heavens themselves are wrapped up like a garment and replaced like a man changes clothes. Your preconception here really has no place - in the most literal sense! If you're trying to apply it towards what C proclaims, which is the context of your premise for this thread.

Or did you mean to promote Buddhism, and argue how it superior to C?

You don't seem to have comprehended that completely, but only to the extent that you seem to think I'm being stubborn in not accepting what you think is the truth for everyone.

That accusation got quite tiring LONG ago. Please cut it out. Acceptance is quite distinct from comprehension, and we've established that repeatedly for no reason whatsoever. I mean, I was well aware of all this before I was 5. Is it really so new to you?

This makes you sound more syncretist or Baha'i in that God progressively reveals itself through all religions.

I'll take that as a compliment, because the Bible proclaims this plainly. The difference is of course C's revelation is the most complete, having taken on human flesh. And if Krishna did too, he failed in his mission since he stayed dead, proving he was not the Lord of Life. Something's amiss there ...

The metaphor breaks down then in that you're suggesting that there is any so called biological benefit of having an extra useless arm.

Any metaphor is crude. Obviously we aren't really talking about an actual arm, right? So the metaphor has served it's purpose, and we could explore the so called "arm." It's nature, purpose, etc. So here we've established the "doctrine of the arm of EL" I have to wonder how many would roll over in their grave, but at least we know what each other means, if only on this one point.

To say than any Christian is completely useless or distinct from their other personality before they were a Christian is disingenous. I am not the same as I was before, but I am also not completely distinct from my self 10-20 years ago. Buddhist self metaphysics gets complicated like that

Apparently Buddhism is far more complex than C, yes. Which I would present as a strength of C if that were our topic But you face another false preconception, that C posits our personality as useless and to be disposed of. quite the opposite: G-d actually LOVES us, enjoys our company, and makes room for our personalities. Imagine that!?

And this process of change is both pictured in the most familiar of terms, and as an unknowable mystery. To me this tells us in the clearest terms possible that nothing we're given is as complete an understanding as we'd like, and that the familiar things are themselves metaphor, and therefore imperfect.

Which agrees with the WHOLE of Scripture

You'd need to explain why there are certain things that are supposedly completely useless, when i don't see it that way.

"There is a time for every purpose under heaven"

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Again, this is not at all what i was addressing. I'll leave it to you to find the original context.

Then what were you saying that is relevant to why I should desire a relationship with God? Be clear and focus.

What I'm saying is you have a false preconception about what is meant by "dominion." In this case, specific to over all living things on Earth. But why chase another definition when we have a much more central on the table?

Focus

Who brought up the call from God to have dominion over everything in Genesis? Not me.

A possibility does not a hypothesis make.

Actually, I'm fairly certain it does. You make a correlation of causation, that is, a possibility of something causing another something in a relationship, and then formulate it more distinctly.

This is because you have no direct experienced with Him. And none of what you say here comes from me "not listening." The concept of G-d is quite central to C. [In fact if you want to really understand what Genesis is saying in the beginning, you need to view it as "our concepts are better than ... anyone else's. That's exactly what it's there for, but I digress]

Now you freely admit this whole idea is based in esoteric understanding, which renders the discussion pointless, since I can't even moderately understand it from some philosophical position. You've neutered the discussion yet again, it seems.

Which is why it is unrealistic for you to expect me to wrap up the answer to your main purpose for this thread in one tidy little sentence. Or post. Or book.

We can still make headway though!

I never said anything about expediency. Clarity over time overrides expediency. Take what time you need, but don't needlessly waste it with your tangents on Genesis and every little thing that you think is pertinent, when many times it isn't.

And yet we are told the exact opposite, that everything that makes life desirable is unimaginably better. (All except for the no reproduction part and no sex either, which I don't quite fathom but it does address what so many on CF naively address, population control)

Doesn't always work that way. Not everything that we think is good is actually good in all circumstances, nor is it good to take things to extremes and excess, because it only renders the thing to some uncontrolled raving manifestation of itself.

Please notice the trend of your preconceptions that immortality would be bad: they are all based upon false premises. A house of cards! Placed on sand. In high wind.

"our human psychological experience of the world"

After the world is destroyed and the heavens themselves are wrapped up like a garment and replaced like a man changes clothes. Your preconception here really has no place - in the most literal sense! If you're trying to apply it towards what C proclaims, which is the context of your premise for this thread.

Or did you mean to promote Buddhism, and argue how it superior to C?

They're based on premises. You haven't demonstrated that they are mistaken outside your own preconceptions, so any argument you have against my preconceptions is moot, since you're just as stuck in your own myopic perspective as you think I am.

Yours and Christianity's idea of humanity is disgusting to me when you think we can still be human apart from our relationship to what you believe are completely bad things, like death. And don't try asking these loaded questions so I'll paint myself into a corner. Promoting Buddhism, no, arguing from that position, yes. Distinction.

That accusation got quite tiring LONG ago. Please cut it out. Acceptance is quite distinct from comprehension, and we've established that repeatedly for no reason whatsoever. I mean, I was well aware of all this before I was 5. Is it really so new to you?

Only because you seem to say two things at the same time. Either I'm accepting and not comprehending or just unwilling to accept and thus not comprehend anyway.

I'll take that as a compliment, because the Bible proclaims this plainly. The difference is of course C's revelation is the most complete, having taken on human flesh. And if Krishna did too, he failed in his mission since he stayed dead, proving he was not the Lord of Life. Something's amiss there ...

Krishna is understood to have avatars and reincarnations, so he didn't really die either. You really seem to have a selective memory about other religions or just a misunderstanding of what they mean by death.

Any metaphor is crude. Obviously we aren't really talking about an actual arm, right? So the metaphor has served it's purpose, and we could explore the so called "arm." It's nature, purpose, etc. So here we've established the "doctrine of the arm of EL"

I have to wonder how many would roll over in their grave, but at least we know what each other means, if only on this one point.

EL as anything like an arm seems to suggest we should utterly abandon the previous arm in any sense of the term. The metaphor here is not only crude, but incoherent. A better one might suffice.

Apparently Buddhism is far more complex than C, yes. Which I would present as a strength of C if that were our topic

But you face another false preconception, that C posits our personality as useless and to be disposed of. quite the opposite: G-d actually LOVES us, enjoys our company, and makes room for our personalities. Imagine that!?

And this process of change is both pictured in the most familiar of terms, and as an unknowable mystery. To me this tells us in the clearest terms possible that nothing we're given is as complete an understanding as we'd like, and that the familiar things are themselves metaphor, and therefore imperfect.

Which agrees with the WHOLE of Scripture

Complex from your Western perspective, perhaps. But simple to others. Your judgment doesn't make it so. And now you basically seem to regard the vast majority of scripture as metaphor, unless you qualify otherwise, which I'd hope you do so not to make yourself look more vague and vapid than you appear at first.

I never said Christianity said our personality was useless and should be disposed of. In fact, it's that attachment to ourselves that I find problematic.

"There is a time for every purpose under heaven"

That's basically no different than saying, "God works in mysterious ways," in that it answers the question with nothing of real substance to the imminent problems that people are concerned with.

 

[elman]

=ToHoldNothing;57278362]This is a misunderstanding both of what I said and what seems to be the case with the skandhas in theory and practice. I never said the parts did not survive. Of course they survive, in the same way lego blocks survive when you break apart a construction of lego blocks.

Exactly what if anything survives?

The various parts of our self survive the dissolution of our experience of self, though using any possessive pronouns would potentialy miss the point, since our self is not really ours in Buddhist understanding.

This did not answer the above question. The various part of self do not survive when we die. Describe what part survives, if you disagree.

It isn't meaningful to the dead except in that they would be relieved temporarily of their attachment to self.

The dead has no attachment to self.

But, as you seem to continue to misunderstand, Buddhism doesn't believe in general that any individual self survives death, but that it dissolves into the skandhas.

If these words have any meaning at all, the result is annihilation, lack of life, non existence of self.

I'd think of a metaphor, but the best thing coming to mind would be a complex chemical compound composed of 5 elements. Break them down and you have the 5 elements separately, but they can be combined again to make that compound. This is somewhat how the skandhas work, though my understanding might be flawed.

But you don't believe even if reincarnated it is the same elements coming back together.

No, not oblivion of the self, but its dissolution.

Meaninglessness. The self is gone in both cases.

I don't destroy peanut butter and jelly when I am able, by unknown means, to separate peanut butter and jelly from a mixture of them that you can buy in stores. They still survive when I dissolve the original compound.

When I die, the compounds that make up my body may survive, but I do not.

Just because you or I as individuals are basically destroyed does not mean absolute annihilation of psychological constituents entirely.

If we are basically destroyed, what is not destroyed?

No more than destroying anything means it is completely destroyed. Wood turns to ash, but something still remains when the chemical reaction is complete.

Meaninglessness again. The chemicals that remain are not me--I am gone completely gone. Nothing of me remains in the chemicals you refer to as continuing.

No, death is not my attachment, but life is not my attachment either. I seek to transcend them in some sense, though not in any idea of immortality.

In what sense do you expect to die but not die?

I accept that I will die, but I do not view death as my salvation, since in Buddhist terms, I may still be reborn, though technically it won't be me that is reborn.

Do you not see the circle. It leads nowhere. You are not going to be reborn, so you are gone.

I don't see why this must be the case and you asserting these claims without support for them is not making your argument more convincing, but only more logically invalid and unsound. Death is not our destiny any more than life is.

You continue to be unclear on what you think our destiny is. You will say not life and then you will say not death, but you never get clear on exactly what our destiny will be. Neither does the teaching of Buddhist as far as I can tell either.

Death and life are a cycle. That doesn't make them both useless, but in fact it makes them both able to be appreciated when you are able to see death as the end in one sense, but a beginning in another sense.

If there is no life after death, then death and life are not a cycle. How is death a beginning? How do you see your death as a beginning and what is a beginning of?

 

[razeontherock]

Then what were you saying that is relevant to why I should desire a relationship with God? Be clear and focus.

We haven't gotten that far yet, and I've been very clear about that. You're bringing in more preconceptions which must be addressed first.

Now you freely admit this whole idea is based in esoteric understanding, which renders the discussion pointless

And why do you not find it hypocritical to make this statement, considering you (falsely) accuse me of not considering your perspective? To "explore C" IS to attempt to tap into another's esoteric understanding. The only way areound that is to stick to "the milk of the Word," the basic tenets: repentance from dead works, Baptism ...


Take what time you need, but don't needlessly waste it with your tangents on Genesis and every little thing that you think is pertinent, when many times it isn't. [/quote]

Oh, you mean addressing your preconceptions?

That's almost all I've done, and as you see in this post, we're back to more ...

Doesn't always work that way. Not everything that we think is good is actually good in all circumstances

This closer to "looking at G-d" than anything else I've ever seen you posit.

Yours and Christianity's idea of humanity is disgusting to me when you think we can still be human apart from our relationship to what you believe are completely bad things, like death.

Who said anything about still being human? Yet another false preconception to dismiss: "it does not yet appear what we shall be."

Promoting Buddhism, no, arguing from that position, yes.

And how does "arguing from that position" promote your understanding of "why is EL desirable within the C belief system?" Now if you needed to argue with me that what I put forth isn't C at all, that could be reasonable if the situation merited that. Is that what you see happening?

Only because you seem to say two things at the same time. Either I'm accepting and not comprehending or just unwilling to accept and thus not comprehend anyway.

Throw that strawman out and burn him! Why can't you understand or at least move towards it, and yet not accept? I see no other reason nor way to "Explore C."

EL as anything like an arm seems to suggest we should utterly abandon the previous arm in any sense of the term. The metaphor here is not only crude, but incoherent. A better one might suffice.

Why is metaphor needed at all at this point? It has outlived it's usefulness.

I never said Christianity said our personality was useless and should be disposed of. In fact, it's that attachment to ourselves that I find problematic.

Perhaps you could cite examples of pure C teaching that promotes this ill? If you're referring to practice, esp in the West, I can only agree.

That's basically no different than saying, "God works in mysterious ways," in that it answers the question with nothing of real substance to the imminent problems that people are concerned with.

While not as hostile as you've been previously, you're moving back in that direction here. Go back and read the context this was written in and you'll see it DIRECTLY addresses your concern. Again, preconception(s) that absolutely bar your further understanding of the topic at hand, and so need to be dealt with.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Exactly what if anything survives?
This did not answer the above question. The various part of self do not survive when we die. Describe what part survives, if you disagree.

The vehicle for the aggregates survive each in some sense in Buddhist understanding. I'm not saying your consciousness or your sensations survive your death, since that would assume permanence, which Buddhism doesn't admit of in terms of anything, let alone your self. I've said this many times in answer to your basic question of what survives, the skandhas, which are the constituents of our self as a general whole.

The dead has no attachment to self.

It's not about whether the dead have attachment to the self, but whether the living before they die are still attached to self.

If these words have any meaning at all, the result is annihilation, lack of life, non existence of self.
But you don't believe even if reincarnated it is the same elements coming back together.

No self does not mean absolute annihilation of self, but only what we experience and usually believe to be a persistent self, like a soul.

It's not the same elements, but they're not completely different elements. The idea of anatta can be communicated metaphorically with the idea of a flame being transferred. It's not absolutely different, but it's not absolutely the same as the flame when it was originally lit.

Meaninglessness. The self is gone in both cases.

The self as a whole, but not the self as in the potential elements, so to speak. Just like water is gone when we separate it into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen and oxygen remain

When I die, the compounds that make up my body may survive, but I do not.
If we are basically destroyed, what is not destroyed?

The immaterial aspects of sorts survive, which are the skandhas, though I don't absolutely subscribe to this as something verifiable, but simply which makes more sense than the Christian explanation of a soul.

Meaninglessness again. The chemicals that remain are not me--I am gone completely gone. Nothing of me remains in the chemicals you refer to as continuing.

I never correlated you andyour identity to chemicals. Your beliefs about your identity constitute your identity, which will cease to be when you die. But what was constituting consciousness, etc, will still persist in some sense.

In what sense do you expect to die but not die?

I never said I would not die. I die, but what was part of the general compounded existence that was previously me will still survive.

Do you not see the circle. It leads nowhere. You are not going to be reborn, so you are gone.

I never said I was going to be reborn as me. That's a Hindu concept. Buddhism doesn't believe the individual persists after death as that individual personality in any sense.

You continue to be unclear on what you think our destiny is. You will say not life and then you will say not death, but you never get clear on exactly what our destiny will be. Neither does the teaching of Buddhist as far as I can tell either.

You seem to look at Buddhism with unrealistic expectations borne out by a Christian upbringing and Western philosophy. We don't get all the answers spelled out to us in Buddhism, some things are realized by the individual in ways that can't be spelled out in explanations. At best, I can say our destiny, if you can call it that, is to be liberated from life and death, particularly in the mental sense.

If there is no life after death, then death and life are not a cycle. How is death a beginning? How do you see your death as a beginning and what is a beginning of

It isn't my death strictly speaking except as people perceive 'me' to die. I die, but I was never permanently here to begin with. There is life after death in some sense of the word, but I cannot speak on specifics in the Buddhist context beyond a general circle of life and death that we are all a part of. Death is a beginning in that others will be born in your place. It is not strictly a beginning for the one that dies, since their self is dissolved. My death is an opportunity, one might qualify.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

We haven't gotten that far yet, and I've been very clear about that. You're bringing in more preconceptions which must be addressed first.

So talk about what you are concentrating on.

And why do you not find it hypocritical to make this statement, considering you (falsely) accuse me of not considering your perspective? To "explore C" IS to attempt to tap into another's esoteric understanding. The only way areound that is to stick to "the milk of the Word," the basic tenets: repentance from dead works, Baptism ...

You don't appear to have considered my perspective. My perspective is not esoteric, but it's not so open that it's purely objective either. Each of us comes to truth in a different way, but it's not as if we completely disagree on every fundamental.

I don't see why I should read your bible as something relevant to me except as I find particular sayings relevant. I can read the stories involving the supernatural as literature without believing they reflect reality.

That's almost all I've done, and as you see in this post, we're back to more ...

And what might those be? You're being so very clear..not

This closer to "looking at G-d" than anything else I've ever seen you posit.

DOn't you mean looking from God's perspective? If I'm looking at God from a human perspective, theologically speaking there are blinders and limits on my sight.

Who said anything about still being human? Yet another false preconception to dismiss: "it does not yet appear what we shall be."

So you're a transhumanist now? That's all well and good, but there are more secular transhumanists than yourself and they're probably closer to success than your supposed armaggedon.

And how does "arguing from that position" promote your understanding of "why is EL desirable within the C belief system?" Now if you needed to argue with me that what I put forth isn't C at all, that could be reasonable if the situation merited that. Is that what you see happening?

Arguing from a Buddhist position does not preclude me from considering a Christian position hypothetically from your explanations of it. I'm not arguing with you about what Xianity is, since that's about as pointless as arguing what exact true Buddhism is, since culture always tends to alter understandings of any system, even so called 'original' Christianity.

Throw that strawman out and burn him! Why can't you understand or at least move towards it, and yet not accept? I see no other reason nor way to "Explore C."

Because one can explore something without concluding anything about whether it is true or not in its conclusions. I can investigate Christianity as culturally significant without saying that Christianity's beliefs are true. Moving towards something does not require that I accept it, but only that I learn about it in some sense. You seem to be making the two intertwined, which is unfair and unjustified.

Why is metaphor needed at all at this point? It has outlived it's usefulness.

Metaphor is practically the only way you can communicate any of these esoteric and mysterious ideas you keep insisting are self evident, but you never get to a simple explanation.

Perhaps you could cite examples of pure C teaching that promotes this ill? If you're referring to practice, esp in the West, I can only agree.

How about the existence of the soul? The notion of the soul being put into a zygote at conception comes to mind as well. Any Christian notion that we will survive our deaths, which even you believe, is already constituent of attachment to one's self in some sense of the word attachment or clinging.

While not as hostile as you've been previously, you're moving back in that direction here. Go back and read the context this was written in and you'll see it DIRECTLY addresses your concern. Again, preconception(s) that absolutely bar your further understanding of the topic at hand, and so need to be dealt with

Saying there is a time for everything in heaven is just shifting the responsibility to God to show how heaven allows for even supposedly good or bad things to be inverted in their value judgments. It's sounding more and more like a position that insists that your system has the full truth, when honestly, that claim has been going around for long before your system even came into being.

 

[elman]

Exactly what if anything survives?
This did not answer the above question. The various part of self do not survive when we die. Describe what part survives, if you disagree.

The vehicle for the aggregates survive each in some sense in Buddhist understanding. I'm not saying your consciousness or your sensations survive your death, since that would assume permanence, which Buddhism doesn't admit of in terms of anything, let alone your self. I've said this many times in answer to your basic question of what survives, the skandhas, which are the constituents of our self as a general whole.

I cannot find in that answer what exactly survives. What does a skandhas look like when I hold it in my hand? I am my consciousness and sensations. If that does not survive I do not survive.

The dead has no attachment to self.

It's not about whether the dead have attachment to the self, but whether the living before they die are still attached to self.

You shifted the focus again. No one questions the living before they die are attached, but you referred to the dead being attached or not attached to self.

If these words have any meaning at all, the result is annihilation, lack of life, non existence of self. But you don't believe even if reincarnated it is the same elements coming back together.

No self does not mean absolute annihilation of self, but only what we experience and usually believe to be a persistent self, like a soul.

Soul is me not my body.

It's not the same elements, but they're not completely different elements. The idea of anatta can be communicated metaphorically with the idea of a flame being transferred. It's not absolutely different, but it's not absolutely the same as the flame when it was originally lit.

Not understandable. This has no connect to my existence after I die, which you take the side of no existence and then you take the side of existence. It is meaningless.

Meaninglessness. The self is gone in both cases.

The self as a whole, but not the self as in the potential elements, so to speak. Just like water is gone when we separate it into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen and oxygen remain

But water does not and self does not. The bottom line or final result is non existence of water and self.

When I die, the compounds that make up my body may survive, but I do not. If we are basically destroyed, what is not destroyed?

The immaterial aspects of sorts survive, which are the skandhas, though I don't absolutely subscribe to this as something verifiable, but simply which makes more sense than the Christian explanation of a soul.

Again describe the skandhas.

Meaninglessness again. The chemicals that remain are not me--I am gone completely gone. Nothing of me remains in the chemicals you refer to as continuing.

I never correlated you andyour identity to chemicals. Your beliefs about your identity constitute your identity, which will cease to be when you die. But what was constituting consciousness, etc, will still persist in some sense.

What sense?

Do you not see the circle. It leads nowhere. You are not going to be reborn, so you are gone.

I never said I was going to be reborn as me. That's a Hindu concept. Buddhism doesn't believe the individual persists after death as that individual personality in any sense.

And we return to annihilation of the individual.

You continue to be unclear on what you think our destiny is. You will say not life and then you will say not death, but you never get clear on exactly what our destiny will be. Neither does the teaching of Buddhist as far as I can tell either.

You seem to look at Buddhism with unrealistic expectations borne out by a Christian upbringing and Western philosophy. We don't get all the answers spelled out to us in Buddhism, some things are realized by the individual in ways that can't be spelled out in explanations. At best, I can say our destiny, if you can call it that, is to be liberated from life and death, particularly in the mental sense.

I personally believe it is spelled out. The destiny is death but death is not something to hope for, so it is fogged in behind words that convey no real meaning.

If there is no life after death, then death and life are not a cycle. How is death a beginning? How do you see your death as a beginning and what is a beginning of

It isn't my death strictly speaking except as people perceive 'me' to die. I die, but I was never permanently here to begin with.

I did not say you were permanently here to begin with, but you are here and when you die you will no longer be here.

There is life after death in some sense of the word, but I cannot speak on specifics in the Buddhist context beyond a general circle of life and death that we are all a part of. Death is a beginning in that others will be born in your place.

A beginnning for others is not a beginnning for me. I think you have sifted the focus again.

It is not strictly a beginning for the one that dies, since their self is dissolved. My death is an opportunity, one might qualify.

And again the self is annihialated and the benefit to someone else is not really relevant to the one that died after he died.
__________________

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I cannot find in that answer what exactly survives. What does a skandhas look like when I hold it in my hand? I am my consciousness and sensations. If that does not survive I do not survive.

Did i say a skandha was verifiable by the naked eye? No. Of course 'you' don't survive. I never said otherwise. You're conflating your consciousness and sensations with your identity as a whole. Your identity is a bundle of all of those elements. Those elements can exist in a general sense without your self. Consciousness as potentiality, if you will, as opposed to actual consciousness that we have now. I don't claim to have any scientific backing for it, but it is simply a more practical explanation.

You shifted the focus again. No one questions the living before they die are attached, but you referred to the dead being attached or not attached to self.

Where did I say this? I'm fairly certain I never said the dead were able to think or be attached. The dead no longer have any self that can think, so they cannot be attached. It is only the fruits of your intentions that persist after your death.

Soul is me not my body.

I never said the soul was your body. You're the one positing some persistent form for your soul and self, I'm not.

Not understandable. This has no connect to my existence after I die, which you take the side of no existence and then you take the side of existence. It is meaningless.

Your death would be like transferring the flame to another candle. Though this could easily be confused to be like Hindu reincarnation, when it isn't. The flame is not representative of your permanent soul, but a soul that is always in flux and never the same absolutely as it was before in experience.

But water does not and self does not. The bottom line or final result is non existence of water and self.

Only in actuality, but not in potentiality. Both the dissolution of water and self into basic elements only means they no longer actually exist in any sense, but that they can be reconstituted. Like if one breaks apart a lego toy, you can put it back together.

Again describe the skandhas.

They are commonly understood as the aggregates and phenomena that compose what we are attached to as our self. In short, they might be argued to simply be general experiences we have that may indeed not survive our death in any sense. But every person is born with these capacities in some sense; our physical body, our sensations, our perceptions, our thoughts and our consciousness are all skandha to put it in some basic terms.

But in Buddhist udnerstanding, these are neither permanent nor something that you ultimately possess, so in that sense, there is no self that really dies, but merely dissolves.

What sense?

Matter and energy, for lack of a better term.

And we return to annihilation of the individual.

You speak as if this is a bad thing. I'm not afraid that when I die, my individual self will dissolve. It is an inevitability.

I personally believe it is spelled out. The destiny is death but death is not something to hope for, so it is fogged in behind words that convey no real meaning.

I don't hope for death, I accept it. I don't cling to my life, I appreciate it.

I did not say you were permanently here to begin with, but you are here and when you die you will no longer be here.

Again, this destruction of the self isn't a bad thing, it is simply the way things are in a Buddhist understanding. Your problem is that you can't wrap your head around it yet, or perhaps never at all, which might be the case for some people's psychology.

A beginnning for others is not a beginnning for me. I think you have sifted the focus again.

Assuming that we are like the flame transmitted across candles, then our death is just the beginning of another journey in our 'next' life, so to speak, though this isn't like hinduism, to qualify. I admit I was shifting responsibility, but if we focus on the Buddhist idea of self, it is more easily understood, especially if we properly understand rebirth.

And again the self is annihialated and the benefit to someone else is not really relevant to the one that died after he died.

Death may not be always argued to be beneficial in a direct sense, but in an indirect or general sense. No one may get much from it except closure or relief, but the individual doesn't necessarily get any direct benefit. But in their next life, they can be said to have another chance to realize enlightenment.

 

[razeontherock]

You're back to being too quarrelsome for me to engage. if you'd care to give 'er another go, I'll have a look ...

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If we don't qualify related terms, the idea of EL doesn't make sense. That'd be like trying to explain calculus before you explain algebra.

 

[razeontherock]

Well yes, if you look again at my first post in this thread that's what I was saying.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Do you truthfully think you can distinguish between soul and spirit, in the way Christianity uses such terms? If you think so, what compels you to think such a thing?

This is your first post by my accounts.

I do think I can distinguish between soul and spirit as Christians use it, though there are probably multiple understandings.

And what 'compels' me to think such a thing is that religion is not strictly something you have to study as an insider, except within a theological context. But not in the sense of religious studies as an academic and philosophical discipline. That's the distinction. By all means, continue to distinguish or combine soul and spirit as terms in the Christian context.

 

[razeontherock]

Well I'm curious how you would separate soul and Spirit, to be able to tell which is which. (AS the terms are used in C)

You have mentioned "attachment," and clinging. We cannot cling to a soul, since that's what we are. Obviously we are also a body, so dualism goes out the window ...

Holiness has at it's root WHOLE. (Not dual or binary)

Now there is VERY little I could with good conscience say about the human spirit as distinct from our soul. Further, different Bible versions (translations) are not consistent with their use of these 2 terms. Some even interchange them, seemingly randomly, within the same volume. One advantage of the KJV is it uses them consistently throughout. (I'm not a KJV only kind of guy though)

So there is a human spirit. There is also the Holy Spirit; i.e., G-d. Going back to your 3rd arm analogy, it would be easier if we just picked one spirit or the Other, but that's not how it works. Apparently death brings some final resolution to this predicament.

No doubt you say aha - death is not all bad! Yet G-d still declares to us death is the final enemy to be defeated. In other words, as long as there is ANY type of conflict left in our known existence, death will still be a reality.

Notice how the above addresses many preconceptions you have aired in this thread? and it pains me to feel this might be needful to say, but of course your ability to comprehend this is not at all the same as you accepting any of it as the way the world we find ourselves living in works. It's just me doing my best to be Faithful about conveying what the Bible says on the matter in summary form, w/o resorting to lengthy quotes I expect you don't care to read.


Trying to separate any of the 3 elements, spirit soul and body, makes no sense from where we are now, as living humans. The opposite is what G-d means by HOLINESS. (I don't find many C's to grasp that, but once it's raised none argue against the point either)




Death will apparently separate these 3 elements. So in a very literal sense, "it does not yet appear what we shall be." And this isn't presented as something to be desired or not.

The only clinging or attachment is to G-d Himself, and there is no need for the believer to wait for that to start. I'm not sure if this can count as entering EL or not, but I am sure that the process changes US, both soul and spirit. And in some cases (including mine) our body as well. And this type of clinging certainly brings us at least in the direction of having EL in reach, even if it is not EL itself.

Curious to see how you'll process this ...

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well I'm curious how you would separate soul and Spirit, to be able to tell which is which. (AS the terms are used in C)

The usual distinction I've heard is that the soul is our identity and the spirit is the animating force of God that is breathed into us at creation, so to speak.

You have mentioned "attachment," and clinging. We cannot cling to a soul, since that's what we are. Obviously we are also a body, so dualism goes out the window ...

Holiness has at it's root WHOLE. (Not dual or binary)

We can cling to our identity, though. You want your personality to survive your death, that is attachment in its basic nature. We think our 'self' is a possession of ours, when in Buddhist terms, it isn't.

Nondualism and monism are nuanced distinctions we'd need to make here. Christianity wouldn't really call itself monism, I'd imagine, but nondualism seems questionable as well in some sense, since distinction of the human and the divine seems necessary even in some supposed afterlife. After all, we can't be God, but only come close to resembling it.

Now there is VERY little I could with good conscience say about the human spirit as distinct from our soul. Further, different Bible versions (translations) are not consistent with their use of these 2 terms. Some even interchange them, seemingly randomly, within the same volume. One advantage of the KJV is it uses them consistently throughout. (I'm not a KJV only kind of guy though)

Well, part of it could just be etymology. Spirit as understood is breath and soul is usually connected with the mind, as in psyche or similar terms in Greek or Latin, or even the Hebrew understanding of nephesh versus ruach, soul versus spirit.

Ironically I remember someone saying there were parallels to the Hebrew idea of the soul and the Buddhist idea of the 'soul'. It's written by Nick Gier, you can find it online pretty easily

So there is a human spirit. There is also the Holy Spirit; i.e., G-d. Going back to your 3rd arm analogy, it would be easier if we just picked one spirit or the Other, but that's not how it works. Apparently death brings some final resolution to this predicament.

Spirit doesn't have to be unified necessarily except in its nature. There can be spiritual things without there having to be one overriding spirit, so to speak. It isn't any confusion so much when we consider the human spirit as distinct in some sense, but not completely separate from the Holy Spirit, many times I think understood as the breath of God.

No doubt you say aha - death is not all bad! Yet G-d still declares to us death is the final enemy to be defeated. In other words, as long as there is ANY type of conflict left in our known existence, death will still be a reality.

So death is only a result of conflict and not something built into nature...though that is usually claimed to be a result of the fall, which only seems to add more preconceptions into the discussion that seem unnecessary. There's no reason to believe the fall was literal or had any effect on our biology that therefore caused us to be subject to death.

Notice how the above addresses many preconceptions you have aired in this thread? and it pains me to feel this might be needful to say, but of course your ability to comprehend this is not at all the same as you accepting any of it as the way the world we find ourselves living in works. It's just me doing my best to be Faithful about conveying what the Bible says on the matter in summary form, w/o resorting to lengthy quotes I expect you don't care to read.

The bible can say many things on many subjects and not necessarily have a completely unified idea about everything. The Bible may allegedly be unified in prophecy, though I am skeptical on that from what I've heard, that doesn't mean it would necessarily be absolutely unified or clear about its metaphysics or phenomenology.

Trying to separate any of the 3 elements, spirit soul and body, makes no sense from where we are now, as living humans. The opposite is what G-d means by HOLINESS. (I don't find many C's to grasp that, but once it's raised none argue against the point either)

Why am I suddenly reminded of the Oneness sect, which has an interesting view on the Trinity that would require another thread and research on my part? Oneness seems to be key to the Jewish notion of God, but then the Triune nature seems to be emphasized moreso by modern Christians, which might be part of why the 3 elements are emphasized so much.

Death will apparently separate these 3 elements. So in a very literal sense, "it does not yet appear what we shall be." And this isn't presented as something to be desired or not.

So you're saying it's not about whether I desire it or not, but whether I accept it as true? Well in either case, I don't see a reason to assent to the validity of this metaphysics you present, so far.

The only clinging or attachment is to G-d Himself, and there is no need for the believer to wait for that to start. I'm not sure if this can count as entering EL or not, but I am sure that the process changes US, both soul and spirit. And in some cases (including mine) our body as well. And this type of clinging certainly brings us at least in the direction of having EL in reach, even if it is not EL itself.

Eternal life then is potentiality first and actuality later, it sounds like, to use medieval philosophy terms I gleaned from Aquinas.

I would to ask why you feel the need to attach yourself to God, but in theory one might argue this isn't clinging or attachment, but refuge, to use the Buddhist terms associated with the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. But there is a disconnect with Buddhists in that gods are not seen as the source of liberation or 'salvation', so of course, they would view your so called refuge in God as attachment, by virtue of that.

 

[elman]

I cannot find in that answer what exactly survives. What does a skandhas look like when I hold it in my hand? I am my consciousness and sensations. If that does not survive I do not survive.

Did i say a skandha was verifiable by the naked eye? No. Of course 'you' don't survive. I never said otherwise.

Then what are we talking about. Oblivion is our destiny.

You're conflating your consciousness and sensations with your identity as a whole. Your identity is a bundle of all of those elements.

What elements other than consecousness and sensations?

Those elements can exist in a general sense without your self. Consciousness as potentiality, if you will, as opposed to actual consciousness that we have now. I don't claim to have any scientific backing for it, but it is simply a more practical explanation.

I don't find it logical.

You shifted the focus again. No one questions the living before they die are attached, but you referred to the dead being attached or not attached to self.

Where did I say this? I'm fairly certain I never said the dead were able to think or be attached. The dead no longer have any self that can think, so they cannot be attached. It is only the fruits of your intentions that persist after your death.

This is a new term for what survives--the fruits of my intentions. I have trouble understanding what that is.

Not understandable. This has no connect to my existence after I die, which you take the side of no existence and then you take the side of existence. It is meaningless.

Your death would be like transferring the flame to another candle. Though this could easily be confused to be like Hindu reincarnation, when it isn't. The flame is not representative of your permanent soul, but a soul that is always in flux and never the same absolutely as it was before in experience.

This very foggy for me to get my mind around.

But water does not and self does not. The bottom line or final result is non existence of water and self.

Only in actuality, but not in potentiality.

I guess actuality is good enough for me.

Both the dissolution of water and self into basic elements only means they no longer actually exist in any sense, but that they can be reconstituted. Like if one breaks apart a lego toy, you can put it back together.

But you really don't believe they ever will be put back together do you?

Again describe the skandhas.

They are commonly understood as the aggregates and phenomena that compose what we are attached to as our self. In short, they might be argued to simply be general experiences we have that may indeed not survive our death in any sense.

It sounds like memories and it brings us back to oblivoun does it not?

But every person is born with these capacities in some sense; our physical body, our sensations, our perceptions, our thoughts and our consciousness are all skandha to put it in some basic terms.

And you believe nothing survives.

But in Buddhist udnerstanding, these are neither permanent nor something that you ultimately possess, so in that sense, there is no self that really dies, but merely dissolves.

I think this is illogical. Self had to exist in order to dissolve.

What sense?

Matter and energy, for lack of a better term.

As I have said, the fact that chemicals remain when my body dies is of no comfort to me.

And we return to annihilation of the individual.

You speak as if this is a bad thing. I'm not afraid that when I die, my individual self will dissolve. It is an inevitability.

Perhaps you and the atheist are correct in that we all die and that is the end and there is nothing further and no meaning to it all. But perhaps it is not an inevitable destiny. Perhaps there is the possibility that we exist by design and for a purpose and perhaps there is a destiny of life and not death and of meaning and not meaninglessness.

I personally believe it is spelled out. The destiny is death but death is not something to hope for, so it is fogged in behind words that convey no real meaning.

I don't hope for death, I accept it. I don't cling to my life, I appreciate it.

I appreciate life also and I look forward to the possibility of an abundant life.

I did not say you were permanently here to begin with, but you are here and when you die you will no longer be here.

Again, this destruction of the self isn't a bad thing, it is simply the way things are in a Buddhist understanding. Your problem is that you can't wrap your head around it yet, or perhaps never at all, which might be the case for some people's psychology.

Perhaps your are correct. My view is I do understand it is an attempt to avoid the reality of a belief in meaningless oblivion which is a bad thing compared to meaningful life.

A beginnning for others is not a beginnning for me. I think you have sifted the focus again.

Assuming that we are like the flame transmitted across candles, then our death is just the beginning of another journey in our 'next' life, so to speak, though this isn't like hinduism, to qualify. I admit I was shifting responsibility, but if we focus on the Buddhist idea of self, it is more easily understood, especially if we properly understand rebirth.

But your rebirth is not rebirth of self and my belief in rebirth is the rebirth of me, not someone else.

And again the self is annihialated and the benefit to someone else is not really relevant to the one that died after he died.

Death may not be always argued to be beneficial in a direct sense, but in an indirect or general sense. No one may get much from it except closure or relief, but the individual doesn't necessarily get any direct benefit. But in their next life, they can be said to have another chance to realize enlightenment.

But it is not them that has this chance but someone else. It seems to me you and I both make the assumption that reality is more than what we can perceive and that what we are unable to perceive is important. However you make the assumption it is not important to us but just important I guess to mankind or the universe in general; and I make the assumption whatever is out there that is important is important to me individually.

 

[razeontherock]

We can cling to our identity, though. You want your personality to survive your death, that is attachment in its basic nature.

Well this brings something very significant to light! C doesn't really say this. Again, what it says is "it does not yet appear what we shall be." Now I'm not saying your preconception here isn't rooted in what many, even most C's profess, but this one small quote is enough to dismiss the notion as false nontheless. (For a Bible believer, that is)

We think our 'self' is a possession of ours, when in Buddhist terms, it isn't.

Then this aspect of Buddhism prepares you to embrace the very core of the Gospel, which is also that we are not our own, but bought with a price. Common ground! Curious that you thought this would be divisive.

Nondualism and monism are nuanced distinctions we'd need to make here. Christianity wouldn't really call itself monism, I'd imagine, but nondualism seems questionable as well in some sense, since distinction of the human and the divine seems necessary even in some supposed afterlife. After all, we can't be God, but only come close to resembling it.

This speaks about things I'm not sure about. EO has the concept of "theosis" that directly refutes what you say here, and I'm pretty sure becomes complete in this life. Anyway, we are not G-d so making that distinction doesn't address the idea of dualism at all. This is where our "3rd arm" analogy came in.

Well, part of it could just be etymology. Spirit as understood is breath and soul is usually connected with the mind, as in psyche or similar terms in Greek or Latin, or even the Hebrew understanding of nephesh versus ruach, soul versus spirit.

But what exactly do these refer to? Obviously a Jewish upbringing would help towards the Biblical understanding, and for the most part what we're conscious of is the soul; emotions etc. But there are times we can become conscious of the spirit as well.

Again, the only distinction that matters to our conversation here and recognizing G-d Himself as distinct from our own person, and the chief indicator is His eternal nature - EL. "Life" because we can tap into Him.

This soul / spirit distinction does NOT line up w/ our conscious vs sub-conscious. Meditation chiefly brings us in touch w/ our own sub-conscious which is highly valuable, but it is a typical human reaction to conclude that's all there is. I understand that in your experience that may be true, but my presence here speaks to the contrary. (As does the existence of CF. And the Church.)

Spirit doesn't have to be unified necessarily except in its nature. There can be spiritual things without there having to be one overriding spirit, so to speak. It isn't any confusion so much when we consider the human spirit as distinct in some sense, but not completely separate from the Holy Spirit

Well obviously this is a divergence between C and the belief systems you embrace more closely. C shows the distinctions btw the natural human spirit vs G-d, who is so Powerful that merely by drawing near Him our very spirits are changed

So death is only a result of conflict and not something built into nature...though that is usually claimed to be a result of the fall, which only seems to add more preconceptions into the discussion that seem unnecessary. There's no reason to believe the fall was literal or had any effect on our biology that therefore caused us to be subject to death.

While this is a totally unrelated tangent, I truly do not believe you are completely unfamiliar with the "design flaws" found by Ev proponents. These are ALL explained perfectly by a literal fall, which was solid Judeo-Christian doctrine long before we ever conceived of any such things as the current ID / Cr / Ev debates.

The bible can say many things on many subjects and not necessarily have a completely unified idea about everything.

that doesn't mean it would necessarily be absolutely unified or clear about its metaphysics or phenomenology.

There is mystery left unexplained in the Bible, that's for sure! If those instances are all you mean by "not completely unified," well then ok. But if one is seeing contradictions, that person shouldn't be sure they understand what any of it means yet. Those contradictions can be sorted out, and must be before the Bible becomes too terribly useful. I hold this to be "the Faith once delivered to the Saints." I've still never referred to that as "absolutely unified," nor what I argue that's an appropriate term.

Why am I suddenly reminded of the Oneness sect, which has an interesting view on the Trinity that would require another thread and research on my part? Oneness seems to be key to the Jewish notion of God, but then the Triune nature seems to be emphasized moreso by modern Christians, which might be part of why the 3 elements are emphasized so much.

My only address of this is that modern C (including CF) emphasizes this entirely too much. Various revelations are intended to help us understand G-d Himself, not to divide.

So you're saying it's not about whether I desire it or not, but whether I accept it as true?

I don't think I'd posit that either / or. Right now it's raining, mixed with hail, and about 30 degrees. I could go out in a bathing suit like it was the middle of summer and convince myself it was, but I'd still get pelted and chilled. So our new analogy is "what is this hail stuff like?" (Hypothetically assuming for the moment it was something you'd never seen)

Again, understanding the answer to your main question of the thread in no way implies consent, acceptance, or anything else besides understanding the concept.

Eternal life then is potentiality first and actuality later, it sounds like, to use medieval philosophy terms I gleaned from Aquinas.

C is transforming dormant potentiality into an actual difference in this world. This is what it means to "live a C life," but now we're WAY ahead of ourselves!
Does this language make it any easier for you to grasp?


I would to ask why you feel the need to attach yourself to God, but in theory one might argue this isn't clinging or attachment, but refuge[/QUOTE]

Now THIS is a profitable new line of questioning!

Refuge fits in perfectly with Scriptural ideas, a la Psalm 91:

"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
Psa 91:2 I will say of the LORD, [He is] my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
Psa 91:3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, [and] from the noisome pestilence.
Psa 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth [shall be thy] shield and buckler.
Psa 91:5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; [nor] for the arrow [that] flieth by day;
Psa 91:6 [Nor] for the pestilence [that] walketh in darkness; [nor] for the destruction [that] wasteth at noonday.
Psa 91:7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; [but] it shall not come nigh thee.
Psa 91:8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
Psa 91:9 Because thou hast made the LORD, [which is] my refuge, [even] the most High, thy habitation;
Psa 91:10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling."

Attachment and cling are also acceptable, but notice it is not to ourselves. "He must increase, and I must decrease."

So to address your question of "why do I feel the need to?" The fact is this is not natural at all. And I don't like the idea of G-d "calling" some, while not calling others. Even the called don't naturally feel this, but are naturally much more inclined to respond to the flesh.

But then again, why are interested in Spirituality at all? So I say yes there is common ground ...