Quote:
Deviate said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
My household pets (two cats) are far more peaceful than the wild, stray, mangy cats I observe outdoors. My cats don't have to worry about finding food. They don't have to worry about encroaching on another stray cat's territory. They don't have to worry about being raped by some stray tomcat just because he liked the scent of their pheromones.
My household pets experience far more peace than any wild animal does. Also, look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Mere survival is on the bottom of the list.
Thats nice for your pets but not all animals are happy in captivity. Many animals prefer to live in the wild, even if it is more dangerous.
If you don't understand how a fat, happy indoor cat who never has to worry about being fed, finding water, attacked by other animals, or being hit by a car isn't generally more peaceful than a stray cat struggling to survive in the city, I don't know what to tell ya dude. Of course certain animals will be happier if they have a larger territory to roam, but that in turn provides risks like predators, lack of food source, etcetera etc.
Quote:
Deviate said:
You see, just because you might not know where your next meal is coming from, that doesn't mean you have to let it upset you and make you unhappy. It is possible to live in the kind of faith where you learn to trust that things will be ok, even if they are painful or difficult at times. In my own experience, the more I learn to trust life and my Heavenly Father, the better I am able to deal with hardship without falling into despair and despondency.
I don't mean to say it is necessarily impossible to feel peaceful when your basic survival needs aren't being met; my point is that it's much harder to do so. Again, look up Maslow's theory of needs and the concept of self-actualization:

The best way to become a fully self-actualized (aka
peaceful) person is to first focus on your survival needs. It is extraordinarily difficult to focus on stillness while one is starving to death. Next, focus on safety. When a bear is chasing you, one is highly unlikely to become "at ease with the inner self".

And so on, moving up the pyramid. Which is not to say that it is impossible to jump to self-actualization without any of these more fundamental needs being met; Maslow's point is that one must have a solid foundation to lift into the heavens, metaphorically speaking.
Quote:
Deviate said:
I never said that enlightenment was just feeling an emotion of bliss 24/7
OK, great. Why do you then promptly go ahead to contradict yourself in the very same paragraph? 
Quote:
Deviate said:
Steve Norquist said the Bliss of enligtenment was a million times beyond the bliss of IV heroin and Jan Esmann says that Self-Realization is Love-Bliss and Ramana Maharshi described it as "undescribible bliss".
If you read Buddhist meditational texts (which I generally trust on the matter because they've been doing it for thousands of years), you will learn that yes, you will experience ecstatic states of supreme bliss during your meditation. However, the point is not to focus on them. Enlightenment is NOT one and the same with this state. To move on to true Nirvana one must dispassionately regard the feeling of bliss, and just observe. Do not cling to it, do not dwell it, do not confuse it for the eventual goal. This is what I mean by saying our true Buddha nature is not an emotion. It is not bliss, it is not happiness, it isn't anything at all.
It just is (in other words, neutrality), and assigning value-laden labels like Bliss or Happiness to it means you have dragged your pure No-Mind down into the intellectual mire of conceptualization.
Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop wood carry water. 
Quote:
Deviate said:
I SAID that in deep sleep there is a lack of emotion. Here is where we seem to disagree. You seem to think that without emotion, there can be no enjoyment, everything is neutral or something like that.
Absolutely. Enjoyment is by definition an emotion. Buddha-nature is beyond happiness and fear. Buddha-nature just is, without any human qualifiers like you're trying to ascribe to it. At least according to what I've gleaned from my readings on the subject and from personal experience.