Ravus said:

But the mere fact that the Buddhist would try to tell me the ultimate goal of Nirvana, this goal that apparently all humanity and all life is moving towards, seemed ridiculous.

---

So you think that it is ridiculous for a person who creates a path for others to designate where that path is to lead to? I'm not implying anything about Buddha, Buddhism, or the nature of your point, but I personally think it is ridiculous to think it is ridiculous for one to create a path, but not say where it "should" lead to. By definition, it wouldn't be a path unless it lead to somewhere, eh?

Quote:

As if there should be a cessation to suffering?- that is not my ultimate goal, so perhaps I am excluded from the Buddhist version of humanity. In fact, that would be counterproductive towards any goals I strive for, and I know I'm not alone in this.

---

In other words, you have a conception of who you are, and what your goals are. You have your own idea of what is the best way to accomplish your goals. This is based on your perception and your experience. This, however, does not seem open to the fact that there are other paths to the same goal and that perhaps your perspective is limited as to the greater reality of your mind and your environment. If you were to identify and understand one more variable, your world view, who you think you are, and your "goals" could possibly undergo a complete transformation.

Quote:

Yet one of the basic premises of Buddhism is that Nirvana is the cessation of suffering, and that we should move to Nirvana- and this to me is where the problem arises.

---

Or, to perhaps rephrase this, this is where you create for yourself a problem.

Quote:

Why is life suffering? To my knowledge, I've never seen a very good answer from Buddhism- they state the obvious, that life is filled with suffering, but simply stop at that observation. However, if we look at science and evolution, life is suffering because we've evolved to feel suffering whenever something goes wrong- and life is continuously going wrong. All components of suffering, whether they be pain or depression or loss, are all warning signals, saying that something is wrong, something has gone wrong or something's about to go wrong.

---

When you base your model of reality entirely on what has occured in the past, for whatever purpose these occurences served at the time, you limit your perspective from the change that is constant in the present moment, and the manner in which this creates the future. I personally think this is short-sighted and is the very definition of "stagnation" and "devolution" that you later on apply to the concept that, I feel, you misunderstand.

A tool is only effective in certain tasks. Our minds and our environment are constantly changing and evolving. The same tool that was useful in certain applications might not be useful in the same applications at a later time. The experience of suffering certainly has provided a means to an end at previous points in time, and it still does so currently - perhaps it even will into the future as well. In my opinion, suffering is experience, which begets understanding. However, suffering is not the only catalyst for experience, nor is it the only one that is useful in ensuring our survival. Other mental configurations might be more equipped to ensure our continuation as a species because they take more variables into consideration, because they are more aware of their environment and the mind, because they are more effective at being present within, comprehending and understanding, and interacting with reality. 

A master puts a shock collar on his dog, and has a list of expectations of the dog. The master shocks the dog in an effort to control the actions of the dog as to correspond with his list of demands and expectations. The dog acts accordingly and the goal is accomplished. Who is going to deny that?

The truth is that such a method is severely limited in its range of application, and this cannot be denied. When one's understanding of reality becomes increasingly and vastly complex and expanded, and one's awareness of their present experience becomes more and more pure and on a higher level, I do not believe that it is necessary for a list of demands and expectations, and suffering as a device to control our actions and thoughts to meet those demands and expectations on the list.

You talk as if, if we evolve to a point where we no longer experience suffering, our advancement as a race is impossible. An adequate understanding of physics and biology is going to ensure that a conscious mind is not going to cause their body's hand to be placed into fire. No suffering is necessary to ensure harmful or unproductive action will not take place as long as there is understanding. Suffering might allow for understanding; however, it is not necessary, and in the end, is counter-productive.

The entire premise that your stance on this issue is based upon, that suffering is necessary for our evolution, which is evidenced by the fact that suffering has been a catalyst for evolution, is flawed. War has been a catalyst for evolution, but yet is it necessary for evolution? The idea of a monotheistic, judgemental God as per Catholicism has been a catalyst for our evolution. The entire concept barely exists today in such the predominant form as it did then, but it was a tool that effectively served a purpose in evolution. Is it necessary? Does it accurately reflect the reality of our minds and our environment? 

In every moment we have a multitude of options; the fact that one option has worked for a specific purpose in the past says nothing about the effectiveness of other options. I feel your view on this fatally overlooks this.

Quote:

Life is suffering, I agree, but the cessation of suffering is even worse.

---

Quote:

Suffering makes us greater, truely

---

From what perspective? Reality doesn't conform to my expectations, so my mind shocks me with suffering in an effort to provoke me to change my external environment to avoid the experience of suffering. The whole fucking point is to not have a list of expectations and to not inflict pain upon yourself, as it is pointless, ignorant, and exists as an act of unawareness.

Quote:

If we did not suffer, how would we evolve?

---

How is it ever possible to not evolve? We are constantly changing form, constantly interacting with our environment. Not experiencing suffering does not equate into the cessation of evolution. Different models of mind are capable of carrying us as a species to different points. The fact that one particular, primitive model worked when we were primitive doesn't mean that it will work when we are exponentially advancing, in fact, it interferes with our evolution and advancement.

Quote:

If we did not suffer, how would we relate to others? For if life is suffering, then bonds are forged from pain- and while we wish for the cessation of suffering, there's a reason we don't receive it.

---

If someone is wishing for the cessation of suffering, and they do not receive it, it is because they fail to have an understanding of the nature of suffering - specifically the how and why the mind creates suffering, and they fail to effectively transform their mind to a more advanced, aware mind that actively and purposefully engages the cessation of suffering. The fact that I do not personally know how to change my brakes on my car, but yet wish that they were changed, does not mean that the act of changing my brakes is something that is impossible. The fact that I wished for it but failed to receive it without actually learning the mechanics of the actions and steps necessary and then actually engaging myself in carrying out the action points to nothing but my own ignorance, misunderstanding, and inability.

Quote:

If we actually stopped suffering, we would devolve. We'd slide back down, slowly and surely, into something lower, something with less emotions and less experience. Our personalities are forged in fire, not in room temperature water.

---

You have a concept of who we are suspossed to be, where we are suspossed to end up at, you assure that the change that you have not undergone and thus have no understanding of, you have demonstrated that you think the dyanmics of life, experience, evolution, and personality all rely on one possible manner in which the mind can act.... I do not personally think this is the output of an open, aware mind, which thus demonstrates exactly why you have not understood the finer, subtler aspects of mind and environment.


Peace.

redgreenvines said:

Icelander said:

And I like this. The "changes" that have happened in my life as far as what I consider my growth. Were all achieved by surrender rather than struggle.
______________________________________________________

"None of this is really hard to understand - very basic.
change  "
______________________________________________

^^^ It took me about 50 years to understand this. Talk about dense.

---

i.e. and so you get that the change is continuous & by the second
the flow of ongoing creation - many directions simultaneously & not stopping for anyone to say, "hey I am enlightened now" or "finally I am on top of it!", which would actually mean that they are missing it.

that is the essence of change, and the essence of why enlightenment cannot be grasped or "attained", though it can be followed and encountered - courted and embraced.

---

As I now suspect. 

Quote:

So you think that it is ridiculous for a person who creates a path for others to designate where that path is to lead to?

---

Quote:

In other words, you have a conception of who you are, and what your goals are. You have your own idea of what is the best way to accomplish your goals. This is based on your perception and your experience. This, however, does not seem open to the fact that there are other paths to the same goal and that perhaps your perspective is limited as to the greater reality of your mind and your environment. If you were to identify and understand one more variable, your world view, who you think you are, and your "goals" could possibly undergo a complete transformation.

---

Quote:

Or, to perhaps rephrase this, this is where you create for yourself a problem.

---

Quote:

When you base your model of reality entirely on what has occured in the past

---

Quote:

However, suffering is not the only catalyst for experience, nor is it the only one that is useful in ensuring our survival. Other mental configurations might be more equipped to ensure our continuation as a species because they take more variables into consideration, because they are more aware of their environment and the mind, because they are more effective at being present within, comprehending and understanding, and interacting with reality.

---

Quote:

A master puts a shock collar on his dog, and has a list of expectations of the dog. The master shocks the dog in an effort to control the actions of the dog as to correspond with his list of demands and expectations. The dog acts accordingly and the goal is accomplished. Who is going to deny that?

The truth is that such a method is severely limited in its range of application, and this cannot be denied. When one's understanding of reality becomes increasingly and vastly complex and expanded, and one's awareness of their present experience becomes more and more pure and on a higher level, I do not believe that it is necessary for a list of demands and expectations, and suffering as a device to control our actions and thoughts to meet those demands and expectations on the list.

---

Quote:

You talk as if, if we evolve to a point where we no longer experience suffering, our advancement as a race is impossible. An adequate understanding of physics and biology is going to ensure that a conscious mind is not going to cause their body's hand to be placed into fire. No suffering is necessary to ensure harmful or unproductive action will not take place as long as there is understanding. Suffering might allow for understanding; however, it is not necessary, and in the end, is counter-productive.

---

Quote:

The entire premise that your stance on this issue is based upon, that suffering is necessary for our evolution, which is evidenced by the fact that suffering has been a catalyst for evolution, is flawed. War has been a catalyst for evolution, but yet is it necessary for evolution?

---

Quote:

In every moment we have a multitude of options; the fact that one option has worked for a specific purpose in the past says nothing about the effectiveness of other options. I feel your view on this fatally overlooks this.

---

Quote:

Demonstrate how the cessation of the experience of suffering is "worse" than the experience of suffering.

---

Quote:

The whole fucking point is to not have a list of expectations and to not inflict pain upon yourself, as it is pointless, ignorant, and exists as an act of unawareness.

---

The whole fucking point is to survive. That is why suffering makes us greater, that is why suffering is so dominant in the modern world- what helps us survive makes us greater. What impairs our survival weakens us. That's biology 101.

Quote:

How is it ever possible to not evolve?

---

Quote:

We are constantly changing form, constantly interacting with our environment. Not experiencing suffering does not equate into the cessation of evolution.

---

Quote:

The fact that one particular, primitive model worked when we were primitive doesn't mean that it will work when we are exponentially advancing, in fact, it interferes with our evolution and advancement.

---

Quote:

If someone is wishing for the cessation of suffering, and they do not receive it, it is because they fail to have an understanding of the nature of suffering - specifically the how and why the mind creates suffering, and they fail to effectively transform their mind to a more advanced, aware mind that actively and purposefully engages the cessation of suffering. The fact that I do not personally know how to change my brakes on my car, but yet wish that they were changed, does not mean that the act of changing my brakes is something that is impossible. The fact that I wished for it but failed to receive it without actually learning the mechanics of the actions and steps necessary and then actually engaging myself in carrying out the action points to nothing but my own ignorance, misunderstanding, and inability. 

---

deff said:

let me elaborate on my view, something I don't usually do (too lazy )

enlightenment is the peak of consciousness, the absolute highest perception of truth. experiencing the Tao, whatever floats yer boat.

but absolute truth is without perception. perception relies on false means of separtion and subjective filtering. when the objective state is reached, it is as if an infinite sea had been settled of it's waves (notices the wave crest is higher than sea level, the trough is lower, yet the sea ultimately remains at the zero-point - sea level, this is dual abstraction). when these settle, it is a point of infinity, a point of perception of the _im_perceivable, the only truly objective state - nomind - 'void' - again, whatever!.

there is no sense of self, as this again is separating and contrasting parts of the unified whole and not 'becoming' one with it. one with the truth = no one, and no truth. really there is nothingness, afraid of itself, attached to the concept of material.

(methinks)

---

eve69 said:

This post actually doesn't describe Buddhism but one person's take on a very unstudied and rather warped view of Buddhism.

---

Quote:

Being a yogi doesn't mean one can't have fun, or even suffer. It only means that one has gained experience of the imperishable. If you were going to give someone you loved the best thing, you would give them experience of the imperishable. Anything else is eventually corroded.

---

fireworks_god said:

You talk as if, if we evolve to a point where we no longer experience suffering, our advancement as a race is impossible. An adequate understanding of physics and biology is going to ensure that a conscious mind is not going to cause their body's hand to be placed into fire. No suffering is necessary to ensure harmful or unproductive action will not take place as long as there is understanding. Suffering might allow for understanding; however, it is not necessary, and in the end, is counter-productive.

The entire premise that your stance on this issue is based upon, that suffering is necessary for our evolution, which is evidenced by the fact that suffering has been a catalyst for evolution, is flawed. War has been a catalyst for evolution, but yet is it necessary for evolution? The idea of a monotheistic, judgemental God as per Catholicism has been a catalyst for our evolution. The entire concept barely exists today in such the predominant form as it did then, but it was a tool that effectively served a purpose in evolution. Is it necessary? Does it accurately reflect the reality of our minds and our environment?

In every moment we have a multitude of options; the fact that one option has worked for a specific purpose in the past says nothing about the effectiveness of other options. I feel your view on this fatally overlooks this.

---

Quote:

There is nothing imperishable. This experience itself will one day end. Everything will perish eventually.

---

deff said:

one cannot be enlightened,

one can become enlightened...

at that point (most often temporarily) there is no 'one'. there is no separation. no abstraction.

it is not a state, and in essence it is nothing (infinite void)

(methinks - not preaches )

---

MushmanTheManic said:

""One big risk posed by the global species-project of The Hedonistic Imperative is that (post-)humanity will get "stuck" in a better, but perhaps still severely sub-optimal, state. Evolutionary progress, if one may be allowed to use such a term, would thereby come to an end. This is too high a price to be paid, or to run the risk of paying."

This worry shouldn't be lightly dismissed. But perhaps three points are worth making here.

First, natural selection has promoted such an abundance of dreadful states that even a severely sub-optimal (by whose criteria? - presumably not the sublimely fulfilled super-beings themselves) result would ethically be far preferable to today's status quo; and indeed preferable to any of our often hellish world's environmentally-tweaked successors.

Second, the danger of getting irreversibly stuck is still present even if genetic engineering and psychopharmacology are renounced in favour of time-honoured "peripheralist" approaches to making the world a better place. In fact, for what it's worth, psychoactive drugs potentially offer a form of "simulated annealing" [in artificial neural network-speak], enabling us to escape entrapment in local minima - though sometimes the jolt may be too uncontrollably violent and even dangerous to be commonly useful e.g. taking psychedelic agents such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ketamine or DMT.

Third, the idea that the paradise-engineering project sketched in HI would more readily lead to us getting "stuck" stems, I think, from its conflation with one or both of its two immediate intellectual antecedents of which I'm consciously aware. These are opiated-style quiescence ? la Brave New World and the endless, uncontrollably orgasmic lever-pressing frenzy of a rat-/human-driven pleasure-machine. Both stereotypes are deceptive. One consequence of enhancing dopamine function in the manner stressed in this manifesto is that not merely is overall motivation deepened, but also the range of different activities one finds rewarding is increased (cf. the recent excitement over finding the D4 "novelty-loving" gene). Consequently, the likelihood of an organism, or a species, getting stuck in rut is diminished, though certainly not eliminated, by a strategy which incorporates boosting key receptor sub-types of dopamine-mediated process. It's worth noting that there is an experimentally demonstrable tendency of anti-dopaminergic mood-darkeners- and -flatteners, notably the D2-blocking major tranquillisers, to reduce incentive-motivation and novelty-seeking behaviour. They are "rut-inducers". Analogously, most of us Dark Age humans, stuck on a hedonic treadmill way down in the historical abyss, don't realise just how trapped we are.

On the other hand, there's a sense in which getting generically "stuck" in paradise is precisely what some of us are after."

-- http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon4.htm#objections

---