Human life is no more meaningful than the life of any other living creature. Remove wealth and possessions and we are left with the 'raw', emotional basics.
That is why you should strive towards living a life of compassion.
So far, the most logical religion I've found is Bhuddism. To me, almost everything I've read of the writings is very noble, sensible and realistic.
"If a person does not harm any living being…
and does not kill or cause others to kill-
that person is a true spiritual practitioner."
"...All monks who live purely and all Bodhisattvas always refrain even from walking on grass; how can they agree to uproot it? How then can those who practise great Compassion feed on the flesh and blood of living beings?..."
"Let him not destroy, or cause to be destroyed, any life at all, nor sanction the acts of those who do so. Let him refrain from even hurting any creature, both those that are strong and those that tremble in the world."
Edited by the Author.
By a route obscure and lonely,
Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named night,
On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly
From an ultimate dim Thule
From a wild clime that lieth, sublime,
Out of space
Out of time.
Vegetarianism is supposedly optional, though it appears the majority of 'followers' seem to gradually opt for a vegetarian lifestyle to coincide with the teachings of mercy and peace.
Vegetarianism was/is encouraged but not enforced. If Buddhists were offered food donations containing meat, many would accept, as the meat was seen as 'pure' / leftover due to the fact that the animal was not directly slaughtered for them.
Anyway, let's get back on topic!
Keeping with the theme of Buddhism here, what do you guys think of this man:
Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc who killed himself via self immolation in protest against the Vietnam war
I can't express the respect I harbour for a man willing to kill himself in such a gruesome way for a cause he truly (and rightfully) believed to be Just. To express no emotion or movement at all whilst the body is practically melting is impossible for me to comprehend. The sheer mind over matter and level headedness leads me to the following conclusions:
1. Buddhist meditation works
2. Thic Quang Duc was one extremely tough mofo (with all respects)
Edited by the Author.
By a route obscure and lonely,
Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named night,
On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly
From an ultimate dim Thule
From a wild clime that lieth, sublime,
Out of space
Out of time.
"Human life is no more meaningful than the life of any other living creature."
But what is the definition of life? The scientific definition includes such things as carrots, moss, viruses and mushrooms. Or do you prefer to offer your definitions, which undoubtedly mean fluffy rabbits and piglets? TBH, I don't know that anybody else is alive apart from me, so as long as I don't eat myself I am fine.
Yes, I'm working on my spelling... I often misplace letters in words and often don't notice, even if I double check what I've written. I think it may have something to do with dyslexia
As taught in Buddhism: Vegetables and plants are alive, but unlike animals, they are not sentinent, which I agree with.
By a route obscure and lonely,
Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named night,
On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly
From an ultimate dim Thule
From a wild clime that lieth, sublime,
Out of space
Out of time.
I see (though I've never read it) the bible, or those rules that tie in with it, as a sort of good guide to life.
Like "don't sleep around", with all this shitty aids and STI business going around it makes sense. the old washing feet they used to do, great way to keep the floor clean. little things like that.
But then things like circumcision in the modern day doesn't have much point.
"Theravada commentaries explain the Buddha was making distinction between direct destruction of life and eating of already dead meat. Moreover, they point out that any act of consumption would involve proxy killing, including the farming of crops, so the idea that meat eating amounted to proxy killing while eating vegetables does not is ignorance."
@Jimmi: Oh yeah, condemning homosexuality, disavowing contraception, etc, sounds like a great guide to life.
@Novasoft: Sikhisms view - "Sikhism argues that the soul can possibly undergo 84 million incarnations as various forms of life before ultimately becoming human. These life forms could be a rock, vegetation or animal. Sikhism does not see a difference between mineral, vegetation and animal. The only distinction made is that between these (mineral, vegetation and animal), and human."
I'm not preaching 'nor attempting to argue I'm just trying to convey my distorted beliefs in which I pick and choose aspects of certain religions which appeal to me and attempt to apply them to myself!
Jimmi - lol, u said circumcision... I never understood the purpose of that...
*GOOGLES CIRCUMCISION*
By a route obscure and lonely,
Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named night,
On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly
From an ultimate dim Thule
From a wild clime that lieth, sublime,
Out of space
Out of time.
"My point is though that there is no evidence, and no way of getting evidence. So why put your faith in something that can't be proved?"
Okay back to this point. What are you talking about, why isn't there evidence? I see it all around me man? That point is rather self refuting too. You at least have evidence that there is no evidence. You assumption that there is no evidence is backed by some sort of logical reasoning proving that there is evidence! Get what I'm saying?(I'm playing word games if you think about it, it makes sense.)
"So why put your faith in something that can't be proved?"
We put our faith in many things that can't be proved. Even your statement above can't be proved but you believe in it! Can you prove that your parents love you? No but you still believe they do right? Because of the evidence of giving you food, caring for you when you were a little baby and such...Just because you cant prove it 100% that they love you, the evidence of their actions makes it a very possible thing to believe! (This is a bad example if they beat you and stuff)
@Hishnak: I don't have evidence that there is no evidence. But then again, how can I have evidence that I don't have evidence that there is no evidence?
"What are you talking about, why isn't there evidence? I see it all around me man?"
You are thinking in different terms to me there. I'd like you to look up Rene Descartes somewhere, and his philosophy goes as such:
1. If I am dreaming/deceived, then my beliefs are not true.
2. I don't know whether I am dreaming/deceived.
3. So, I don't know whether my beliefs are true.
And as I said before "I could be wrong (although my "belief" does admit that)" - granted this seems to contradict itself, but it is logically impossible not to be in this situation. Hence, maybe the best option is not to believe in anything, as it will only lead to you looking stupid at the end.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
) 
