Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 Hi Jan, , "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > What if nature doesn't have a purpose? Wiping out of creatures just > happens... The dinosaurs didn't throw rocks in the sky but as a > figure of speech, where "hit" by one nevertheless A reasonable perspective... yet from observing nature, the "short term purpose" for any species is simply to keep reproducing. Many species die after reproduction, and in humans it was much more common for the mother to die during childbirth before 'modern technologies'... The "average lifespan" of humans has only increased as a 'result' of technology. If "natural courses" were allowed, humans would not be living much past 30 years on average. So it could even be called "selfish" to want to live a long time, since it results in overpopulation and waste of resources... To say through diet and (lack of) exercise "people are killing themselves" doesn't make much sense from here -- also, through selfish abuse of resources, people are "keeping themselves alive at the expense of others." And through vaccinations and modern medicine, "people are keeping themselves alive much longer than 'necessary'." > Some say, humans are also responsible for the change in climate > that even is becoming apparent in the Canaries... Quite possible... others are saying, even if that's true the Earth will "re-balance" itself. People are always thinking and talking, that never changes <laugh>. > Nature "producing" creatures, a doer? > Thrown up enough rocks in the sky, one will hit the body > that was throwing them. Simple gravity - a doer? If the definition of "karma" is just "action-reaction," then clearly "doership" isn't involved. But the definitions vary depending "who is asked..." Joy & Happiness, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 On 7/11/01 at 1:02 PM Omkara wrote: ºHi Jan, º º, "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: º> What if nature doesn't have a purpose? Wiping out of creatures just º> happens... The dinosaurs didn't throw rocks in the sky but as a º> figure of speech, where "hit" by one nevertheless º ºA reasonable perspective... yet from observing nature, the "short ºterm purpose" for any species is simply to keep reproducing. Many ºspecies die after reproduction, and in humans it was much more common ºfor the mother to die during childbirth before 'modern ºtechnologies'... For most species, unfavorable conditions mean a decrease in reproduction rates... Not so for humans... One might argue that for humans, reproduction often is an unwanted side effect of "pleasure" that is worth any kind of risk... Wouldn't that almost guarantee the reproduction of 'unhappiness'? º ºThe "average lifespan" of humans has only increased as a 'result' of ºtechnology. If "natural courses" were allowed, humans would not be ºliving much past 30 years on average. So it could even be ºcalled "selfish" to want to live a long time, since it results in ºoverpopulation and waste of resources... There always have been a few 100+... Independent of technology. Technology 'works' as a kind of equalizer, keeping alive as much as possible, without asking questions. Hence, the 'responsibility' for mental and physical well-being has become zero - stimulating risky lifestyles that otherwise would have meant early death. Hence the question, "did technology increase overall happiness on the planet?" º ºTo say through diet and (lack of) exercise "people are killing ºthemselves" doesn't make much sense from here -- also, through ºselfish abuse of resources, people are "keeping themselves alive at ºthe expense of others." And through vaccinations and modern ºmedicine, "people are keeping themselves alive much longer ºthan 'necessary'." Well, it isn't difficult to see the species "homo sapiens" is living at the expense of the other species - including "homo sapiens'" offspring. And what is seen in abundance here, are fat kids - obese to the extent of dictating a limitation on how to move... º º> Some say, humans are also responsible for the change in climate º> that even is becoming apparent in the Canaries... º ºQuite possible... others are saying, even if that's true the Earth ºwill "re-balance" itself. People are always thinking and talking, ºthat never changes <laugh>. What if the balance was that of a ball lying on top of a mountain? Here, that scenario is tangible, seeing the Teide daily and having visited the top... º º> Nature "producing" creatures, a doer? º> Thrown up enough rocks in the sky, one will hit the body º> that was throwing them. Simple gravity - a doer? º ºIf the definition of "karma" is just "action-reaction," then ºclearly "doership" isn't involved. But the definitions vary ºdepending "who is asked..." As if the laws of nature would be canceled when knowing "who am I?"?. Those laws do not depend on an "I"... The only difference is the absence of thoughts like "I am hit, I am hurt" etc. And without an "I", no "others" either, hence no thoughts on blaming, "who did it?", etc. etc.. But rocks still can hit the body... Freedom, Jan º ºJoy & Happiness, º ºTim º º º/join º º º º º ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. ºIt is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the ºFinality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of ºSelf-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome ºall to a. º º º ºYour use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 Dear Tim, Jan, David, et al, Ah, the problem humans have with death. void is form form is void "Avalokiteshvara" Form, the redundancy factor at play in the abundance of Void Wim, Love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 On 7/11/01 at 1:02 PM Omkara wrote: ºHi Jan, º º, "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: º> What if nature doesn't have a purpose? Wiping out of creatures just º> happens... The dinosaurs didn't throw rocks in the sky but as a º> figure of speech, where "hit" by one nevertheless º ºA reasonable perspective... yet from observing nature, the "short ºterm purpose" for any species is simply to keep reproducing. Many ºspecies die after reproduction, and in humans it was much more common ºfor the mother to die during childbirth before 'modern ºtechnologies'... For most species, unfavorable conditions mean a decrease in reproduction rates... Not so for humans... One might argue that for humans, reproduction often is an unwanted side effect of "pleasure" that is worth any kind of risk... Wouldn't that almost guarantee the reproduction of 'unhappiness'? º ºThe "average lifespan" of humans has only increased as a 'result' of ºtechnology. If "natural courses" were allowed, humans would not be ºliving much past 30 years on average. So it could even be ºcalled "selfish" to want to live a long time, since it results in ºoverpopulation and waste of resources... There always have been a few 100+... Independent of technology. Technology 'works' as a kind of equalizer, keeping alive as much as possible, without asking questions. Hence, the 'responsibility' for mental and physical well-being has become zero - stimulating risky lifestyles that otherwise would have meant early death. Hence the question, "did technology increase overall happiness on the planet?" º ºTo say through diet and (lack of) exercise "people are killing ºthemselves" doesn't make much sense from here -- also, through ºselfish abuse of resources, people are "keeping themselves alive at ºthe expense of others." And through vaccinations and modern ºmedicine, "people are keeping themselves alive much longer ºthan 'necessary'." Well, it isn't difficult to see the species "homo sapiens" is living at the expense of the other species - including "homo sapiens'" offspring. And what is seen in abundance here, are fat kids - obese to the extent of dictating a limitation on how to move... º º> Some say, humans are also responsible for the change in climate º> that even is becoming apparent in the Canaries... º ºQuite possible... others are saying, even if that's true the Earth ºwill "re-balance" itself. People are always thinking and talking, ºthat never changes <laugh>. What if the balance was that of a ball lying on top of a mountain? Here, that scenario is tangible, seeing the Teide daily and having visited the top... º º> Nature "producing" creatures, a doer? º> Thrown up enough rocks in the sky, one will hit the body º> that was throwing them. Simple gravity - a doer? º ºIf the definition of "karma" is just "action-reaction," then ºclearly "doership" isn't involved. But the definitions vary ºdepending "who is asked..." As if the laws of nature would be canceled when knowing "who am I?"?. Those laws do not depend on an "I"... The only difference is the absence of thoughts like "I am hit, I am hurt" etc. And without an "I", no "others" either, hence no thoughts on blaming, "who did it?", etc. etc.. But rocks still can hit the body... Freedom, Jan º ºJoy & Happiness, º ºTim º º º/join º º º º º ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. ºIt is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the ºFinality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of ºSelf-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome ºall to a. º º º ºYour use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 Dear Tim and Jan et al, Jan: > > What if nature doesn't have a purpose? Wiping out of creatures just > > happens... The dinosaurs didn't throw rocks in the sky but as a > > figure of speech, where "hit" by one nevertheless The redundancy factor? Tim: > A reasonable perspective... yet from observing nature, the "short > term purpose" for any species is simply to keep reproducing. The redundancy factor? > The "average lifespan" of humans has only increased as a 'result' of > technology. If "natural courses" were allowed, humans would not be > living much past 30 years on average. So it could even be > called "selfish" to want to live a long time, since it results in > overpopulation and waste of resources There is an english expression that we had a hard time understanding when we first came to live in Canada. Every time we heard it, we were laughingly perplexed: "Well, excuse ME for living !" The redundancy factor? Ah, the problems humans have with death ! Ah, the problems humans have with life ! Don't take me wrong, I have had enough problems with both. Until the problems disappeared into a realm of conceptuality When one works the two concepts well enough, there is no way of telling whether one is dead or alive. The concept of the concepts of opposites is by itself conceptual. Concepts, concepts, concepts. THIS IS THE MIRACLE THIS IS IT THIS IS ALL THERE IS TO THIS Love, Wim (amrita) 't is actually quite simple you wanit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 On 7/11/01 at 9:51 AM Wim Borsboom wrote: ºDear Tim and Jan et al, º ºJan: º> > What if nature doesn't have a purpose? Wiping out of creatures just º> > happens... The dinosaurs didn't throw rocks in the sky but as a º> > figure of speech, where "hit" by one nevertheless º ºThe redundancy factor? A matter of adaptability? º ºTim: º> A reasonable perspective... yet from observing nature, the "short º> term purpose" for any species is simply to keep reproducing. º ºThe redundancy factor? A matter of adaptability? º º> The "average lifespan" of humans has only increased as a 'result' of º> technology. If "natural courses" were allowed, humans would not be º> living much past 30 years on average. So it could even be º> called "selfish" to want to live a long time, since it results in º> overpopulation and waste of resources º ºThere is an english expression that we had a hard time understanding ºwhen we first came to live in Canada. Every time we heard it, we were ºlaughingly perplexed: º"Well, excuse ME for living !" º ºThe redundancy factor? A matter of adaptability? º ºAh, the problems humans have with death ! ºAh, the problems humans have with life ! Ah, the problem of seeing problems when there are none! A matter of adaptability? º ºDon't take me wrong, I have had enough problems with both. ºUntil the problems disappeared into a realm of conceptuality Yes - that figures. So how can problems still be seen ? That doesn't figure at all º ºWhen one works the two concepts well enough, there is no way of telling ºwhether one is dead or alive. ºThe concept of the concepts of opposites is by itself conceptual. º ºConcepts, concepts, concepts. Of course - manifested life is but conceptual - all imagined! Nothing is real in more than way although there isn't one. º ºTHIS ºIS ºTHE ºMIRACLE No, that is a concept º ºTHIS IS IT ºTHIS IS ALL THERE IS TO THIS º ºLove, Wim º º(amrita) No thanks... º º't is actually quite simple ºyou wanit? º No need for whatever Freedom, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 On 7/11/01 at 4:50 PM Omkara wrote: [...] º> ºQuite possible... others are saying, even if that's true the Earth º> ºwill "re-balance" itself. People are always thinking and talking, º> ºthat never changes <laugh>. º> º> What if the balance was that of a ball lying on top of a mountain? º> Here, that scenario is tangible, seeing the Teide daily and having º> visited the top... º ºSome are saying that the earth has a "natural intelligence" and will ºin fact correct the balance in some unknown way. The argument is ºthat for millions of years the earth is "doing fine," so why ºdifferent now? The difference would be, an environment, hostile to human life... Humans are acting in a sense of parasites - and sooner or later, a "self-healing" of the earth will occur, unless the "planetary immune system" is overtaxed... º ºBut it might just be "justification" for further destruction -- i ºdon't know enough about all the various viewpoints. That is happening already - despite the discovery, that several changes taking place, are a bit fast, compared to those, having occurred naturally. The perspective "who cares, until solid evidence is found" is beneficial to economy.. The one you mentioned, the planet acting as a whole, is well known too... It would point at "erring on the side of caution" and making use of the fact that living vegetable mass acts as a buffer, decreasing the rate of any climate change... º º> As if the laws of nature would be canceled when knowing "who am º> I?"?. Those laws do not depend on an "I"... º ºOf course... understood 'here'. Suffering does depend on an "I" ºhowever, and without one suffering is impossible -- that doesn't mean ºphysical pain won't be felt, but if the suffering entity isn't ºimagined to be present, neither will be suffering. One might say, Nature has a strange boon... Pleasure and pain being two sides of the same coin, when knowing "who am I", suffering is 'reduced' to pain and pleasure has lost the power to addict... But when these "pure" feelings are seen as a pain nevertheless, the coin itself will dissolve - which happened, no surprise, to the Buddha. Freedom, Jan º ºJoy & Happiness, º ºTim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 Dear Jan, Although the way I answer the following may sound short and abrupt... You know I mean this with all love and acknowledgement that you are... Wim and Jan: > > The redundancy factor? > A matter of adaptability? > > The redundancy factor? > A matter of adaptability? > > The redundancy factor? > A matter of adaptability? Wim: > > Ah, the problems humans have with death ! > > Ah, the problems humans have with life ! > > Don't take me wrong, I have had enough problems with both. > > Until the problems disappeared into a realm of conceptuality Jan: > Yes - that figures. So how can problems still be *seen* ? > That doesn't *figure* at all Of course not, it cannot *figure*... :-) One does not *see* problems, one does not *perceive* problems (sense perception) one *conceives* of them. One can only conceptualize them... hence illusion. Wim: > > When one works the two concepts well enough, there is no way of telling > > whether one is dead or alive. > > The concept of the concepts of opposites is by itself conceptual. Jan: > Of course - manifested life is but conceptual - all imagined! uh uh :-) :-) satori laughter (((((:-))))) Man, Jan... that was fun... (((-)) Manifested life is what is palpable, audible, visible, etc. perceptable (from Latin 'apprehended' with sense-perceptions), not conceived (Latin 'comprehension'). When we start interpreting what we sensorially perceive, we start conceptualizing, hence... illusion (and even delusion) may arise, when the attributed reality to "imagined concepts" overtake the reality of the perceived data. (Reality from Latin "res", "thing".) Data are measured (maya), recorded by the senses... (a "relativity" feature). Brainy fatcells, cholesterol the good kind :-), in humans mostly found in the skull, called the "brain" :-) store the data. The mind categorises the data and keeps track of linkages and aids in steering (cybernatica, governing, helmsman, stuurkunde). When the mental catagorization of data gets confused through inappropriate interference brought about by the trauma of illussive fear mongering, 'mentality' overtakes 'reality' and imagines it is "first and foremost" and that, whatever it gets supplied with by the senses, that the mind has actually created those data. This is a disorder, that can be solved by "coming to your senses". Manifested life is called reality... what is... that is why it is called manifested... Energy, Mandelbrot like in all its forms and formulations, from the uttermost subtle and simple to the uttermost gross and complex, the one contained in the all, and the all contained in the one. (The "uni-versal multidimensional time space enmeshment" of the "one (p)article" I will just leave alone for now.) Wim": > > THIS > > IS > > THE > > MIRACLE Jan: > No, that is a concept "No" is a concept. What is, is. One perceives that with wonder (the meaning of MIRACLE) Ever looked at a child in wonderment? Wim: > > THIS IS IT > > THIS IS ALL THERE IS TO THIS > > Love, Wim > > (amrita) Jan: > No thanks... I won't take this answer serious, Jan. :-) If I would (hee, hee)I would write the following: "You don't know what you are saying "No thanks..." to. Your mind may have stored "amrita" data away and may be illusively blocking further "amrita" data input. Your mind is conceptully precluding you from perceiving amrita in your reality. > > 't is actually quite simple > > you wanit? > No need for whatever when youvgotit you donwanit > Freedom, > Jan And Love, Wim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.