Why Pain?

[water]

water~~~~~i am guessing you are either a Buddhist, or someone who is very attracted to Buddish. because it is not the first time i have heard you defend that belief system. of course whe i say 'that belif system' i am aware there are different schools of Buddhism........and you are wrong, i have studied it over yhe yars. not as a devotee as such. but out of exploring othe world views

the most eye-openingexprience i had of Buddhism in action was when i was a member of theinfidel forums and found myself communiating with a good cross section of Buddhists from different countries and schools......i was completely disappointed with their behaviour!

very narrow minded, and offensive, and viscious if their belief system was challenged. actually those forums seemed to be run by that mindset. kind of 'atheist cum Buddhist'

of course i ha had my reservations abot Buddhims before which i tried to debate with them, but as i say it was like debating wit a pile of fukin spoilt kids.

So you have decided it is alright to judge a whole religion based on a few meetings with some people who have described themselves as members of said religion?

Why didn't you turn to the Dalai Lama or some of the teachers and masters?

regarding your view tey dont want to escape Nature, i think you are wrong. yes tey do. they seek 'nirvana'...which is 'beyond he wheel of birth and death'.....ish't tat wnting to escape Nature??

This is a lot to explain, and is off topic in this thread. Why don't you start another thread, and have some more knowledgeable people come to answer your questions?

as for pain. you ask if moaning about a cut finger will make it go away? maybe. maybe your expression, allowing emotion may open UP organism, ratherthan suppressing emotion.

But it is not about suppressing emotion!
It is about realizing causes and effects.

you shoulda heard the guys i spoke with......!

And you should have heard the people I have spoken with.

....and if say one hadn't joined the nasy gang, as soon as i spoke to him another Buddhist would pop up and gossip that he is not to speak to me etc........quiote remarkable, and utterly childish

I think it is childish of you to judge a whole religion based on some encounters with a few people who professed to be Buddhists.
Why not go to the sources, to the scriptures, to Buddha?

 

[duendy]

...haha, my very favourite supposed quote rom the Buddha was where he stressed we should explore for ourSELVES and not be taken in by others' dogma, interpretation, etc---do you happen to hve this quote, water?

 

[one_raven]

There are quite a few different quotes attributed to the Buddha that relay that ideal.

Here's a good one that sums it up nicely:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

 

[duendy]

that is the one i meant...thanks one_raven

 

[ellion]

yes tey do. they seek 'nirvana'...which is 'beyond he wheel of birth and death'.....ish't tat wnting to escape Nature??

beyond the wheel of birth and death is not beyond nature. nrivana is natural too. wanting to escape birth and death is not trying to escape nature it is trying to escape birth and death. to exist in the nature that is beyond this wheel.

 

[duendy]

beyond the wheel of birth and death is not beyond nature.

me:::hmmmm, well it SOUNDS like it is to me.

nrivana is natural too.

me:::just cuious. have you personally experiencednnirvana, and if so, whatis it like?

wanting to escape birth and death is not trying to escape nature it is trying to escape birth and death.

me:::i think i understand what you mean. ou are saying i am limiting Nature by limiting it to birth and deeath?.......hehe. you see. i look at it tis way. THIS is what i know. ths amazing ature which includes death life and regeration. i can see it all around. death, decay, beings being born etc. anthing else ....anything intellectually proposed that is 'beyond' this given is conjecture

to exist in the nature that is beyond this wheel.

and can you please describ what that is/means? are you there? have you been there? what do you MEAN?

ps;;hey ellion, listen, i dont want to disrail tis thread so i've started a new thread all about tis below. so i will just repond tp this now, but can we take it to the below forum.....? ifyou wanna continua that is

 

[ellion]

just cuious. have you personally experiencednnirvana, and if so, whatis it like?

being perfectly honest, i have no idea if i have expereinced "nirvana" i a lot of expereinces. i am not buddhist enough to know if anything i expereince is nirvanic.

i think i understand what you mean. ou are saying i am limiting Nature by limiting it to birth and deeath?

i think that would be true, yes.

you see. i look at it tis way. THIS is what i know. ths amazing ature which includes death life and regeration. i can see it all around. death, decay, beings being born etc.

i think you know your self. you say nature INCLUDES birth death regeneration. nature then, is something else beyond birth life death, and birth life death are just factors in the equation.

anthing else ....anything intellectually proposed that is 'beyond' this given is conjecture

well it is given conjecture if it is an intellectaul concept. what if it is not an intellectual concept and is an experience. an expereince that very view people have had. would there be an adequate language to communicate this experience? who then would you communicate this expereince to? everyday folk? scientists? the othordoxy? but they are all stuck in the machine.

to exist in the nature that is beyond this wheel.

and can you please describ what that is/means?

there is much that is "beyond" i could not possibly begin to decribe it.

are you there?

in some sense, yes. but not exactly.

have you been there?

it is a state that i expereince, yes. although "been there" draws parrallels with the physical plane but it is not like i go anywhere i am still here in fact "there" is here, it is the same place. it is consciousness that moves but not physically. i dont know how to explain it. i suppose it is a shift of awareness.

 

[ellion]

ps;;hey ellion, listen, i dont want to disrail tis thread so i've started a new thread all about tis below. so i will just repond tp this now, but can we take it to the below forum.....? ifyou wanna continua that is

i cant see it. can you link me?

 

[water]

i cant see it. can you link me?

Here it is:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=883874#post883874

 

[duendy]

being perfectly honest, i have no idea if i have expereinced "nirvana" i a lot of expereinces. i am not buddhist enough to know if anything i expereince is nirvanic.

me:::i wouold assume by nrvana they are meaning astate that FEELS......nonordinary...?

i think that would be true, yes.
me:::you are referring to me saying that you might think i am limiting Nature when i say there is beit and death.
i would say that Nature is organic...is living. and to assume you can hae one end of a process without its complimentary is absurd. its like saying 'there is only 'dry''....how can you even KNOW 'dry' lessen you also know 'wet'?

i think you know your self. you say nature INCLUDES birth death regeneration. nature then, is something else beyond birth life death, and birth life death are just factors in the equation.

me:::what...you sayin a had a freudian slip? hehe....see above answer. it answers this too

well it is given conjecture if it is an intellectaul concept. what if it is not an intellectual concept and is an experience. an expereince that very view people have had. would there be an adequate language to communicate this experience? who then would you communicate this expereince to? everyday folk? scientists? the othordoxy? but they are all stuck in the machine.

me::what we would have then is the beginnings of an elitist cult. ie., a small set of people claiming they can reach th parts others cant, and if you therefore do a,b nd c you TOO can be spcial like us. in that ismuch road for utter deception, conformity and servitude etc

there is much that is "beyond" i could not possibly begin to decribe it.

me:::try

in some sense, yes. but not exactly.

me:::sorry dont know te context of thisreply. i cant snip the original questions. soz

it is a state that i expereince, yes. although "been there" draws parrallels with the physical plane but it is not like i go anywhere i am still here in fact "there" is here, it is the same place. it is consciousness that moves but not physically. i dont know how to explain it. i suppose it is a shift of awareness.

well of course, but WHILST you are body.....whilst you are this amazing Nature. this unfathomable Nature

 

[Red Devil]

Duendy: You really surprise me. I did not think these so called divine people could be so offensive. I admit that what I know about their religion is what has been seen on tv, no, I am not one. I am a devout athiest.

Shall we say that, in general terms, Buddhism is the one religion that has not caused a war. Christianity was hell bent (pardon the pun) on destroying other religions by the most foul brutal deeds possible and imaginable. Islam is even now trying to destroy the world by slaughtering innocent people as they go about their business, history is full of religious barbarity.

 

[Cyperium]

Why pain? Old question, I know.. But is there a good answer? If God exists, why the concept of uncomfortable exists? How about God himself? Does it make sense for God to feel uncomfortable? Do subjects (including God) take actions if they don't feel uncomfortable? Is God comfortable with what's going on in our world? Can all the suffering end instantly? Why pain for pain (e.g. the pain of Jesus to "save us" and so on)? Does it make any sense? Sure, we might be getting some experience from uncomfortable feelings - but such experience can potentially mean something in imperfect worlds only. It becomes totally meaningless in the world of absolute happiness (with no risks, no dangerous things). What are we doing in this world if such a great God is/was around? Isn't all this suffering just a totally sick idea considering the possibility of living without it from the beginning? Why the first garden wasn't a much, MUCH, better place? Maybe someone's fantasy was just too limited.. Or someone’s concept of "perfect" was a bit, let's say, bizarre.. Or someone just wanted us to feel guilty. Does a bad choice have a place in a perfect world? Does any choice have a place in a perfect world? Do we really need to deal with anything else than with great feelings or some unknown type of the best possible future? Is pain a fair price for free will in our world? Does it really make sense to create a self-satisfaction-driven creature, give it free will and then punish it for not following author’s rules? Why would I write a code which could potentially do what I don't want it to do and included factors which would increase the probability that it will really do it? Why would I want anything dangerous around the people I love? What kind of God are we supposedly dealing with?

Why pain? To avoid it.

Seriously, what kind of questions is that? Pain is a human feeling, we wouldn't be complete without it. There are probably worse things, things unspeakable to man.

 

[duendy]

Duendy: You really surprise me. I did not think these so called divine people could be so offensive.

me::: te trouble begins when you start tinking yourself 'divine'--as in 'always', or 'more than you'

I admit that what I know about their religion is what has been seen on tv, no, I am not one. I am a devout athiest.

me:::what do you believein ten, regarding the meaning of te universe? what people would you look to to give you some kind of aswer?

Shall we say that, in general terms, Buddhism is the one religion that has not caused a war.

me::: rthat is afallacy to believe Buddhists have been non-warring peoples. remember they spread Buddhism far and wide and met resistance

Christianity was hell bent (pardon the pun) on destroying other religions by the most foul brutal deeds possible and imaginable. Islam is even now trying to destroy the world by slaughtering innocent people as they go about their business, history is full of religious barbarity.

yes, all organization seem to want to destroy other ones that threaten competition. yo speak of Islam. yes. but i personally think that what is going on is propaganda AGAINST Islam by a secret society, te Illuminati who are Luciferians

 

[Red Devil]

But it is not the "illuminati" that destroyed the World Trade centre, blow up suicide car bombs every day in Iraq, Bali etc, behead innocent civilian workers, shoot soldiers trying to keep the peace to allow a country to rebuild herself in a democratic way, going into a country they have no right to be in to carry out said attacks (Iraq). Treat women worse than cattle (Afghanistan) by the so called islamic taliban. Its not this allegedly secret society, its islamic's, brainwashed into thinking they will achieve paradise via their heinous deeds. By direct contrast, strangely enough, suicide is punishable by eternal damnation in the Christian book - would be interested to see who is right, but not just yet thank you.

 

[ellion]

Its not this allegedly secret society, its islamic's, brainwashed into thinking they will achieve paradise via their heinous deeds.
By direct contrast, strangely enough, suicide is punishable by eternal damnation in the Christian book - would be interested to see who is right, but not just yet thank you.

suppose that these people (the islamic militia for the purpose of the argument) are conditioned in to their beliefs by an organisation that knows how to condition certain behavioural and cognitive responses. then supposing these conditioned individuals started to kill people. in actually what they are doing is simply carrying out their instructions much the same way a computer runs a program. who then is to blame? the subject that mechanistically carries out its programmed responses or the programmer that conditioned the subject?

 

[ellion]

i wouold assume by nrvana they are meaning astate that FEELS......nonordinary...?

but nonordinary would still be within nature.
the question what is ordinary, is pertinent here. ordinary for me is not ordinary for you. what was once nonordinary expereince will become ordinary as it is expereinced more frequently.

you are referring to me saying that you might think i am limiting Nature when i say there is beit and death.

yes i was reffering to that metioned. when you say nature is limnited to birth /life /death, it seems that you are limiting what nature coud be to what you can see nature is. nature is more than you percieve with your senses.

i would say that Nature is organic...is living.

i have no argument with this but i would add that consciousness is also organic and alive. and that consciousness has different modes of reality than such things as physical entities, like plants, trees and chimpanzees. [sorry i had an overwhelming urge to make that ryhme]

and to assume you can hae one end of a process without its complimentary is absurd. its like saying 'there is only 'dry''....how can you even KNOW 'dry' lessen you also know 'wet'?

this is not what we are talking about. are you exploring something like a non-death / non-birth process? like how could you be born if you never died?

what...you sayin a had a freudian slip?

what was that?
do you mean;

i think you know your self

hehe....see above answer. it answers this to

i am not sure i understand you answer above. it seems to be about life death not about nature beyind life and death. am i missing something?

what we would have then is the beginnings of an elitist cult.

this is not a necessary consequence of gaining knowlege or unique experience. most people would just call you fruitcake a retard or schizo if you are really unlucky they may nail you to a cross or burn you at the stake.

ie., a small set of people claiming they can reach th parts others cant,

i knew a girl that had a vibrator like that. never tired it myself mind.

and if you therefore do a,b nd c you TOO can be spcial like us. in that ismuch road for utter deception, conformity and servitude etc

obviously your taking the cynical stance here, nothing wronmg with that. but deception only occurs when the truth is not told. conforming is a choice you choose to conform to a way of life or not. if you are told (this is an expamle BTW) that you should not smoke because it is bad for your health woudl you be a conformist if you choose not to smoke? as for servitude, i have to wonder why you choose that word as a quality of following a certain teaching. is it perhaps that you feel some sense of oppression when asked to take responsibilty for the burden that you bring to the world?

there is much that is "beyond" i could not possibly begin to decribe it.

try

i cannot. for numerous reasons. the main concern is that you will label me an elistist cultist trying to oppress you into confromity and servitude so that you will be "SPECIAL" like me. another is that it is extremely difficult to communicate without sounding like a fruitcake a retard or a schizo. i am sure if you ask the right questions i can give rational answers, even if not rational honest and to the best of my knowledge.

in some sense, yes. but not exactly.

me:::sorry dont know te context of thisreply. i cant snip the original questions. soz

you asked me was i there now, i said,

in some sense, yes. but not exactly.

because there is no there and here in physical space. it is like having your eyes open and your eyes shut. i shut my eyes i am still here but it looks different. i did not go any where when i shut my eyes. because i cannot see you does not mean you are not there either.

well of course, but WHILST you are body.....whilst you are this amazing Nature. this unfathomable Nature

this is what i am saying, these expereinces known for the pupose of this thread as nirvanic are quite natural. you are not escaping nature. if anything you are attunning to a rarer state of that nature.

 

[Red Devil]

I am nt sure how Islam crept into this thread as the main topic but the religious concept of Islam is far from that being taught by the idiots in the pulpits, and the sheep that follow them.

 

[G71]

>[duendy] 10-07-05, 07:55 AM
>we'd all be walking round wit bits of flesh hangn off, other bits hanging off broken bones. horror
so obviously physical pain informs us to take han away, etc. so that is physical

The body and the environment could have been designed so that this would not be an issue. You may want to read at least the first post carefully before trying to contribute to any SF discussion.

>[water] 10-07-05, 08:01 AM
>I think that only a benevolent God would give humans the freedom to choose.


What's better for us? (A) The "freedom to choose" or (B) the best possible future? My answer is B). God (supposedly) could give us the B) but he did not. Why? I would give it to those I love. wouldn't you?

>we should not resist [suffering] once it happens.

we are designed to resist it

>> If so, what could be the reason for its existence?
>For us to be given the chance to learn the truth, to see things for what they truly are. To learn who we are.

There is an infinite number of ways how things truly are. How things are seen depends on senses and sense-related processing. Christian's God obviously has a taste for human suffering.

>>Christians are typically lost when it comes to this argument.
>Or, the asker doesn't understand his question.

I don't think so. The best way how to get something done simply depends on agent's power. It would be pretty stupid for God to do things in a similar manner we do it. The fact that Christian's god often demonstrates that stupidity strongly suggests that the whole thing is nothing more than a man made story. The complexity of this world well corresponds to its messed-up-ness so I don't think Christian's God fits the model.

>So it is all about FEELING a certain way?

I think so. What else is so important? What else triggers our actions?

>Are you saying that if God were benevolent, then there would be no *causes* of suffering (like wars and illness)?
>Or are you saying that if God were benevolent, then we would never *feel* suffering?

I'm talking about Christian's God with all his attributes mentioned in the Bible (including being benevolent) and my answer to both questions is then yes.

>[charles cure] 10-07-05, 01:44 PM
>we could expereience pleasure fully without knowing what pain was. what matters is that you have something to compare it to.

I don't think such comparison is really important, but even if it is, I believe comparing various levels of pleasure would be enough (no need for the pain scope).

>[water] 10-09-05 09:09 AM
>Of course having free will doesn't mean that suffering has disappeared. It means that it can disappear.

I don't think we have free will. But even if we do, we cannot always use it to stop pain. And even if we could, I would still see a problem with it because it's just a concept which belongs to imperfect worlds = worlds created by imperfect creators.

>[Red Devil] 10-09-05, 02:34 PM
> Pain is the means by which the body tells us something, however trivial, is wrong.

1) We could live an an environment where nothing could get wrong - that's what I would expect from Christian's God.
2) If we live in an environment where something can get wrong, we could be getting some sort of neutral "pain" info (eg. location, type & intensity in a numeric representation) + the brain could be wired so that it would take it seriously enough without the actual feeling of pain..

>[Cyperium] 10-09-05, 11:45 AM
>Why pain? To avoid it.

How is the "having something to avoid" better than a pleasure-only life?

>Seriously, what kind of questions is that? Pain is a human feeling, we wouldn't be complete without it.

1) The ("Incomplete" and happy) is better than (complete and unhappy).
2) You would be complete with whatever you get.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Pain is a human feeling, we wouldn't be complete without it.

correct.

There are probably worse things, things unspeakable to man.

like what?
we all have an imagination, every nasty thing you can think of involves pain.

 

[G71]

correct.

OK, let's assume for the moment that you are right. Is keeping the title "human" worth keeping the pain (considering the possibility of living in a pleasure-only world as an "incomplete" human by your definition)?