Perfect, benevolent universe?

Perfect, benevolent universe? ed c 5/9/11 6:59 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nikolai . 5/9/11 7:54 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? This Good Self 5/9/11 8:01 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nikolai . 5/9/11 9:26 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nikolai . 5/9/11 9:44 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? ed c 5/10/11 12:05 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Jon T 5/10/11 12:40 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Jon T 5/9/11 11:31 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? This Good Self 5/10/11 8:47 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/10/11 9:00 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? This Good Self 5/10/11 9:23 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/10/11 9:45 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? This Good Self 5/10/11 8:12 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/10/11 9:43 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? This Good Self 5/11/11 12:22 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/11/11 7:18 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Yadid dee 5/10/11 11:42 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? . Jake . 5/10/11 2:42 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/10/11 3:08 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? . Jake . 5/10/11 5:36 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? . Jake . 5/10/11 6:02 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/10/11 7:55 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? . Jake . 5/10/11 8:09 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? ed c 5/10/11 8:34 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/10/11 9:04 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? . Jake . 5/11/11 7:17 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/11/11 7:20 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? . Jake . 5/11/11 7:35 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Nad A. 5/11/11 8:04 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 5/11/11 8:17 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? . Jake . 5/11/11 5:16 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 5/10/11 8:56 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? ed c 5/10/11 5:21 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 5/10/11 5:39 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? ed c 5/10/11 8:20 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 5/11/11 7:21 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? ed c 5/11/11 10:39 AM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Jon T 5/11/11 5:31 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? ed c 5/11/11 5:33 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Jon T 5/11/11 5:41 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? Jon T 5/11/11 5:46 PM
RE: Perfect, benevolent universe? . Jake . 5/11/11 6:21 PM
ed c, modified 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 6:59 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 6:59 PM

Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 59 Join Date: 8/9/10 Recent Posts
Hi all -
The benefits of actual freedom seem practical, obvious and profoundly important. Perhaps this truly can fundamentally change the course of human history, for the better. Regardless of this long term implications, this seems doable now so I’m very motivated and continue to read, contemplate and practice. One of the places I’m getting stuck is on the perfection of the universe. Richard talks at length about this perfection. He also discusses the current human condition as something evolutionary that can now finally be changed. Some supporting quotes:

The purpose of life on earth as a human being is to understand that I, as this body, am not separate from the universe

“The “Human Folly” is an affliction, not a curse. Human life is not a punishment for some Metaphysical misdeed. Nor is it a random, chance-event in an empty universe. The universe – the only one there is – is mentally successful at producing a life-form that can sense, think and reflect upon its situation. I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being…a truly remarkable state of affairs. As me, the universe is intelligent; I am the universes potential made manifest. After eons of evolution the universe has succeeded in producing what it has proved itself to be capable of: an ability to know itself as it is.”

All humans are endowed at birth by Blind Nature with the instinct for the survival of the species. The seat of the instincts, tentatively located in the popularly named “reptilian brain”, is capable of undergoing a mutation

This universe is so enormous in size – infinity being as enormous as it can get – and so immense in its scope – eternity being as immense as it can get – how on earth could anyone believe for a minute that it is all here for humans to be forever miserable in? It is foolishness of the highest order to believe it to be so ... one can have confidence in a universe so grandly complex, so marvelously intricate, so wonderfully excellent. How could all this be some ‘ghastly mistake’? To believe it all to be some ‘sick joke’ is preposterous, for such an attitude cuts one off from the perfection of this pure moment of being alive here in this fantastic actual universe. (My comments – it’s not human “attitude” that cuts ones off from the perfection of this moment, it’s the mutation needed to negate the evolutionary blind nature we were born with, right???)

Humans have created a separative humanity and then, frustratedly, railed against this benevolent, benign universe. (My comments – Again, I thought blind nature created the sense of separation that we are “afflicted” with, not us?)

I’m not hung up on eliminating the concept of an after-life. I also do not have an issue with the thought of experiencing life in “actuality” as being my purpose in life. My concern is:

Why does the fact that the human race had to go through 2.4 million years of painful “vale of tears” evolution so that we can now undergo a mutation in order to see its perfection of the universe, demonstrate the benevolence of that universe? How can this admittedly evolutionary process of blind nature that created the “human condition” that can now finally be eliminated be the fault of humans? This disconnect where the “human condition” is discussed as being created by humans, in a benevolent universe that we’ve foolishly railed against, rather than what seems more factual, which is that it is something humans inherited via an evolutionary process (set in motion? controlled?) by the universe, concerns me. Why place the blame on humans? It insinuates a few things to me, but I’ll withhold speculation for a bit.

I’m sure much thought has gone into this by others so I’d be curious and appreciative to hear how this plays out for you. Given that the actually free have the benefit of having lived on “both sides of the fence” perhaps they in particular could weigh in on this to give it color or context I am missing. There is a ton of info in the book/website and I haven’t read 100% of it, yet. But I have read and thought about information on this topic over and over and I don’t see anything new that helps makes this any more understandable…
Thanks
Ed
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 7:54 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 7:54 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Have you had a PCE yet? Maybe that will help answer all those questions.

:-)
This Good Self, modified 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 8:01 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 8:01 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
ed, whenever I get to asking why man was born with such potential for suffering, I remind myself that there are millions of unenlightened and un-AF people in the World with really wonderful and happy lives. They suffer only infrequently and minimally. Happiness, joy and contentment are enjoyed by millions who have never even heard the word dharma, let alone AF.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 9:26 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 9:26 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Are you one of those people with a wonderful life, CCC? Can I ask you why you hang out here? Why do you think the majority of people hang out here?
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 9:44 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 9:44 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 1677 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
I don't know but I just read this blog post by a guy who just died and I feel even more inspired to live life to the max....sans a filter.

http://www.penmachine.com/
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 11:31 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/9/11 11:31 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
C C C:
ed, whenever I get to asking why man was born with such potential for suffering, I remind myself that there are millions of unenlightened and un-AF people in the World with really wonderful and happy lives. They suffer only infrequently and minimally. Happiness, joy and contentment are enjoyed by millions who have never even heard the word dharma, let alone AF.



Do you think there is or isn't a common denominator between them and those who are AF or virtually free?
ed c, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 12:05 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 12:05 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 59 Join Date: 8/9/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai -
You’re correct in your assumption; I have not had a PCE yet. I suspect a few things will clear up when that happens. As such, I’ve sort of “parked” a couple items whose understanding seems essentially dependant on having experienced a PCE. However, this issue didn’t seem quite that way to me, so I decided to ask.

I’m hoping there is more to the answer than I have to experience a PCE to understand. That would be about the same as someone telling me the proof that “Jesus is my savior” will be understood the first time I feel the power of the Lord. The proof being something I just “know” and isn’t relatable to anyone else in an objective way as it requires them to just experience it too.

Given Richard’s quest for just the facts, which totally appeals to “me”, I found this topic to be somewhat loose, at best. For clarity’s sake it’s the “cause and effect” that I take issue with. That the human “attitude” is the cause of the “human condition” when it’s clearly stated at other times this is an evolutionary process. Is he saying humans are the cause of evolution now? If humans’ aren’t responsible for evolution, who or what is? To me, this is a topic where the facts seem to be at odds with the claims and the claims seem to contradict themselves; that requires clarification.

I fully acknowledge I don’t totally understand this yet. When I look back at my notes from last month I realize just how much I keep learning. So this issue is not a dead one for me, rather it felt like something the wisdom of the crowd might help clear up, as it's not based on experience, or so I thought...

CCC- To a large extent I agree with what you’re saying. I don’t personally find life as tragic as Richard’s seem to portray things, but I get his point and I think he purposely embellishes a bit but more importantly as Nikolai points out, I’m on this board studying AF for a reason. Because I don’t find life a vale of tears, doesn’t mean I don’t too recognize something is fundamentally wrong that can be improved or perhaps fixed. To that end, actual freedom makes sense.

Ed
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 12:40 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 12:31 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
Hey Ed,

The human condition as defined by R. is two-fold. 1) evolutionary and 2) Cultural. (Furthermore, it can can be said that the cultural part is also two-fold, a) socially conditioned and b) self-inflicted. All psychosis and neurosis are self-inflicted.) Evolutionary aspect of the our identity is what R. calls the soul, the primal, the reptilian brain, the instinctual passions, blind nature. The cultural is what he calls the ego and the social identity.


That the human “attitude” is the cause of the “human condition” when it’s clearly stated at other times this is an evolutionary process. Is he saying humans are the cause of evolution now?


Humans aren't the cause of evolution. Humans are the cause of the social identity.

Fear is evolutionary. Fear of Mexicans is cultural. The social identity is a combination of the Self and the Society trying to make sense of the human instincts - nurture, aggression, desire and fear. To have a fear of that which is unknown is an evolved trait. To instantly freeze up and emotionally lash out whenever the Spanish language is spoken is a learned trait. To never question why one instantly freezes up and emotionally lashes out whenever the Spanish language is spoken is the fault of the individuals attitude. Such an individual must have a pessimistic and condescending attitude. If such a person was optimistic and generous then she would bit-by-bit learn to undo any such traits that turn her from happy, free, optimistic and generous to morose, burdened, pessimistic and condescending. That is why R. says that is is the human attitude that causes our condition. I hope that helps.

Now what is the cause of this individuals negative attitude? Is it social or innate? The question isn't relevant and at this time it isn't answerable. Science will give us a better idea in the decades to come but for now it's best to say that it's both social and innate.

Back to the question relevance. What difference does it make whether it's your fault or evolutions or both? If you can fix it and you know the way then what else is still pertinent. So why haven't you had a PCE yet? Have you tried taking a walk by yourself and simply observing the world around you? What happens when you do this? What are you thinking about when you type this response? What are the emotions you feel? Why do you feel them? Can you put them in a box per se and go on without said emotions? Now what do you think about..what your brain is processing?

jon
This Good Self, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:47 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:26 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
Great question Jon. Consider this: every day I come across people who have never done any form of spiritual practice and yet they are for the most part happy and contented. Yes, I actually make a point of asking every happy and contented person I meet if they meditate or pray or do anything of that sort. Mostly they don't, though a small percentage say they are low key church-goers. What I notice about them is that they have very high levels of self-acceptance.

My concern is that depressed people come here seeking something that this site isn't set up for, and that this could cause severe aggravation of depression. This site is about enlightenment, as Daniel's sticky post explains. People should be coming here when they're happy with life and they want something more, but they're not quite sure what that 'more' is. They think "life is great but I wonder what this buddhism thing is about".

When people read about Buddha saying "life is suffering" and the only way out is meditation, that's total BS, as I've just proven above. The Dho is a miniscule... absolutely miniscule subsection of the World's population. People are out there enjoying life right now without drugs, without exploitation, without wads of cash....and without AF and Buddhism. AF and Budhism are only necessary for the ultimate freedom that no-self brings. I think people are getting confused between normal happiness and ultimate freedom.

When I first came to this site, I remember being struck by how everyone was so serious all the time. No one joked. No one made light-hearted or flippant comments. It was all serious, serious business... in fact this seriousness even had a name: hardcore! Seriousness is anxiety in disguise. Think back to the serious kids at school. Remember? They had low self-worth.

My own personal dharma, for myself, is really reallllly solid self-worth first, then to see what happens after that. But I keep a close eye on what I might do in terms of spiritual practices afterwards (if I get there!). I don't see any problem with planning ahead in this way.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:56 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:54 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Richard:
To believe it all to be some ‘sick joke’ is preposterous, for such an attitude cuts one off from the perfection of this pure moment of being alive here in this fantastic actual universe.

ed c:
it’s not human “attitude” that cuts ones off from the perfection of this moment, it’s the mutation needed to negate the evolutionary blind nature we were born with, right???

The attitude Richard mentioned is a particular attitude that particular people can have - that it's all a 'sick joke'. It's just one of many attitudes, and as CCC points out, 'normal' people are often happy enough and those probably don't have such an attitude, though I do personally know a few people who have it (and they are often not happy enough).

Also the mutation isn't what cuts us off from the perfection of this moment, it's the self. The mutation is what removes the self.

ed c:
Why does the fact that the human race had to go through 2.4 million years of painful “vale of tears” evolution so that we can now undergo a mutation in order to see its perfection of the universe, demonstrate the benevolence of that universe?
isn't it amazing that out of a mass of particles swirling in space, a sun was formed, around which our planet Earth was formed, on which life evolved to the point where not only are there be sentient beings living on the planet (in a vast, intricate, interconnected ecosystem), but where the sentient beings have such a capacity for reflective contemplation that they can identify and eliminate those artifacts of the evolutionary process which are no longer necessary such as to experience a never-ending state of pristine perfection?

Also, check it out.

ed c:
How can this admittedly evolutionary process of blind nature that created the “human condition” that can now finally be eliminated be the fault of humans? This disconnect where the “human condition” is discussed as being created by humans, in a benevolent universe that we’ve foolishly railed against, rather than what seems more factual, which is that it is something humans inherited via an evolutionary process (set in motion? controlled?) by the universe, concerns me. Why place the blame on humans? It insinuates a few things to me, but I’ll withhold speculation for a bit.
I don't think Richard said the evolutionary process of blind nature was the fault of humans. From the quotes you gave, all he said is that humans created a "separative humanity."

I don't think (but this is just my impression) that he is blaming humans in the way you think he is. I think the gist of it is: at some point, we were animals, with just the animal instincts. As we evolved we got smarter, and those instincts naturally grew into a self. The nature of the self is to be separative, so we collectively created a separative humanity: humans as separate from animals and the trees and the rivers and the lakes, etc. After doing so, we now complain that this universe sucks, when in fact it's actually a pretty nice place.

So, at least to me, there's no blame there. It's all cause and effect, and it's simply blindness that people don't see the universe for what it is. I think Richard was just describing what happened, so that you can see where it went wrong and then find out for yourself, i.e. have a PCE.
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:00 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:59 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
C C C:

When people read about Buddha saying "life is suffering" and the only way out is meditation, that's total BS, as I've just proven above.


Is that a light-hearted or flippant joke?

C C C:
ed, whenever I get to asking why man was born with such potential for suffering, I remind myself that there are millions of unenlightened and un-AF people in the World with really wonderful and happy lives. They suffer only infrequently and minimally. Happiness, joy and contentment are enjoyed by millions who have never even heard the word dharma, let alone AF.


Allow me to 'prove' to you the opposite then. Billions of people suffer every day. Millions of children die of starvation every year, not very happy event for their parents, either. Humans are unlikely to exist as a species long enough for their happiness to ever outweigh the amount of suffering that animals have endured over the course of a billion years of evolution. I'll leave it at that. It doesn't mean "life is a vale of tears" but there's no need to play down the massive amount of suffering that goes with life.
This Good Self, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:23 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:23 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
nad if you're wondering if I've suffered in my life, I have suffered extraordinary amounts of pain and emotional turmoil. And I understand about the sheer scale of numbers of people suffering right this moment in the World. Nothing was played down in my post.
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:45 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:45 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
C C C:
I understand about the sheer scale of numbers of people suffering right this moment in the World. Nothing was played down in my post.


Ok sorry, my mistake. It's just that I don't think I could remind myself of the millions of happy people without being automatically reminded of the scale of suffering of humans and other animals, which would return me to the question of this thread's title, if not the specific questions ed is talking about.
thumbnail
Yadid dee, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 11:42 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 11:12 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 258 Join Date: 9/11/09 Recent Posts
C C C:

My concern is that depressed people come here seeking something that this site isn't set up for, and that this could cause severe aggravation of depression.


Hi CCC,

My impression from your posts is that you are interested in the practices and results that are discussed here, but have a lingering doubt and self-doubt whether these practices and results will rid you of your own suffering, as that suffering is 'mundane', and if you will achieve 'mundane' happiness, all will be well.

Most of the people on these forums, as far as I know from conversing with them, are normal, non-clinically depressed individuals who have a great life in the ordinary sense.

What I have found, due to practice and life experience, is that fundamental suffering, unhappiness, 'self-doubt' and more, are fundamental to human experience, and no amount of 'mundane things' such as a great relationship, a great job, loads of money, etc, will alleviate.

It is obvious from going around in this world that most people are not interested in the kind of practices and results which are discussed here. That is quite true. But what is not true is that this is due to them having 'enough happiness', which is the conclusion you are making here.

Perhaps one could alleviate certain kinds of unhappiness by various means. But if your goal is to completely eradicate the potential for any kind of mental suffering due to anger, depression, sadness, etc etc, I haven't yet found a 'mundane' way to do that.

The reasons for interest or disinterest in this optional human development which are called 'enlightenment' or 'actual freedom' and more, are unclear, but what is very clear is that they are very worth-while goals which can be achieved by regular normal people.

In regards to Depression, if you wish to talk to someone who was clinically depressed and anxious for many years, and having solved that utterly and completely by means of insight practice (according to his own testimony), talk to Kenneth Folk.

And in regards to everyone here being 'serious' and 'hard-core', you should perhaps ask Tarin or Trent to have a video chat with you on Skype and see how they match up to your projections and expectations.. I have a feeling you'll be surprised emoticon
thumbnail
Jake , modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 2:42 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 2:42 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Hi CCC--
I've entertained a similar consideration regarding the many people I've known who seemed to display "mundane happiness". What I came to suspect, based on observation and conversation, as well as my own experiences with mundane happiness, is that it's generally based on arranging circumstances in a way that one likes. Very simple, very effective-- for mundane happiness.

The problem of course is that such a strategy leaves one vulnerable to becoming rather upset whenever one fails to keep preferred circumstances in place :-) And if one's preferences (in the sense of items which must be present to feel justified in feeling happy) include youth, health and being alive, old age sickness and death will inevitably prove rather disappointing. If one's preferences include being with things and people to which and to whom one is attached... well, where will mundane happiness go when things break and people die? So, yes, I think we all know people who are particularly skilled (or lucky) at getting and keeping what they want-- but it's a fundamentally flawed strategy for happiness, isn't it?

As for the topic of the thread, hi Ed! My take is that the perfection and benignity of the Universe pertains to "actuality", as in, World without the superimposition of a liking/disliking imaginative self-process. One of the projections such a self-process may superimpose on Universe is, in my experience, that of a Universe of "cold matter" so to speak, bleak, lacking meaning, lacking color, lacking intimacy. Whereas, actually, Universe lacks nothing, as there's no "gap" in which lack could occur, except in imagination. Universe is basically positive, in this sense, that it is a rich abundance overflowing with potential. An experience in which the selfing-process is dormant reveals perfection, purity, and abundance, in which simply breathing and circulating blood and being alive is more than enough to be completely happy and satisfied. So it's not that Universe is 'perfect and benevolent' in a personified sense, like Universe is one big Self who has the quality of perfection and an attitude of benevolence towards all its parts.
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 3:08 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 3:08 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
Jacob Henry St. Onge Casavant:

As for the topic of the thread, hi Ed! My take is that the perfection and benignity of the Universe pertains to "actuality", as in, World without the superimposition of a liking/disliking imaginative self-process. One of the projections such a self-process may superimpose on Universe is, in my experience, that of a Universe of "cold matter" so to speak, bleak, lacking meaning, lacking color, lacking intimacy. Whereas, actually, Universe lacks nothing, as there's no "gap" in which lack could occur, except in imagination. Universe is basically positive, in this sense, that it is a rich abundance overflowing with potential. An experience in which the selfing-process is dormant reveals perfection, purity, and abundance, in which simply breathing and circulating blood and being alive is more than enough to be completely happy and satisfied. So it's not that Universe is 'perfect and benevolent' in a personified sense, like Universe is one big Self who has the quality of perfection and an attitude of benevolence towards all its parts.


Hi Jacob,

Could you expand on how the universe is 'benevolent'? Or perhaps explain a bit more what you mean by rich in abundance and overflowing with potential?

From my own PCE I can check-off benign, perfect, pure... but 'benevolent' doesn't really fit.

–adjective
1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings: a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
2. desiring to help others; charitable: gifts from several benevolent alumni.
3. intended for benefits rather than profit: a benevolent institution.
ed c, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 5:21 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 5:19 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 59 Join Date: 8/9/10 Recent Posts
Folks –
Thanks for your responses.

Beo/Jon –
You have a similar theme, and since it involves the crux of my point, let me focus on it.
Jon - Humans aren't the cause of evolution. Humans are the cause of the social identity.
Beo - I don't think Richard said the evolutionary process of blind nature was the fault of humans. From the quotes you gave, all he said is that humans created a "separate humanity."


Yes, but “why” did humans create or enhance the social identity/separtive humanity? Why did the need to do this even exist? Because the instincts (soul) that is genetically passed on via evolution. In essence, we are born flawed, so we’ve done the best we can to overcome that. The proof of this is the fact that a mutation is required to fix the very state I was born into? Why? If the universe wants me to experience the perfection of it and it to experience itself through me, why not just make me born that way? Am I really to believe the infinite, eternal, essentially all powerful universe couldn’t figure out a way better than 2.4 million years of evolution that kept humans locked out of perfection to experience itself?

Why does this matter? Because I think it’s simply impossible to know what anyone’s purpose is. There are no facts that support this being my purpose in life nor that the universe wants to experience itself through me. Without facts, it’s a belief. Given the nature of AF, I can’t not investigate this and try and take it on a new belief. I’ll reserve some possibility a PCE will help prove this but clearly many people seem to have had PCE’s that not pursuing AF nor would agree on what the purpose in life is. For me this investigation is similar (although I truly do hope it will be with a different outcome) to my attempt to absorb the need to end the cycle of rebirth, samsara, as my prior purpose in life. Despite all the proof of reincarnation, I just couldn’t jump on board.

With all this said, do I “believe” AF is a profound way of living that I am working to make a fact, yes. Does is seem like something that could positively change my (not “my”) life, those around me and possibly fundamentally alter life on earth in a good way, yes. In short, is it worth pursuing, yes! If I don’t’ get new information that changes my mind, can I get over what I consider the attempt to make a belief a fact? Probably and here is why.

I specifically saved this till now so as to not stunt the response to the question. If I think it’s unknowable to understand the purpose of life, why should I care what Richard says it is? First, I’m obviously not sure it’s unknowable as you can’t prove something can’t happen. So I can’t help but try and evaluate whether the facts presented seem to support the claim. But it’s more. Do “I” just want to try and prove him wrong for various selfish reasons, to argue? Maybe. Am “I” somewhat offended when people (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc..) tell me they know what my purpose is? Yes to a large degree. But that’s not why this specifically bothers me with this issue, AF and Richard. It’s because I feel like he is taking away “my” right to be resentful for being here in a situation that I didn’t create and that requires a mutation that actually eliminates “me” so that this body can experience perfection. What the F***!!??? That’s kind of raw deal for “me” right? “I” don’t even get to enjoy the final state of perfection. Thanks for being here Ed, now get out so "this body" can enjoy itself!!! emoticon This is what I need to work through as it is noted over and over the resentment of being will keep one trapped here. While I recognize this and am working through it, it DOESN’T seem to change the facts regarding the unknown purpose in life nor the contradiction I’ve mentioned so I still wanted to ask about it specifically.

When I look back at my notes from last month I realize just how much I keep learning. So this issue is not a dead one for me, rather it felt like something the crowd might help clear up, or not…
Best to all, thanks,
Ed
thumbnail
Jake , modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 5:36 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 5:36 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Nad A.:
Jacob Henry St. Onge Casavant:

As for the topic of the thread, hi Ed! My take is that the perfection and benignity of the Universe pertains to "actuality", as in, World without the superimposition of a liking/disliking imaginative self-process. One of the projections such a self-process may superimpose on Universe is, in my experience, that of a Universe of "cold matter" so to speak, bleak, lacking meaning, lacking color, lacking intimacy. Whereas, actually, Universe lacks nothing, as there's no "gap" in which lack could occur, except in imagination. Universe is basically positive, in this sense, that it is a rich abundance overflowing with potential. An experience in which the selfing-process is dormant reveals perfection, purity, and abundance, in which simply breathing and circulating blood and being alive is more than enough to be completely happy and satisfied. So it's not that Universe is 'perfect and benevolent' in a personified sense, like Universe is one big Self who has the quality of perfection and an attitude of benevolence towards all its parts.


Hi Jacob,

Could you expand on how the universe is 'benevolent'? Or perhaps explain a bit more what you mean by rich in abundance and overflowing with potential?

From my own PCE I can check-off benign, perfect, pure... but 'benevolent' doesn't really fit.

–adjective
1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings: a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
2. desiring to help others; charitable: gifts from several benevolent alumni.
3. intended for benefits rather than profit: a benevolent institution.


hi Nad, I agree the word "benevolent" has connotations of a personal attitude, as I think what I wrote makes clear. Frankly I don't have ANYTHING invested in preserving any of the lingo of official actualism, or any other liberative tradition, except insofar as i find the practical component (pure intent, attentiveness, sensousness, etc) relevent and shared terms helpful. I'm perfectly happy to substitute benign for benevolent for the reasons you and I both point out in our mutual quote above and move on. :-) As for richness of potential and abundance, I will happily elaborate on those themes later when i have more time. Basically, it seems to me that being alive, breathing, awake, seamlessly intimate with everything around me, is evidence of the richness and abundance of Universe, that it could be this human being, alive, breathing, awake, seamlessly intimate with everything around me. That's pretty neat, don't you think?
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 5:39 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 5:39 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
ed c:
It’s because I feel like he is taking away “my” right to be resentful for being here in a situation that I didn’t create and that requires a mutation that actually eliminates “me” so that this body can experience perfection. What the F***!!??? That’s kind of raw deal for “me” right? “I” don’t even get to enjoy the final state of perfection. Thanks for being here Ed, now get out so "this body" can enjoy itself!!! emoticon This is what I need to work through as it is noted over and over the resentment of being will keep one trapped here. While I recognize this and am working through it, it DOESN’T seem to change the facts regarding the unknown purpose in life nor the contradiction I’ve mentioned so I still wanted to ask about it specifically.

He isn't taking away 'your' right to do anything... 'you' can be resentful all you want. Indeed 'you' didn't create the situation. So rail against it if 'you' like... 'you' can feel justified doing so, too. And 'you' will continue existing so long as 'you' do that. And 'you' can stop pursuing AF entirely if 'you' think 'you' will be better off that way.

As far as I understand it (maybe someone else can chime in if this is incorrect; not having had a full-blown PCE myself it might be off a bit), it's all the same to the universe whether 'you' are there or not... the universe doesn't want anything, really. It's not anthropomorphic. It just is. As a conscious entity, though, you have the serendipitous opportunity to experience the perfection of the universe directly. The body is already experiencing perfection. The senses don't mutate when in a PCE or upon AF; 'you' just get out of the way so they can be experienced more directly by the mind (i.e. apperception). It's up to 'you' whether 'you' want to allow a process to be set in motion that will end up in 'you' disappearing altogether (i.e. AF).

Basically, no one is forcing 'you' do this except 'you'. And it might be good to not be forcing 'yourself' to do this[1] (which causes resentment), but to foster sincerity and pure intent so that all of 'you' is going in the same direction.

[1] Believing Richard or anyone else is forcing you to do this is just a manifestation of 'you' forcing 'yourself' to do this.
thumbnail
Jake , modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 6:02 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 5:59 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
@ Nad r.e. "rich and abundant". I was reflecting on this for a few minutes and I tentatively concluded it might make more sense to ask you, how is it meaningful to say Universe is not rich with potential and overflowing with abundance? Better, how is this moment of being alive not rich with potential and overflowing? [edited to add the following] Can you find an actual beginning to this moment? An end?
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 7:55 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 7:53 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
Jacob Henry St. Onge Casavant:
@ Nad r.e. "rich and abundant". I was reflecting on this for a few minutes and I tentatively concluded it might make more sense to ask you, how is it meaningful to say Universe is not rich with potential and overflowing with abundance? Better, how is this moment of being alive not rich with potential and overflowing? [edited to add the following] Can you find an actual beginning to this moment? An end?


What I'd meant was: what about the richness and abundance suggests benevolence to you? You had said "it's not that Universe is 'perfect and benevolent' in a personified sense", which led me to think you considered the universe benevolent in another (non-personified) sense.

To me, benign and benevolent have very different meanings.

The use of 'benevolence' reminds me of how Richard said in his Journal p175 that "the universe knows what it is doing". There may well be some way that the 'benevolence' is not as anthropomorphic as it sounds but I can't see that way right now.

Oh, don't get me started on the 'this moment' stuff, not in this thread anyway. Feel free to resurrect one of my threads (http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1600225) on that topic if you want to give me the definition of 'moment' you're using.
thumbnail
Jake , modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:09 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:09 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
hahaha fair enough Nad. Frankly I couldn't give two shits what Richard (or the Buddha, or any other authority one could be for or against) said, or why; all I'm concerned with is how to live a well-lived life :-)
This Good Self, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:12 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:12 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
nad, what you said reminded me of a post I made recently where I was trying to investigate why people can sometimes be dealt horrible misfortune in life, and whether 'punishment-style' karma might be a real phenomenon. My current understanding on the matter is that painful circumstances might be created by thought in the very same way that a 'self' is created by thought. If this was true, the obvious next question would be: Why would an individual create painful circumstances for himself? I suspect there is in each of us (except those who are free of a self) a lingering and deeply unconscious remnant of the guilt and shame that resulted from 'the Fall of Man'. Sorry to use Christian terminology, but the christians actually describe quite well this whole notion of worthiness in the face of the Infinite. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man if interested. And this is where my investigation into self-worth came to the fore. If I could deeply accept who, how and where I am, then this very basic notion of unworthiness might start to disappear, along with any self-imposed suffering. And this self-imposed suffering might be the cause of what we might call "bad karma". Not sure if that makes sense..hope so.
ed c, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:20 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:20 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 59 Join Date: 8/9/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
ed c:
It’s because I feel like he is taking away “my” right to be resentful for being here in a situation that I didn’t create and that requires a mutation that actually eliminates “me” so that this body can experience perfection. What the F***!!??? That’s kind of raw deal for “me” right? “I” don’t even get to enjoy the final state of perfection. Thanks for being here Ed, now get out so "this body" can enjoy itself!!! emoticon This is what I need to work through as it is noted over and over the resentment of being will keep one trapped here. While I recognize this and am working through it, it DOESN’T seem to change the facts regarding the unknown purpose in life nor the contradiction I’ve mentioned so I still wanted to ask about it specifically.

He isn't taking away 'your' right to do anything... 'you' can be resentful all you want. Indeed 'you' didn't create the situation. So rail against it if 'you' like... 'you' can feel justified doing so, too. And 'you' will continue existing so long as 'you' do that. And 'you' can stop pursuing AF entirely if 'you' think 'you' will be better off that way.

As far as I understand it (maybe someone else can chime in if this is incorrect; not having had a full-blown PCE myself it might be off a bit), it's all the same to the universe whether 'you' are there or not... the universe doesn't want anything, really. It's not anthropomorphic. It just is. As a conscious entity, though, you have the serendipitous opportunity to experience the perfection of the universe directly. The body is already experiencing perfection. The senses don't mutate when in a PCE or upon AF; 'you' just get out of the way so they can be experienced more directly by the mind (i.e. apperception). It's up to 'you' whether 'you' want to allow a process to be set in motion that will end up in 'you' disappearing altogether (i.e. AF).

Basically, no one is forcing 'you' do this except 'you'. And it might be good to not be forcing 'yourself' to do this[1] (which causes resentment), but to foster sincerity and pure intent so that all of 'you' is going in the same direction.

[1] Believing Richard or anyone else is forcing you to do this is just a manifestation of 'you' forcing 'yourself' to do this.


Hi Beo –
I should have worded that better. I understand I have the “right” to be resentful. Richard can’t and isn’t trying to take that way. I’m not fixing on being resentful and no one is forcing “me” to do this, including myself. I hesitated talking about this as I was quite certain it would distract from the factual questioning on the purpose of life issue and the related root “cause” of the separation from the universe, evolution or human “attitude” via the ego?

Any thoughts on those? Does it make sense to you? Why? Does it not matter to you? Why? I’m curious.

Thanks.
ed c, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:34 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 8:34 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 59 Join Date: 8/9/10 Recent Posts
Jacob Henry St. Onge Casavant:

As for the topic of the thread, hi Ed! My take is that the perfection and benignity of the Universe pertains to "actuality", as in, World without the superimposition of a liking/disliking imaginative self-process. One of the projections such a self-process may superimpose on Universe is, in my experience, that of a Universe of "cold matter" so to speak, bleak, lacking meaning, lacking color, lacking intimacy. Whereas, actually, Universe lacks nothing, as there's no "gap" in which lack could occur, except in imagination. Universe is basically positive, in this sense, that it is a rich abundance overflowing with potential. An experience in which the selfing-process is dormant reveals perfection, purity, and abundance, in which simply breathing and circulating blood and being alive is more than enough to be completely happy and satisfied. So it's not that Universe is 'perfect and benevolent' in a personified sense, like Universe is one big Self who has the quality of perfection and an attitude of benevolence towards all its parts.


Hi Jacob-
Interesting.

Could a universe be both pure, perfect and benevolent AND be "responsible" (pick a word if you don't like that) for evolution which leaves humans unable to experience that perfection without a mutation to the way they were born? I'm objecting to Richard's characterization of the universe and human's "attitude" as being the "cause" (at least root) of the human condition. That does not seem factual.
Thoughts?

Thanks.
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:04 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:02 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
ed c:


Hi Jacob-
Interesting.

Could a universe be both pure, perfect and benevolent AND be "responsible" (pick a word if you don't like that) for evolution which leaves humans unable to experience that perfection without a mutation to the way they were born? I'm objecting to Richard's characterization of the universe and human's "attitude" as being the "cause" (at least root) of the human condition. That does not seem factual.
Thoughts?

Thanks.


Ed, my take on the second point - where the blame lies: It seems to me that Richard does lay the blame with the instinctual passions that blind nature evolved to guide primitive animals towards survival and reproduction. That said, those passions in humans make 'us' do things like develop more complex identities and develop attitudes that might further reduce the chances of the purity ever being seen.

I can't find them right now but I remember a few quotes about how there is no ultimate need to blame 'myself' as it is blind nature which causes all of the trouble. So from what I've seen I'd say your example quotes could just be him not taking the extra time to add 'but of course this is all the fault of the instinctual passions', which would get pretty repetitive after every point about how 'I' create suffering.
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:43 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/10/11 9:43 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
C C C:
nad, what you said reminded me of a post I made recently where I was trying to investigate why people can sometimes be dealt horrible misfortune in life, and whether 'punishment-style' karma might be a real phenomenon. My current understanding on the matter is that painful circumstances might be created by thought in the very same way that a 'self' is created by thought. If this was true, the obvious next question would be: Why would an individual create painful circumstances for himself? I suspect there is in each of us (except those who are free of a self) a lingering and deeply unconscious remnant of the guilt and shame that resulted from 'the Fall of Man'. Sorry to use Christian terminology, but the christians actually describe quite well this whole notion of worthiness in the face of the Infinite. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man if interested. And this is where my investigation into self-worth came to the fore. If I could deeply accept who, how and where I am, then this very basic notion of unworthiness might start to disappear, along with any self-imposed suffering. And this self-imposed suffering might be the cause of what we might call "bad karma". Not sure if that makes sense..hope so.


Yikes. Best for the thread to just leave it at: I disagree.
This Good Self, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 12:22 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 12:10 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 946 Join Date: 3/9/10 Recent Posts
On the Dho, the concept of "resentment at being here in this body" comes up a lot. If you want to really investigate this notion and look at how ugly and harmful it is, the Christian concept of "the Fall of Man" is a very useful philosophy. What frightens you nad? The word Christian? The idea of retributive karma? Why is it better that you don't comment when you disagree? By the way I'm not Christian, so feel free to say whatever you want about that.
thumbnail
Jake , modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:17 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:17 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Just a note on 'evolution' guys: a friend of mine pointed out recently that traits don't evolve for a "reason", so for example, with fight/flight arousal brain structures, it's not that evolution was standing around scratching its chin wondering how to get animals to survive, and came up with that. The trait emerged and it was made use of by the organisms it emerged in. Trait first, use second, and no "purpose". The main use I see this structure being put to is in socialization, not physical survival. Consider this: an organism perceives a dangerous object, and this brain circuit is triggered, and then the organism fights, freezes or flees. But the organism had to perceive the object as dangerous cognitively/perceptually first, or else this circuit wouldn't have been activated, so it's always been possible in principle to perpetuate one's survival without this fight/flight circuit. This brain structure emerged after organisms were engaging in survival behavior-- obviously, right? I understand it's common sense to attribute a survival "purpose" to this structure (and all others), but I think this logic is pretty clear-- although it took a whole semester of my friend mentioning this point of view before I stopped assuming he was ignorant about evolutionary theory when in fact he was just free from some of the non-scientific assumptions which are often brought to "common sense" understandings of evolution.
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:18 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:18 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
C C C:
On the Dho, the concept of "resentment at being here in this body" comes up a lot. If you want to really investigate this notion and look at how ugly and harmful it is, the Christian concept of "the Fall of Man" is a very useful philosophy. What frightens you nad? The word Christian? The idea of retributive karma? Why is it better that you don't comment when you disagree? By the way I'm not Christian, so feel free to say whatever you want about that.


Oh I normally comment much further when I disagree. I don't want to stray further from the topic of this thread though. You could PM me or start a new topic about it (I recommend the battleground section) if you really want my opinion.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:21 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:19 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
ed c:
Hi Beo –
I should have worded that better. I understand I have the “right” to be resentful. Richard can’t and isn’t trying to take that way. I’m not fixing on being resentful and no one is forcing “me” to do this, including myself. I hesitated talking about this as I was quite certain it would distract from the factual questioning on the purpose of life issue and the related root “cause” of the separation from the universe, evolution or human “attitude” via the ego?


Ah I was just trying to get to the root issue. Why are you really asking about this? I thought it would be more productive to talk about that directly. From your post it seemed like this caused a lot of resentment, so I was trying to get at that directly.

So - what exactly bothers you about this? What would a satisfactory answer change?

ed c:
Any thoughts on those? Does it make sense to you? Why? Does it not matter to you? Why? I’m curious.

I suppose it doesn't really matter. It is what it is. I suffer now, as a result of a lot of faultless blindness (blind nature and blind humans who conditioned 'me' and blind 'me' who got conditioned). There is no fault because it was blindness - not knowing any better how can the blame be put on anyone? As Jacob said there isn't even any 'purpose' to it. It's just that the animals with these traits (e.g. the fear instinct) survived better than the rest.

The universe just does its thing, organizing its molecules. The universe resulted in not only 'my' passions but also an intellect capable of eliminating the passions. That intellect is also doing its own thing; 'I' am trying to let it be attentive as much as 'I' can so it can divulge 'me' more and more. And when there is little of 'me', from what I've seen, the universe is indeed a nice place. (Or at least my immediate surrounding area wherever I am. But the niceness doesn't seem dependent on location.)

I will also say - the experiential answer seems to be the only satisfying one here. That is - have a PCE and see for yourself. How is this different from
ed c:
That would be about the same as someone telling me the proof that “Jesus is my savior” will be understood the first time I feel the power of the Lord.
? Because to experience the power of the Lord, you have to believe in the Lord, you have to suspend rational judgement and accept things exist that aren't there, and propel yourself into a bliss-filled altered state. To experience a PCE, you have to no longer believe in anything, as even beliefs about the possibility of a PCE will make it less likely to happen. You don't believe in anything that isn't there - you simply open your eyes and look around.
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:20 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:20 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
Jacob Henry St. Onge Casavant:
Just a note on 'evolution' guys: a friend of mine pointed out recently that traits don't evolve for a "reason", so for example, with fight/flight arousal brain structures, it's not that evolution was standing around scratching its chin wondering how to get animals to survive, and came up with that. The trait emerged and it was made use of by the organisms it emerged in. Trait first, use second, and no "purpose".


Yes well I think everyone understands that. It's just a convenient shorthand to say 'nature evolved this to do (x)'.
thumbnail
Jake , modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:35 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 7:35 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
I'm not sure how a completely misleading anthropomorphizing re-statement is a 'convenient shorthand"! hahaha :-)
Nad A, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 8:04 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 8:03 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 237 Join Date: 8/26/10 Recent Posts
Jacob Henry St. Onge Casavant:
I'm not sure how a completely misleading anthropomorphizing re-statement is a 'convenient shorthand"! hahaha :-)


I presumed everyone here is educated at least to such a basic level about what evolution is. Although since you had to have this pointed out to you recently, I guess that presumption was off. FYI, saying 'nature evolved x for y reason' is a well-known quick way of saying 'a random mutation became more widespread as a result of it aiding its hosts to reproduce'. Evolutionary biologists use the shorthand too.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 8:17 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 8:17 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Nad A.:
I presumed everyone here is educated at least to such a basic level about what evolution is. Although since you had to have this pointed out to you recently, I guess that presumption was off.
ohhhhh snap
ed c, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 10:39 AM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 10:39 AM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 59 Join Date: 8/9/10 Recent Posts
Hmmm… These responses helped and some additional reading last night did too. It’s pretty clear I need to experience a PCE for some “beliefs” to even have the chance to become “truths”. There simply isn’t a way to understand much of this in a factual way, without the PCE. All I can do is “believe” and based on what I read and the “trust” I put in what others are telling me about what it is and what it means which is clearly noted will not deliver the goods.

I would seem that if I really knew the only chance for peace (for me and others), is the self immolation of “me”, nothing else should matter. The purpose in life, what it means that Richard’s last 2 VF wives left him, everything else, is noise, a self imposed distraction, a stall tactic etc… I fully expect that I am going to look back and realize I made mistakes in the application of this. I’m doing the best I can to try and not over analyze nor ignore items. I often think about Trent excellent advice when he says not to try and go to fast and miss the delicateness of the experience. Maybe that won’t have the same power 4 years from now if I’m still swirling around, but currently this is gold. Relax, you simply cannot force this. Tarin’s comments from the podcast about shame locking away sincerity, naivety are fantastic and the quote “The willingness to just be you, in a way that you know to be sincere, well meaning, to be fun, is the feeling tone that I would advise maximizing the hell out of and leaving everything else behind. This leads to wonder, this leads to the PCE!” It is something I do sincerely try and use as a guide. There is subtle progress…

It does make TOTAL sense to “me” that the best “I” can do without the elimination of “me” is to employ tactics to maximize happiness while minimizing suffering. Further that it’s simply impossible to keep the good and get rid of the bad, they do truly depend on each other. I laughed recently thinking about a movie I watched as a kid a called “war games”. It’s about Global Thermal Nuclear War and the computer in charge of running scenarios finally realizes the only way to “win the game” is not to play. That’s my overall perception of “feelings” and hence I’m motivated to do this. It’s only been within the last month however when “I” truly understood “I” would not become actually free. That shot took me from very excited to Holy Shit, what am “I” doing? I’m still coming to terms with that, but I think I’ve turned the corner so to speak. Lastly, then I’ll shut up, when Richard said “Release from belief is release unimaginable” it hit me like a thunder bolt. I don’t want to give this a “religious” context, but the best way I can describe my response was “amen brother, amen”.

Take care
Ed
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:31 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 3:54 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
Hmmm… These responses helped and some additional reading last night did too. It’s pretty clear I need to experience a PCE for some “beliefs” to even have the chance to become “truths”. There simply isn’t a way to understand much of this in a factual way, without the PCE. All I can do is “believe” and based on what I read and the “trust” I put in what others are telling me about what it is and what it means which is clearly noted will not deliver the goods.


Richards metaphysical opinions or lack thereof are just the facts as he knows them. If you have access to different facts then you may have a different opinion. So there is no beliefs and there is no truths. There are only the facts speaking for themselves and facts change all the time as new discoveries are made. You don't have to get into a PCE to understand this, although, it may help. Perhaps your viewpoints are so clouded by emotions that only a series of PCE's will allow you to see things objectively. I don't know.


I would seem that if I really knew the only chance for peace (for me and others), is the self immolation of “me”, nothing else should matter.


I don't think you understand what "me" is yet. Why not develop a positive attitude which includes felicity and then worry about self-immolation. And by positive attitude which includes felicity I mean an proactive appreciation of every little thing you do from washing the dishes to unlocking your car. So after a big meal, and you see the sink is full - train yourself to look forward to the the hot water touching your suds soaked hands as your muscles apply pressure to the rough sponge on the clay plate. And anticipate seeing the water form bubbles on the plate and drain off the plate into the sink and down the drain.


It’s only been within the last month however when “I” truly understood “I” would not become actually free. That shot took me from very excited to Holy Shit, what am “I” doing? I’m still coming to terms with that, but I think I’ve turned the corner so to speak.



Well, I expect the only thing you will really loose is the ability to gloat (and/or feel thankful) for how awesome you are. However, when the facts of your liberation present themselves from time to time, it will still strike you how unique and lucky you are. You just won't be able to feel it but the facts will speak for themselves and you'll know it. For example, you are walking to the corner store to pick up bread and milk. You are noticing all the beauty this walk has to offer as well as your muscles and lungs working. Suddenly a bee stings you. You feel the shock, you instantly turn your body and cover your arm where it stung you. You look at the wound and see the swollen red mass like a van gogh painting on your arm. You feel the hormones swimming through your body and the dull pain in the arm. And you smile. At this point, you may compare yourself now to how you would have reacted then. That comparison strikes you: Fear and aggression no longer move you like a puppet. This is good. You then continue your walk to the corner store, weary of bees, still delighting in the beauty this walk has to offer. At some future point, the memory of the event and your emotion-less reaction will be triggered. Once again the comparison between post liberation and pre-liberation will strike you. The difference will be clear: the facts will speak for themselves. You may write about it or relay it to a friend. But there won't be pride and there won't be fear of shame. And in their absence you will have more space to enjoy yourself and your loved ones (those whose presence give you the most pleasure and of whose time you often anticipate with relish).
thumbnail
Jake , modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:16 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:03 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Nad A.:
Jacob Henry St. Onge Casavant:
I'm not sure how a completely misleading anthropomorphizing re-statement is a 'convenient shorthand"! hahaha :-)


I presumed everyone here is educated at least to such a basic level about what evolution is. Although since you had to have this pointed out to you recently, I guess that presumption was off. FYI, saying 'nature evolved x for y reason' is a well-known quick way of saying 'a random mutation became more widespread as a result of it aiding its hosts to reproduce'. Evolutionary biologists use the shorthand too.



hahahahaha :-)

[edited to add:] The point my friend was making was slightly different though, as was my ignorance slightly different than what you imply, as I never believed in a personified evolution, such as an intelligent designer imminent to temporality, rather than an intelligent designer transcending temporality (Judeo-christian God concept). I assumed that traits survive and propagate because they have function, when they often (and by definition) propogate despite having no function, or detrimental function. What he was saying was that there may have actually been no benefit whatsoever to such a trait, or at least, no necessity for such a trait. It may be completely redundant. If you're interested in understanding what I'm saying, I suggest you re-read what i wrote or ask clarifying questions. If you prefer to score points in the social arena, wasting yours and everyone else's time with a social game, then do that. I can see why you've made little progress in becoming happy and harmless! You seem to lack sincerity.
ed c, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:33 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:30 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 59 Join Date: 8/9/10 Recent Posts
Jon
I don't think you understand what "me" is yet.


Perhaps? The way I'm understanding it is if you are not in a PCE (or AF), it's "me". I can't be anything but "me". "I" never experience a PCE and "I" never experience an actual freedom. I get out of the way for this body to experience it. Am I missing something? While the concept is amazing, the definition seems pretty straight forward.

Ed
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:41 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:35 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
The definition of "me" or "I" is one thing but understanding the process is another. Everyone is different. For me analyzing the process of self has helped loosen it's grip.
thumbnail
Jon T, modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:46 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 5:40 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 401 Join Date: 12/30/10 Recent Posts
There is something else. I talked about training yourself to fondly anticipate mundane acts like washing the dishes. This is very good. Equally good is analyzing why you feel you should do the dishes or, maybe, why you feel resentment towards "having" to do the dishes. The former promotes a positive attitude and facilitates PCEs; the latter promotes the breakdown of the social identity.
thumbnail
Jake , modified 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 6:21 PM
Created 12 Years ago at 5/11/11 6:21 PM

RE: Perfect, benevolent universe?

Posts: 695 Join Date: 5/22/10 Recent Posts
Jon T:
There is something else. I talked about training yourself to fondly anticipate mundane acts like washing the dishes. This is very good. Equally good is analyzing why you feel you should do the dishes or, maybe, why you feel resentment towards "having" to do the dishes. The former promotes a positive attitude and facilitates PCEs; the latter promotes the breakdown of the social identity.


Thanks, very helpful. Much appreciated :-)