10-24-2010, 12:00 AM
Wei wrote:The debate at hand here, which began with your words, is about conflict. You stated earlier it was the primary reason for exisitence in human form. I quote:
"In other words, the production of Loosh, perhaps our primary reason for existing in human form, comes primarily from conflict, not from love and light, which would explain the popularity of war, for example, to date our most dramatic and fascinating invention."
Now your recent post seems to have abandoned this completely. So there is inconsistency in explaining, accounting for your own approach that actually contradicts what you said. You make have made good chili and corn bread, but your results here are not as good.
We're discussing two different things. I said, and I stick by what I said, that the production of Loosh, as stated by the other author, was PERHAPS our primary reason for existence, and that the most efficient production of Loosh was generated, in the author's words, via "negative feelings", which I interpreted to be caused most often by conflict. This is generally speaking what the possible primary reason for our existence is.
In regard my own existence, specifically, and as to my own motives, that's an entirely different topic.
Wei wrote:I say its the love for returning to unity that drives us in human form, and showed you how your own actions here were based on this motivation, which is positive. Conflict is only a means of being challenged, but its not a primary reason and serves only a secondary function which is to aid in the overcoming of ignorance.
I don't agree. Specifically, love has nothing to do with the process. I stated elsewhere that love is essentially an indulgence. The drive is to learn and to understand, and those are my motivations. Conflict occurs with humans primarily because it is the genesis of drama and humans thrive on drama since it dispels boredom.
wei wrote:"The issue is the primary reason for living, or put another way, the purpose of life. The only person I'm interested in helping with understanding is myself. I engage in discussions, often as The Devil's Advocate, often as a provocateur, in order to draw people out especially from behind conventional beliefs. I want to hear why they believe as they do, and further, to hear if they can defeat my own arguments, refute my own beliefs."
Even if your goal is to help only yourself (seeking only unity within you), that's still a positive. Arhats goal is to attain self-enlightenment, unlike a Bodhisattva's. We cannot conclude such a goal is driven by negativity (conflict) as a primary purpose. To elevate the consciousness of just one or to elevate the consciousness of many is a matter of numbers, and within both is spiritual progression (away from ignorance). Once again, you are inserting the business of conflict into the business of spiritual evolution.
Wei wrote:"It has nothing to do with healing, helping, aiding, assisting or feeling better. It has all to do with working towards understanding"
If you asked yourself what makes you seek understanding, I think you will find that its the pleasure of such understanding that makes you seek it. Understanding IS feeling better, IS healing...ignorance.
I should have ended the first sentence with "others".
Wei wrote:"Since time immemorial all the sages have only spoken of the faults of impurity; if there is no such perverted consciousness, opinion and thought habits, then it is like an autumn pond, limpid and clean. Pure and clear, without contrivance, quiescent and still, without hindrance; such is called a man of the Way. He is also called an unconcerned man."
Ha, sounds like a state of total peace and tranquility doesn't it? You advocate this but not others who say the same (speak of peace) with different words or understandings, but basically both speak of the same endpoint regardless of the paths taken to get there. Your paragraph above is about the end of conflict.
It is far from a state of total peace and tranquility. It IS a state of acceptance of what is, conflict, drama, emotion, mud, blood, and beer. Complete acceptance of what is is far from attempting to obtain a state of being that cannot be maintained; i.e., total peace and tranquility.
Wei wrote:Even the most "evil" being ever spoken of has an interesting myth-story about his origin. The angel Lucifer before his fall from heaven had the task to test humans even then. To do this he had to create havoc, God instructed him to. Your stance says its such conflict that's the primary reason for being human. I say its only secondary, and the fact that being tested only makes us stronger (stronger IB's) shows the primary reason to even do this is positive.
Once again...conflict is not related to spiritual evolution...conflict is related to the creation of drama. Spiritual evolution is related to the matter of understanding, and acceptance of self, and of what is, which would include acceptance of conflict and drama. In other words, as Guatama suggested, non-attachment.
"In other words, the production of Loosh, perhaps our primary reason for existing in human form, comes primarily from conflict, not from love and light, which would explain the popularity of war, for example, to date our most dramatic and fascinating invention."
Now your recent post seems to have abandoned this completely. So there is inconsistency in explaining, accounting for your own approach that actually contradicts what you said. You make have made good chili and corn bread, but your results here are not as good.
We're discussing two different things. I said, and I stick by what I said, that the production of Loosh, as stated by the other author, was PERHAPS our primary reason for existence, and that the most efficient production of Loosh was generated, in the author's words, via "negative feelings", which I interpreted to be caused most often by conflict. This is generally speaking what the possible primary reason for our existence is.
In regard my own existence, specifically, and as to my own motives, that's an entirely different topic.
Wei wrote:I say its the love for returning to unity that drives us in human form, and showed you how your own actions here were based on this motivation, which is positive. Conflict is only a means of being challenged, but its not a primary reason and serves only a secondary function which is to aid in the overcoming of ignorance.
I don't agree. Specifically, love has nothing to do with the process. I stated elsewhere that love is essentially an indulgence. The drive is to learn and to understand, and those are my motivations. Conflict occurs with humans primarily because it is the genesis of drama and humans thrive on drama since it dispels boredom.
wei wrote:"The issue is the primary reason for living, or put another way, the purpose of life. The only person I'm interested in helping with understanding is myself. I engage in discussions, often as The Devil's Advocate, often as a provocateur, in order to draw people out especially from behind conventional beliefs. I want to hear why they believe as they do, and further, to hear if they can defeat my own arguments, refute my own beliefs."
Even if your goal is to help only yourself (seeking only unity within you), that's still a positive. Arhats goal is to attain self-enlightenment, unlike a Bodhisattva's. We cannot conclude such a goal is driven by negativity (conflict) as a primary purpose. To elevate the consciousness of just one or to elevate the consciousness of many is a matter of numbers, and within both is spiritual progression (away from ignorance). Once again, you are inserting the business of conflict into the business of spiritual evolution.
Wei wrote:"It has nothing to do with healing, helping, aiding, assisting or feeling better. It has all to do with working towards understanding"
If you asked yourself what makes you seek understanding, I think you will find that its the pleasure of such understanding that makes you seek it. Understanding IS feeling better, IS healing...ignorance.
I should have ended the first sentence with "others".
Wei wrote:"Since time immemorial all the sages have only spoken of the faults of impurity; if there is no such perverted consciousness, opinion and thought habits, then it is like an autumn pond, limpid and clean. Pure and clear, without contrivance, quiescent and still, without hindrance; such is called a man of the Way. He is also called an unconcerned man."
Ha, sounds like a state of total peace and tranquility doesn't it? You advocate this but not others who say the same (speak of peace) with different words or understandings, but basically both speak of the same endpoint regardless of the paths taken to get there. Your paragraph above is about the end of conflict.
It is far from a state of total peace and tranquility. It IS a state of acceptance of what is, conflict, drama, emotion, mud, blood, and beer. Complete acceptance of what is is far from attempting to obtain a state of being that cannot be maintained; i.e., total peace and tranquility.
Wei wrote:Even the most "evil" being ever spoken of has an interesting myth-story about his origin. The angel Lucifer before his fall from heaven had the task to test humans even then. To do this he had to create havoc, God instructed him to. Your stance says its such conflict that's the primary reason for being human. I say its only secondary, and the fact that being tested only makes us stronger (stronger IB's) shows the primary reason to even do this is positive.
Once again...conflict is not related to spiritual evolution...conflict is related to the creation of drama. Spiritual evolution is related to the matter of understanding, and acceptance of self, and of what is, which would include acceptance of conflict and drama. In other words, as Guatama suggested, non-attachment.