Religion - Off Topic

[Kharakov]

The things God brings us are etched into our very souls, so how can we say that anything is not attached, however fleeting our conscious mind percieves this permanent influence upon our self to be?

[darrellkitchen]

The things God brings us are etched into our very souls, so how can we say that anything is not attached, however fleeting our conscious mind percieves this permanent influence upon our self to be?I really don't see how your statement has anything to do with what I said, Kharakov. But, since you brought it up, perhaps you can clarify something ...

1) What is the eye? What is the function of the eye? What does the eye produce?
2) What is the ear? What is the function of the ear? What does the ear produce?
3) What is the nose? What is the function of the nose? What does the nose produce?
4) What is the tongue? What is the function of the tongue? What does the tongue produce?
5) What is the body? What is the function of the body? What does the body produce?
6) What is the mind? What is the function of the mind? What does the mind produce?
7) What is the soul? What is the function of the soul? What does the soul produce?
8) Where is the soul found?

Can you possibly answer all those questions? If so, please answer them in the order in which they were given, not in any order except that order in which they were asked.

Darrell

[darrellkitchen]

... however fleeting our conscious mind percieves this permanent influence .. ... Irrelevant crap deleted by me ...

In any case, however you meant it, it sure sounded very ... uhmmm ... poetic !!!

Darrell

[darrellkitchen]

... being or trying to be non-attached can be an attachment. Being attached to not being attached......I'd be silly for not agreeing, now wouldn't I ??? Especially since it's true.

However, there is a way to become non-attached without "trying" to be non-attached. To see it for what it really is (or is not), then just let go and let it happen without becoming involved in the attachment itself. No "trying" ... just "doing" !!!

Darrell

[Kharakov]

I really don't see how your statement has anything to do with what I said, Kharakov. I was refering to the nature of attachment, how everything that happens is permanent yet passing.

1) What is the eye? What is the function of the eye? What does the eye produce.....
7) What is the soul? What is the function of the soul? What does the soul produce?Answer to questions 1-7: Love.

8) Where is the soul found? In God.

Can you possibly answer all those questions? If so, please answer them in the order in which they were given, not in any order except that order in which they were asked.Darrell- I could expand the answers infinitely but have chosen the simple path.

:) It's easy to attribute specifics to the infinite, but it takes a really long time to get done describing it, even with poetry.

[darrellkitchen]

I was refering to the nature of attachment, how everything that happens is permanent yet passing.Silly man. What are you trying to pull off here ???

Something cannot said to be permanent and passing at the same time. Either it's permanent, or it's not. Either it's passing or it's not.

That which is permanent cannot also be passing because permanent is forever and passing is momentary. Permanent means it does not undergo change, is not subject to the influence of time or the passage of time, cannot pass from one state to another.

Neither can something be said to be partly permanent. To be partialy permanent is to be impermanent.

Who are you trying to pass this kind of reasoning on to?

Darrell

[darrellkitchen]

1) What is the eye? What is the function of the eye? What does the eye produce?a) The eye is a sense organ. b) the function of the eye is to sense changes in light, the object associated with the eye. c) when the eye and its associated object come into contact it produces a consciousness associated with the light, i.e., colors like red, blue, green, yellow, white, black and all shades between.

2) What is the ear? What is the function of the ear? What does the ear produce?a) the ear is a sense organ. b) the function of the ear is to sense changes in sound, the object associated with the ear. c) when the ear and its associated object come into contact it produces a consciousness associated with sound.

3) What is the nose? What is the function of the nose? What does the nose produce?a) the nose is a sense organ. b) the function of the nose is to sense changes in gasseous chemicals, the object associated with the nose. c) when the nose and its associated object come into contact it produces a consciousness associated with smells, odors, aromas.

4) What is the tongue? What is the function of the tongue? What does the tongue produce? a) the tongue is a sense organ. b) the function of the tongue is to sense changes in solid/liquid chemicals, the object associated with the tongue. c) when the tongue and its associated object come into contact it produces a consciousness associated with tastes, flavors.

5) What is the body? What is the function of the body? What does the body produce?a) the body is a sense organ. b) the function of the body is to sense changes in tangible or those changes associated with touch, the object associated with the body. c) when the body and its associated object come into contact it produces a consciousness associated with touch, feelings associated with touch, tangible forms or physical contact.

6) What is the mind? What is the function of the mind? What does the mind produce?a) the mind is a sense organ. b) the function of the mind is to sense changes in thoughts, mentation, states of mental activity, the object associated with mind. c) when the mind and its associated object come into contact it produces a consciousness associated with thought, mentation, states of mental activity.

7) What is the soul? What is the function of the soul? What does the soul produce?
8) Where is the soul found?As for 7 and 8 ... these were questions directed at you, since you believe in a soul. I was hoping you could tell me what a soul was, what its function was, what it produces, and where it can be found.

The function of a sense organ is to sense, or become sentitive to changes in its environment. Our perceptions on reality are based on these organs and the input they process. Eyes do not actually "see" per se, but feel changes in light and transmit these changes to the brain for processing. The tongue does not actually "taste", but feels changes in liquid and/or solid chemicals and transmits these changes to the brain for processing. The nose does not actually "smell", but feels changes in gassious chemicals and transmits these changes to the brain for processing. The ears do not actually "hear" but feels changes in the vibrations in the atmosphere, or sound waves that impact the membrain of the ear-organ.

The body does not actually "feel" changes in solid matter, but feels changes in the atomic structure of matter that give the illusion of solidity because it's actually feeling changes in the immediate space where its associated object is located. Atoms are in a constant state of change, i.e., they have a wavelength and this wavelength is the energy state of the particle. Atoms also have an associated electromagnetic field in which one field is dependent on the other for its existence. That is, a changing magnetic field creates an electrical field, and a changing electrical field creates a magnetic field. Because of this constant state of change, we perceive an object which appears solid. It [the body] then transmits this information to the brain for processing.

All of these senses are happening so fast that we think they are happening all at once, together at the same time, when in fact they are not. When the eye senses changes in light, the ear is not hearing, the nose is not smelling, the tongue is not tasting, the body is not feeling, the mind is not thinking. Likewise with the nose, when it is smelling, the eyes are not seeing, the ears are not hearing, the tongue is not tasting, and the body is not feeling ... and on to the body.

Every sense organ in the body, including the mind senses changes. They are not capable of sensing things that don't change. This is why everything in all of reality associated with our senses is impermanent, because they sense these states of impermanence and attach to them.

Sensuality is not only a sexual term, but implies anything that is associated with the senses. You can be (and are) sensually attracted to various light frequencies. You can be (and are) sensually attracted to various sounds. You can be (and are) sensually attracted to various flavors. You can be (and are) sensually attracted to various smells. You can be (and are) sensually attracted to various bodily sensations, the act of sex or anything associated with sex being the topmost sensation one is sensually attracted to. You can be (and are) sensually attracted to various thoughts, ideas, mental activities.

Once the sense organs come into contact with their associated object, feelings are produced. Once these feelings are produced they have three states of association or outcomes ... virtious, non-virtuous, or neither-virtuous-nor-non-virtuous -- or good, bad, or indifferent (neutral). Based on these states, we then crave these feelings.

By continuously craving feelings there arises clinging, that is, we hold on to the feelings by the cravings we have for them. We crave and cling to sights (watching tv, attending sports events, looking at others ... anything associated with attraction to the eye, eye-objects). We crave and cling to sounds (listening to music, always talking just to hear ourselves or continually trying to engage others in conversations ... anything associated with attraction to the ear, ear-objects). We crave and cling to smells (unguents, perfumes, smelling flowers, cooking foods.. anything associated with attraction to the nose, nose-objects). We crave and cling to tastes (beverages & foods ... anything associated with attraction to the tongue, tongue-objects). We crave and cling to physical contact (touching, rubbing, picking at ourselves, licking just for the feeling, kissing ... anything associated with attraction to the body, body-objects). We crave and cling to thoughts (anything associated with attraction to the mind, mind-objects).

Clinging is the reason we exist, i.e., attachment. If we didn't have this craving and clinging, we wouldn't ... couldn't ... classify existence because there would be nothing there for us to identify as existing ... there would be no changes to sense, no contact based on these change, no feeling based on the contact with these changes, no craving and no clinging, no attachment, therefore no existence. With the absense of existence there would be no birth and there would be no death.

So ... what is the soul? what is the function of the soul? what does the soul produce?

Where is the soul?

You chose to say "in God" in post 7, but you also said in post 2 something about "things that God brings us is etched into our very souls". This makes it appear like you're separating God from the "us" that is "ours" as in "our very souls". If God is in us, then that means we are God. And if we are God then God must be impermanent because we are impermanent. If you say that God is not in (or within) us, and that God is not impermanent, then that means that if our souls are in God and not in us, then we don't have souls. So your reference to soul confuses me.

Care to clarify?

Darrell

[Kharakov]

Silly man. What are you trying to pull off here ??? I dunno, but it's working.

Something cannot said to be permanent and passing at the same time. Either it's permanent, or it's not. Either it's passing or it's not. You can percieve now as permanent and passing. Permanent in that it always exists, passing in that it is never the same.

Everything that happens is permanently etched in our souls. However, all temporary things that get permanently added to us pass- they do not exist permanently in the now as a static entity- they exist in the now because of their influence upon the static entity.

That which is permanent cannot also be passing because permanent is forever and passing is momentary. This is a semantic argument that you present that ignores the truth. Our conversation has a permanent effect upon reality, yet it passes by. Do you deny this?

Permanent means it does not undergo change, is not subject to the influence of time or the passage of time, cannot pass from one state to another. Yes.

Who are you trying to pass this kind of reasoning on to?
Someone who understands what I am saying.

[Kharakov]

1-6Ok.
I was hoping you could tell me what a soul was, what its function was, what it produces, and where it can be found. Soul- the whole being.
What it's function is: recieve and embrace the life that it is given.
Where it can be found: everywhere and nowhere.

This is why everything in all of reality associated with our senses is impermanent, because they sense these states of impermanence and attach to them. Yes and no. Our soul is permanently etched with a desire for the things that it enjoys. The soul has this desire permanently added to it- it does not cling, it is made to feel the desire for the things it enjoys. This desire is part of the soul permanently, although God's action within the soul changes the perception of the desire.

Clinging is the reason we exist, i.e., attachment. It is not the reason we exist, it is the permanent influence of impermanent sensations on the soul.

You chose to say "in God" in post 7, but you also said in post 2 something about "things that God brings us are etched into our very souls". This makes it appear like you're separating God from the "us" that is "ours" as in "our very souls". Sorry it appears that way to you. Perhaps if you perceived yourself as a whole being instead of a bunch of seperate parts you could percieve God's action within you.

If God is in us, then that means we are God.No it does not. I can be in my girlfriend and she is not me. I can have a thought inside me and the thought is not me (my whole being (soul)). God is in my soul, but i am not God. I can look at God as a whole or as a bunch of different parts just like I can look at myself as a whole or a bunch of different parts.

Parts ain't bad, but a chicken wing without a mouth is pretty pointless.

If you say that God is not in (or within) us, and that God is not impermanent, then that means that if our souls are in God and not in us, then we don't have souls.I didn't say either of these things. Our souls are in God. They are us. They are not "in" us, they are us.
So your reference to soul confuses me.Sorry. Soul means whole being. Everything that God has put in. Every impermanent experience is added to it permanently. If you look at yourself as many seperate things, you do not perceive your soul, you perceive parts of your soul. If you are grounded in your soul (whole being) you can witness God's action within you.

It's like if you just ate some basil leaves instead of pesto with lots of parmesan. I am so hungry. Mouth salivating. Gonna go smoke a cigarette and come back for more.

[darrellkitchen]

Kharakov, I don't know whether to laugh or cry ...

Perhaps both !!!

Darrell

[Kharakov]

lol. I laughed. Thanx.

[BlackBillBlake]

This thread, being just bits 'deleted' from another thread doesn't make sense. It is a mess.

How 'on topic' are people supposed to stay?
And also - ok for the mods to delete anything they like from threads started by them, but what about everyone else?

[darrellkitchen]

This thread, being just bits 'deleted' from another thread doesn't make sense. It is a mess.Being as how there was only 12 posts before I wrote this one, that made 10 out of 12 on topic for this "Off Topic" split from the main thread. That makes it 83.33% on topic, with post #4 (my reply to you) and #12 (yours) the only "bits" that don't make sense.

Since the response you gave which lead to my response that was not on-topic in the original thread, and being that the original thread was not about attachment, then it was split off into this thread which was an "Off Topic" dump for posts that were not on-topic in the original thread.

It was split it off, or delete them.

And for two reasons,1) the thread I started had nothing to do with the ensuing discussions, and 2) being moderator, I opted to leave them undeleted but in separate thread.

Since the Forum Guidelines state that I can either move or delete at my discretion, posts that were off-topic, then I used my discretion to move them rather than delete them. I've posted the Forum Guideline #6 below for your reference.

Darrell

Edit: Since this makes it post #13, and it related directly to your post, post #12, then that raises the percentage of posts not classified as "bits" to 92.31%, making 7.69% as "bits" (or a mess). Good percentages to classify as non-messy for a thread that is supposed to be messy.

__________________________

Off Topic Postings: Often people post remarks that have nothing to do with the subject of the forum or thread. Occasionally threads are deliberately taken off topic to advance an opposing agenda or disrupt the discussion.These posts will be moved or deleted at the discretion of the moderator, and the user may be banned. We urge all members wishing to discuss a new topic to start a new thread in the appropriate forum.

[darrellkitchen]

How 'on topic' are people supposed to stay?
And also - ok for the mods to delete anything they like from threads started by them, but what about everyone else?As for the other threads I've pruned for being off-topic (not started by me), they (the posts deleted) are still there, just hidden from view ... not permanently deleted.

How 'on topic' ??? Talking about Entropy in a thread about Darwin, without even the slightest hint of the discussion being about Darwin or Evolution is considerably off-topic.

Darrell

[Kharakov]

Don't you think it's off topic to talk about whether something is on topic in a thread that is not about whether or not the thread is on topic?

I just had to say it.

I think threads expand into multiple topics because people continually build upon them like a conversation.

Off topic, btw.... :p

Love, k

[Kharakov]

Ohh yeah, thought of something else. You know how in japan, people don't ever talk about exactly what they are talking about? So, does that mean that japanese people don't have to talk about the topic to be on topic, cuz if thats the case...

I think I'm turning japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so... I really think so.

[darrellkitchen]

Don't you think it's off topic to talk about whether something is on topic in a thread that is not about whether or not the thread is on topic?

I just had to say it.

I think threads expand into multiple topics because people continually build upon them like a conversation.

Off topic, btw.... :p

Love, k
V(^_^)V

That's what this thread is for ... to talk about off-topic stuff ... a toxic wasteland of off-topic posts not relating to the original statement in the original thread ... :p

Darrell

[Kharakov]

So if I accidentally say something on topic, are you gonna delete it? Cuz I wouldn't want to do that. You know, be on-topic. That would be so foe paw. I put a lot of effort into not addressing the topics of other threads, always have. It's pretty tough sometimes, especially when I walk into a bar and talk to strangers. They get all like "you are off topic", and I'm like "not really, cuz you did mention something that I addressed." Then they get all "no way man, go get another beer and yell really loud!" So I try to stay on topic. That's the real reason I stay on topic, even when the topic's off topic.

I wonder what happens when tupac's off topic. Do his friends make fun of his name?

If you're dead, and everyone else is alive and talking about you like you are alive, are they off topic?

If I eat a ham samich, and someone else say's "you want me to cook you an egg for breakfast?" are they off topic?

For me, sometimes, I just like to match words to other words, so I never really feel all that off topic, as long as I can logically match up the words in some manner. But thats another topic altogether.

[darrellkitchen]

Well ... I take back my thoughts on you ...


I thought that it was your nature to be a pain in the arse ...

Guess I was wrong ... I see now that you "try" to be a pain in the arse ...

In any case ... go get another beer and yell really loud !!!

Darrell

[Kharakov]

That's what my parents have been saying for years. That I actually set aside time just to be annoying.

Like this morning (I am visiting them now) I told my mom that it would be really funny if I took all the fruit out of my dad's cereal and put the cereal back in the box without the fruit. Of course I would never do such an evil thing, but I thought it was a hilarious thought and had to tell her. So she says "Matt, how can you do such a thing, that's terrible!"

Love is funny sometimes.

[BlackBillBlake]

As for the other threads I've pruned for being off-topic (not started by me), they (the posts deleted) are still there, just hidden from view ... not permanently deleted.

How 'on topic' ??? Talking about Entropy in a thread about Darwin, without even the slightest hint of the discussion being about Darwin or Evolution is considerably off-topic.

Darrell
Doesn't this miss the point that discussions are likely to expand and take in new areas of stuff? Sometimes it seems it is neccessary to digress from the original topic in order to illustrate a point.

The example of Darwin and Entropy is a good one - it is easy to see how some mention of laws of physics could arise in such a discussion.
On the same topic of Darwin - I happen to live near Shrewsbury, UK, the town where Darwin was born and did much of his work. There is a large bronze statue of the man outside the public library - so, in a discussion of Darwin how much would it be legitimate for me to say on this? I could for instance talk about the artist who cast the statue, the funding for it, when it was erected, when restored, when vandalized etc... How far would I have to go to be off topic?
I should also add that in the town is a large and ugly shopping mall named after him - the Darwin Centre! So even if I just posted about that, it would be on topic perhaps, but wholly irrelevant to the intention of whoever posted a thread about Darwin in the first place.

An interesting question has just occured to though - would a city or town in the USA have a mall named after the originator of the theory of evolution? Or would that be too much for the christian right to tolerate? Mmm....