A Statement To Be Evaluated

The major failing of all religion lies in the attempt of those who interpret it to set something outside of existance that they may revere as its source. Yet all of this is, quite plainly, in and of it"self". If one can accept this, there is no reason to inflict suffering, but to refrain in "self" interest.

disections and dissertations?

much love

While this is indeed an idea meritourious of further discussion I think that you'll have to tells us more here. Your conclusion seems to be a non-sequitur at the momment. While your conclusion may seem obvious to you, do not assume that it is obvious to everybody. You have not included your thought which occured between your premise and conclusion. In other words, how did you arrive at your conlusion?

Of course I am assuming that this is your original statement. If instead this is a statement from somebody other than yourself, please include more of their thoughts on the matter.

tsk, tsk. what makes you so sure there is inherent within this, a conclusion?

i am simply furnishing this, a brash generalization, in order that there may be many points from which it may attacked. i use so few words, because to overintellectualize it would only drive it farther from my point. i am trying to escape the ambiguity of words, and cut to something deeper.

almost a zen concept.

can i hit you with my staff now?

lol.

much love

p.s. bla bla bla bla bla bla bla...

for at least christianity, perhaps other religions, it does seem that a major failing is separation of God and man. by making interaction a one-way street (except for our actions' effects on God's will, rather than His separate reality),the importance of self interest decreases. I don't know if there's ever a "reason to inflict suffering," but presuming there may be, yeah, the point in inflicting suffering diminishes. Unfortunately so does the point in joyful living, at least for religious reasons.
When a religion defines a higher reality/entity/power as connected to the individual, the reverence to the self should be more accepted, since the individual's self defines, in part, the greater power. 'selfish' oulooks may be more prone to cause suffering, but the religious side of the outlook gives more incentive to act altruistically.

The question is whether or not there must be a cause for everything. Logic insists that theremust be at least something that has no cause; we perceive, however, that everything HAS a cause. A contradiction that is difficult to solve.

Fantastic point sky pink
Maybe logic is the representative of the physical and its limitations
And the perception that we have, that not everything has a cause, that there is a God source that goes no further. The cause that has no cause. is the representative of the non-physical connection we have. The knowledge that goes beyond our earthly mind, and its logical limitation. The knowing that can sometimes be scientifically unexplainable, the knowing that we need to survive.

ok. but what if that source is literally, in every term, nothing?

back to square one?

lol.

much love

to amend a bit my last statement- it seems that beings must have a cause, so how can the causeless cause be a being, other than that being the way some relate to it via our perception? i mean, even if one believes in a god, if they can't see past that god, how can they know there is nothing beyond it, and if there is "nothing" beyond it.... damned words. i've already gone too far. lol.


much love

the question of causality is interesting because it ties the big and the small...creation, levels of existence, god/man, etc. versus the question of free will and what to do with it if we have it. are we aiming to define the different levels and ordes of cause, if in fact cause actually exists, then find the implications?
osiris: yep, if everything has, as you said, come from nothing, then it suggests that cause doesn't exist, right? i like that though...it seems to give more of a chance of free will...that cause is the illusion, and will is the reality, puts more emphasis on the self (to connect it back to the original topic).

i don't know that i would say it suggests the nonexistance of cause, but rather that cause and effect are ultimately a product of will and will naught, but a manifestation of unceasing existance. we have become so enraptured with the idea of our immortality that we consider our ego that which is immortal.

let's examine that word: immortal, but merely from an etymological standpoint. im- means not and mortal means "subject to death". so this really means "not subject to death". in my admittedly limited observation of this universe, which is really all any of us have to go by, the only thing not subject to decay and death is energy. all the forms it takes, on the other hand, inevitably perish in the act of transformation. if we are to suppose this was all created by some intellegent being, we must at once admit that even this being's intelligence is a form of that energy, and "he" too, or any substance he may possess, is only a form of it, as are we. the energy never ends. it does not need consciousness to exist. it simply is. that things manifest from it, and within it, that develop a consciousness, and even perhaps create other things that have some form of consciousness, should be no surprise. that any of these forms of consciousness should be revered and worshipped as the creator of all existance, as preceeding that energy, when it must be inherent within them for them to even be capable of creation, is frankly quite appalling to me, and seems to me, at least, the source of the much lamented "suffering".

someone in another thread here is talking about hare krishna, the vedas and whatnot. like "god", these are just words and symbols, manifest representations of that energy. but that energy itself is beyond them, and the accessing of it is not exclusive to any one representation of it. indeed. the access of it is automatic and unceasing with every moment, regardless of whether or not any conscious being is there to regard it and describe it, though the way it is regarded and described by conscious beings undoubtedly has an effect on the forms it continues to take. if we want to make this form we have taken last, want to make it more enjoyable, it is up to us. that is our responsibility. the energy, it does not care. it has no consciousness.

even the word "energy". just a word.

so you see why in my original post i tried to be as general as possible while still conveying this point? have i succeeded at all in doing so?

much love