Nihilism Among Christians

How would the suicide bomber ever know that they had found retribution? they would be dead after all...

 

The retribution would be the act of carrying out the suicide mission. It would be a rational act.

 

What if the explosion or whatever only slightly injured a distant cousin?

 

I guess this might be off topic, but . . .

I saw a martial-arts movie a while back. In the movie, there was a battle. When some monks came upon the mass of dead bodies slain in the battle, they stopped and, in a reverent tone, said, "Praise Buddha." Later in the movie, the monks' elder brother gets killed, and when the monks come upon his dead body, they all put their hands together in prayer and say, "Praise Buddha" while nodding as if in appreciation.

I remember thinking what the hell! Why in hell are they praising Buddha when they come across a dead body--and especially the body of one of their familiars. I now get it. They weren't looking at anything but the present--funny how the word "present" would have two meanings that might actually have the same meaning when you think about it. It finally dawned on me that, after finishing a chocolate bar, I might very well say, "Praise Hershey." Like instead of bemoaning the loss, I appreciate how it filled me with something quite indefinable, yet quite known. They looked upon their dead brother and, in effect, said to each other, "Wasn't that good!?"

 

But I'm still at a loss as to how to have such an attitude should someone kill my friends or family.

 

You are at a loss because you tell yourself things that are not true.

 

But then how do you define greiving?

 

Are you asserting that a suicide mission is always nothing more than a meaningless march toward death in which the executioner believes they will finally reach some kind of reward?

My assertion is that is not always the case.

 

It is not my assertion. I said if acts in this life affect the disposition of the next, then they are not meaningless.

What I am saying is that suicide is no guaranty that person gains retribution. As a matter of fact dead people are without appreciation.

 

It is an attachment to a perception.

 

So we agree. I think we express ourselves differently so I sometimes misinterpret your words.

I didn't mean to communicate that it was a guarantee of gaining retribution. I just meant from the perspective of the suicide bomber, retribution would be obtained by terminating the lives of some of the "enemy" who first terminated the lives of the family of the suicide bomber.

I admit that is an 'eye for an eye' mentality but I'm not judging that.

 

We may not entirely agree. Although by definition we may say that an act in this life that may affect the disposition of an afterlife, is meaningful on that basis, I don't think the concept, "afterlife", is meaningful.

That might be his perspective if he were ill informed.

 

thedope,

Are you telling me that if your significant other gets in a car wreck and dies, you will not greive? What will you feel?

 

I can tell you grief only comes when you actively deny someones existence.

I can also tell you that whatever you know or experience of someone is not had at a distance. That is, they appear inside of you. To the extent that you recognize this, you are never without the ones you love.

 

Alright, but even though I am aware of the fact that they have not died and have in fact continued along on their existence-career (for lack of a better term), I will still feel that I am without them and will experience that as a loss--not their loss, but mine.

People go to cemetaries to offer something to the memory of one who has passed on. Is that an attachment to the person, or is it an attachment to the past? And is there really a difference between the two? And is it healthy?

Ok, I'm just rambling. Don't really know where I'm going with this, but it feels like a worthwhile ramble.

 

As you choose, I understand the power of our beliefs to obscure the truth. As often and as much as you sincerely believe that you have lost something, so it will appear to you.

Your loved one was never outside of you to begin with. Minds join, bodies only touch. What is the difference in the way you experience or regard a friend if they are far away on a trip say, or they live in a distant town, and the perception or news that they are deceased. They are out of sight in both cases. If they lived far away and died without your knowledge, your relationship would seem to remain whole unless and until you were informed otherwise.

It reflects the belief that we are biological entities only. Is it healthy?, do you enjoy grief?

Seems worthwhile if we wish to mitigate the heartache of life. Suffering is not required.

 

True enough, but whereas minds join and bodies touch, it does seem that when my mind joins another's, there is a measure of feedback to my speaking and my ideas that will be lost after the other passes. I will have feelings concerning that.

When I hear of a distant friend or relative who has died, it causes me to reflect on our relationship--our past relationship. And then I get that feeling like in the song: "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got til it's gone."

I think some things are simply part of being human. I'm here to experience and explore consciousness. Maybe suffering, as we know it, is a necessary ingredient in this stew that we've put ourselves into. I don't know . . .

 

There is a zen koan which states: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

This seem to be in line with what you're saying in that the koan is telling the reader that it is good to destroy all hope of finding what you need outside of yourself.

 

I guess that means that I may have to kill you before we're finished.

 

Well, you stop anticipating feedback.

I would not deny the one mind any experience but suffering is not required.