hraa

[reyler]

i find it difficult to accept that life consists entirely of punishment, and that only when we have lived and died enough times will we be fit to return to our proper state. maybe i'm not quite so good with eastern theological concepts as i thought. i agree with the idea that our presence here is in preparation to become higher beings, but the idea that we were already higher beings doesn't jibe with me. getting back to the garden of eden, dont you know. and besides, how is it that there are so many millions of these higher creatures that rebelled against the laws of nature? there has to be one for each person alive now, at the least. and if this is all true, then what is our purpose once we have achieved our higher state?
sorry, i guess i've just had too much celtic contamination.
do you suppose there's any credibility to the theory that there is no true reality, and that destiny exists for each person in the exact way that they perceive it at any given time?

[chaney]

"i find it difficult to accept that life consists entirely of punishment, and that only when we have lived and died enough times will we be fit to return to our proper state."

the concept of karmic retribution i was blathering about isn't just about punishment. it causes both the good and bad things in one's life, because one doesn't just accumulate karma (what many call bad karma) one also accumulates de (virtue, what many call good karma). li hongzhi says that many famous people and government officials were monks in their last lives. they didn't complete their cultivation, so their de is transformed into good fortune. and returning to one's original self has nothing to do with living and dying any number of times. one can do it in this lifetime. all they have to do is renounce their human thinking. once one has no attachments at all, they are already an arhat, and they've already transcended samsara, the cycle of reincarnation. it's not easy, of course, but it can be done.

"how is it that there are so many millions of these higher creatures that rebelled against the laws of nature?"

they didn't consciously "rebel." rather, we didn't. one can only be a buddha if one's mind is at the level of a buddha. the lowest level buddha is an arhat, and to be an arhat means to have no attachments whatsoever. that means having no emotion, because having an emotion directly reflects one's attachment to self-interest. it means being unaffected by anything. now, if an arhat, through social interaction with other beings, develops an attachment of any kind, then his thinking has fallen below the level of arhat. which means, he is no longer an arhat, and he comes here.

it isn't about punishment. it's more about how one's spirit manifests. your mind is you. whatever level your mind is at is the level at which you'll manifest. if your thinking is at the level of a human, you're a human; if your thinking is at the level of a buddha, you're a buddha. we humans aren't being punished, we're living in the environment we created for ourselves. we pursue things that we want and have emotions because we think of ourselves before others. and in the process of pursuing whatever it is that we want, we may hurt other people, intentionally or otherwise, and we may also help others. the law of karmic retribution repays us in full for whatever we do. it's about balance, not punishment.

"do you suppose there's any credibility to the theory that there is no true reality, and that destiny exists for each person in the exact way that they perceive it at any given time?"

i don't really buy into theories like that. i believe the basic premise that thought it far more powerful than most people would believe, and that it can affect the physical world. but i find it a bit arrogant to suppose that we control our own destiny. i believe there are far higher powers out there than we, and they have thoughts as well.

[reyler]

i wasn't necessarily saying that we control our destiny, but i was suggesting that we create the world in which we live. but anyway, so what i'm sort of getting from you is that we exist in a world where we can suffer because we seek emotional joy, and you cannot have one without the other? but if that's so, why does there never seem to be that balance between the two? and anyway, in that case, isn't the suffering worth the joy? a world of pure thought must be a very gray, boring place.
i'm supposed to be able to find a rebate for my stupid cellphone on t-mobile's website, and i cannot. sacrilege!

[chaney]

you never see the balance between the two because karma is built up over many lifetimes, and its effects don't all come at once. an example: we believe that what christians call "hell" is just a place where someone with a massive amount of karma might be reincarnated, so that they can spend a lifetime eliminating it through suffering. i would imagine hitler is there as we speak. but when you're born, your memory of your past lives is erased. would hitler see the balance between the suffering he caused and the suffering he's now forced to endure?

as for whether the suffering is worth the joy, i think you're misunderstanding me ever so slightly.

"we exist in a world where we can suffer because we seek emotional joy"

my understanding is that it's the seeking, not the feeling of joy that causes suffering. if you do good things for others, then good things will come to you, though you didn't seek them. if you seek good things, then in your seeking you'll inevitably hurt others, though you may not know it, and bad things will come to you for it. human emotions all come from pursuing something. giving up attachments means seeking nothing, and when all attachments are given up, all human emotions will be gone as well, and one's mind will reach an indescribable state. i've heard it described as being like waking from a dream, as the greatest sweetness, and as lightness, weightlessness. would it be boring? isn't boredom caused by pursuing entertainment? how could one without attachments be bored?

[reyler]

actually, what i meant was that we live in a world where suffering is possible so that perchance we might experience joy as well. it sounds to me as if your higher state incorporates neither sadness nor happiness. maybe i'm misinterpreting you, or maybe i'm just getting tired after spending the last month engaged in one long metaphysical debate. maybe we should get back to oddness.
pickle shavings murder small child with nougat! film at eleven!

[chaney]

month? *looks back at page 1* by golly, it has been a month. wow.

alright, then i'll throw in this last bit:

when one trascends the three realms, becoming a buddha, one experiences neither happiness or sadness, but something much better. i'm starting a new topic now.