Search results

To me, free will is an illusion. I have problem with such monistic concept. How is it that I am part of the ocean of consciousness and yet does not have the consciousness of the ocean? In other words, I should be part of everyone else's consciousness, but yet the fact that each of us is only...

Thanks TU. I speculate more on how the whole of existence come into being, whether through a creative agent ie. a first cause or through an impersonal mechanism without the need to postulate a creative agent.

That's okay. I was just showing that there are other views.

Sounds to like you are advocating a form of monism. If so, then if I am evil, God is evil. If I am good, God is good. If I am full of lust, then God is full of lust. If I am altruistic, then God is altruistic. In the end, the concept of God is rendered meaningless don't you think?

In Buddhism, unless one has realized selflessness/emptiness, one will always be subjected to involuntary rebirth. Buddhism teaches that most people will end up being born as an animal, preta or hell being. In short, humans are not necessarily on a higher level of spiritual evolution than...

Sure, Gotama was more concerned with getting us to know the actual reality of things, but that does not mean he did not make any statement regarding a creator god. I remember reading in a sutta (sorry can't remember which it was), Gotama did mention that there was no creator god. There was...

If God is merely the source of all things or base from which all things arise and not an entity, a being, then there is no need to pay attention to it. If things arise from the base with no intent behind it, then there is no need to pay attention to the base/God. This was what I meant. Of...

If God is just is or if God is the "base" from which all things arise without any intention/motivation, then to label that as God is unnecessary and unnecessarily confusing since the word "God" is so ladened with diverse concepts and connotations. That's how it seemed to me. It would also mean...

I am interested in whatever I find interesting.

Eastern philosophy looked inward and saw immortality. That was even more frightening. And the solution to that is eastern religion.

I prefer Buddhism's take on reality - that there is no Creator God. Why? If God is self-sufficient, then he/she/it has no need to create the world etc. because there would be no purpose to it. If God is good, then how can there be so much evil in the world? If God is compassionate, how is it...

Hi Greymare, glad to be your friend.

By extension, all sentient beings, from the simple one-cell animal onwards, would have the body-mind right from the start of their evolution. Nevertheless, it remains possible for something to persist from one life to the next. I follow Buddhism, and Buddhism does not teach some eternal...

In other words, one must have ample "art" and "wit" within oneself to avoid being suck into "group think"? I think any solution to halting the "foolish process" would require either voluntary sacrifice by the individual or the imposition of the solution via the tyranny of the majority or dictator.

If so, the embodied mind (the body-mind) must be there right from the start of evolution of man isn't it?

I don't know Coberst, but it looks suspiciously like a form of homunculus argument.

I guess what I was trying to get at is that the shift from body to body-mind would be a discontinuity / singularity / step-function.