Quahom1 said:I don't know about Prober, but I was being fecicious. 42 is what my father-in-law told me the meaning of life was. I never forgot that (it meant, who knows?).
Oh, sorry, I thought you were referencing HG. My bad.
Quahom1 said:I don't know about Prober, but I was being fecicious. 42 is what my father-in-law told me the meaning of life was. I never forgot that (it meant, who knows?).
manephelien said:Live our lives the best we can while causing the minimum amount of suffering to others. Parents setting limits for their children don't cause suffering, they help raise them into good members of society. When I say minimize suffering, I meant suffering for its own sake. It's the journey that counts, not some unknowable goal we attain at the point of death.
Do unto others as you would be done by is a good rule for everyone, not just Christians.
lunamoth said:The purpose of life is to BE. I think we can only accomplish this in love.
luna
Isn't boredom a form of suffering/dissatisfaction?flowperson said:If suffering were ended there would be no reason to go forward to challenge the darkness that causes it. Living would lose its reason for moving forward. Things would get very boring, very rapidly.
manephelien said:That's why I've always found organized religions distasteful. They're the struts for the weak who can't see for themselves that playing nice is better in the long run than grabbing everything for yourself if you can. Oh, sure, many religions have various rituals which aren't always that easy to live by, but that's just so that the practitioners can claim moral superiority over others by saying "we have to do this to be saved, what have you done?"
I do perfectly well without any guides, thank you, and resent the implication that only religious people who submit to some sort of dogma can lead a good and ethical life.
Hense why I included the last bit of my sentence. Although you can never change what everyone desires, Most people desire Good things, such as GOD and or the end to all suffering!Desires are endless, and not everyone goes about their desires the same way. This only leads to suffering.
samabudhi said:Life and death are two sides of the same coin,
being is delimited by none being.
The more you cling to the extremes of being / existing / owning
the more you will suffer at inevitable death.
manephelien said:That's why I've always found organized religions distasteful. They're the struts for the weak who can't see for themselves that playing nice is better in the long run than grabbing everything for yourself if you can. Oh, sure, many religions have various rituals which aren't always that easy to live by, but that's just so that the practitioners can claim moral superiority over others by saying "we have to do this to be saved, what have you done?"
I do perfectly well without any guides, thank you, and resent the implication that only religious people who submit to some sort of dogma can lead a good and ethical life.
lunamoth said:The purpose of life is to BE. I think we can only accomplish this in love.
luna
Ciel said:S - This feels a very negative existential approach.
It moves me to reach for my copy of the Lotus Sutra as antidote.
Full of wonder. Full of Life. Full of Love.
Do you have words of Bhudda nature to lighten the load?
- c -
samabudhi said:Blissful is detachment for one who is content,
For one who has learnt Dhamma and who sees;
Blissful is non-affliction in the world,
Restraint towards living creatures;
Blissful is passionlessness in the world,
The overcoming of sensual desires;
But the abolition of the conceit 'I am' -
That is truly the supreme bliss.
- Udana