Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[Tomas]

For millions of years before industrialization the list of things that destroyed environment never exceeded food, clothing and shelter.......Animals destroyed environment for food......Hunter_Gatherer Society destroyed environment for food......Agrarian Society destroyed environment for food, clothing and shelter.

Get off the Internet and save electricity (smokestack soot) and put your bullshit where your mouth is.

[Jamesh]

In some ways the destruction of the current environment might be exactly what humanity needs.
It will induce great suffering and from suffering the species is likely to evolve to become less destructive.

Personally, I doubt even the probable slow death of the oceans due to acidification will kill our species completely off, nor even a loss of the atmosphere.

I've been concerned about the loss of the range of beauty of the flora and fauna on this earth – it seems inevitable.

But I can even ignore that, as science will give ways to create other forms of beauty - playing games with genes should be a lot of fun. Meats vats, humans with animal parts etc - all good stuff. Even the idea of saving animal life is egocentric to humans – we really want it to occur, not for them, but for our gratification. Preserving or destroying is always only about us.

Life at the group level is fairly pointless unless it is expanding its affect on nature - with stagnancy instead of just most of us becoming ant-like we all become so. I’d certainly prefer this expansion was not in terms of population, but only in terms of technology.

Our aim should be to expand into godliness, and from a species point of view this means we must continue to be a virus eating up its environment. We need to be forced to move out to other planets and we are a long way off that as yet.

In the meantime though we should in a few decades have technology that could stop a life-killing asteroid, that would in any case do more damage to life and the environment here than humans have to date.

In evolution there is no personal selfishness, evolution as in survival of the fittest is entirely selfish, so human selfishness like the Only We count comments I’ve written above, in relation to the lack of sympathy for the current, and worse future, human caused death of most animal life here, is not actually relevant in the big scheme of things.

The loss will be felt though, and feeling this loss should help us save some of it for later activation once we become more technologically mature.

Human technology is evolution, it’s no different for example to the pre-hummingbird species slowly developing a long beak or fast wings.
Of course, any evolutionary gain always includes a corresponding actual or opportunity loss. While that which is consumed losses all, the consumer also loses in some fashion (eg when carnivores evolve, they lose the benefits that herd behaviour gives). Technology will weaken us in other ways, most certainly our bodies will decline, until we divide into various human species based on specialised genetical manipulation. The problem with such division will be the Queen Bee scenario (1 supreme leader, rest specialised drones - the end result of capitalism), and I'd like to see us occupy multiple worlds before that comes into play.

[mental vagrant]

In some ways the destruction of the current environment might be exactly what humanity needs.
It will induce great suffering and from suffering the species is likely to evolve to become less destructive.

Personally, I doubt even the probable slow death of the oceans due to acidification will kill our species completely off, nor even a loss of the atmosphere.

I've been concerned about the loss of the range of beauty of the flora and fauna on this earth – it seems inevitable.

But I can even ignore that, as science will give ways to create other forms of beauty - playing games with genes should be a lot of fun. Meats vats, humans with animal parts etc - all good stuff. Even the idea of saving animal life is egocentric to humans – we really want it to occur, not for them, but for our gratification. Preserving or destroying is always only about us.

Life at the group level is fairly pointless unless it is expanding its affect on nature - with stagnancy instead of just most of us becoming ant-like we all become so. I’d certainly prefer this expansion was not in terms of population, but only in terms of technology.

Our aim should be to expand into godliness, and from a species point of view this means we must continue to be a virus eating up its environment. We need to be forced to move out to other planets and we are a long way off that as yet.

In the meantime though we should in a few decades have technology that could stop a life-killing asteroid, that would in any case do more damage to life and the environment here than humans have to date.

In evolution there is no personal selfishness, evolution as in survival of the fittest is entirely selfish, so human selfishness like the Only We count comments I’ve written above, in relation to the lack of sympathy for the current, and worse future, human caused death of most animal life here, is not actually relevant in the big scheme of things.

The loss will be felt though, and feeling this loss should help us save some of it for later activation once we become more technologically mature.

Human technology is evolution, it’s no different for example to the pre-hummingbird species slowly developing a long beak or fast wings.
Of course, any evolutionary gain always includes a corresponding actual or opportunity loss. While that which is consumed losses all, the consumer also loses in some fashion (eg when carnivores evolve, they lose the benefits that herd behaviour gives). Technology will weaken us in other ways, most certainly our bodies will decline, until we divide into various human species based on specialised genetical manipulation. The problem with such division will be the Queen Bee scenario (1 supreme leader, rest specialised drones - the end result of capitalism), and I'd like to see us occupy multiple worlds before that comes into play.

Cool. I'm mostly with you, though currently capitalism doesn't exist, it's an idea that died with the American constitution, even China isn't really Capitalist. I like nature, it's beautiful, and worth preserving, though i agree that it's existence isn't anything more or less than our self absorbtion, does not invalidate the value it brings us. Watching nature play is like myriads of beautifull children dancing to the suns rythm. I think, our genes, are closely related to lot's of theirs and so, it's selfish to preserve them.

[ForbidenRea]

If only princes' were wretched cucumbers. I'd be a christian all over again...A mindful man needs few words...

[ForbidenRea]

Fat shorts-of bazzooka joe. Get lost!!!!!

[mental vagrant]

Fat shorts-of bazzooka joe. Get lost!!!!!

jizz?

[movingalways]

The only thing left for the man or woman who has become aware of suffering in all its expressions is to explore what it is to suffer one's awareness of suffering.

[Cathy Preston]

The only thing left for the man or woman who has become aware of suffering in all its expressions is to explore what it is to suffer one's awareness of suffering.

Thank God this isn't true.

[mental vagrant]

The only thing left for the man or woman who has become aware of suffering in all its expressions is to explore what it is to suffer one's awareness of suffering.

Highly insightfull introspection. Not everyone can achieve the dream.

[movingalways]

The only thing left for the man or woman who has become aware of suffering in all its expressions is to explore what it is to suffer one's awareness of suffering.

Thank God this isn't true.

Your words from the "the unending pursuit" thread: "It's not a dig, in this philosophy, as you call it, there is deep abiding peace, and incomprehensible compassion."

If one has incomprehensible compassion, do they not have to be in suffering?

For the sake of a launching off point, dictionary.com's definition of compassion: "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering."

[Cathy Preston]

The only thing left for the man or woman who has become aware of suffering in all its expressions is to explore what it is to suffer one's awareness of suffering.

Thank God this isn't true.

Your words from the "the unending pursuit" thread: "It's not a dig, in this philosophy, as you call it, there is deep abiding peace, and incomprehensible compassion."

If one has incomprehensible compassion, do they not have to be in suffering?

For the sake of a launching off point, dictionary.com's definition of compassion: "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering."

No not at all, it's an awareness of the true nature of everything, so compassion arises not as a response to suffering but rather as a response to delusion, to see the person as they truly are, rather than what they imagine themselves to be. It is the acknowledgement of the perfection that is, If everywhere I look I see God, who is suffering? Seeing without compassion would be seeing people as having no way to alleviate their own suffering. Your approach is fatalistic, it becomes aware of suffering but sees no end to it. The Buddha's middle way is all about ending suffering.

The Four Noble Truths
1. Life means suffering
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable
4. The path to the cessation of suffering

The compassion I describe as incomprehensible is of a shared silent communication of empathy and forgiveness that occurred between my mother and I directly after her death. This wasn't a one way communication, it was a understanding of the delusion we both shared and a release from any suffering that either of us may of held on to because of it.
@

[Cahoot]

The Buddha's middle way is all about ending suffering.

The Buddha’s middle way is about knowing the nature of mind.

Suffering is known to all, thus is an unambiguous, convenient touchstone for teaching and learning.

However, any experience is a doorway to knowing the nature of mind, even the experience of living in an industrial society.

[Talking Ass]

And if that is true, and it does seem to be true about the Hindu-Vedic teachings and the nature of the existential investigation made in that culture-time-situation, it leads to a question: to what degree is 'all this' [those teachings] bound up in a 'mere' manipulation or modification of the mind? I think it was Krishnamurti who described his experience in all things Indian as endless exercises and experiences in the manipulation of mental states. 'Trance'. But is that 'enough'?

But another question is: Isn't it really more than 'mind' even in that [Eastern] system? Isn't it really 'soul' [some internal structure that is 'us']?

Doesn't so much depens on how one defines 'life' and 'reality', what is to be done, what is not to be done? The bliss or peace or grace that we feel may not be enough.

[Cathy Preston]

The Buddha's middle way is all about ending suffering.

The Buddha’s middle way is about knowing the nature of mind.

Suffering is known to all, thus is an unambiguous, convenient touchstone for teaching and learning.

However, any experience is a doorway to knowing the nature of mind, even the experience of living in an industrial society.

Ultimately the goal is cessation of suffering. This is what cause/effect is all about, teaching one how to end suffering. Knowing the nature of mind is nirvana.

Nirvana comes to you,
when you understand thoroughly,
and when you live according to your understanding,
that all things are of one essence
and that there is but one law.
Hence, there is but one Nirvana
as there is but one truth,
not two or three.

Wikipedia:
Buddha: He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end ignorance (avidyā), craving (taṇhā), and suffering (dukkha), by recognizing dependent origination and sunyata, and attain Nirvana.

Nirvana: it is the state of being free from suffering. In Hindu philosophy, it is the union with the Supreme being through moksha. The word literally means "blowing out"—referring in the Buddhist context, to the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.

What does living in the industrial society have to do with anything? The true nature of mind is relevant in any age, any society. If you do not earnestly think you can end your own suffering you are only playing at knowing true nature of mind.
@

[Cathy Preston]

And if that is true, and it does seem to be true about the Hindu-Vedic teachings and the nature of the existential investigation made in that culture-time-situation, it leads to a question: to what degree is 'all this' [those teachings] bound up in a 'mere' manipulation or modification of the mind? I think it was Krishnamurti who described his experience in all things Indian as endless exercises and experiences in the manipulation of mental states. 'Trance'. But is that 'enough'?

But another question is: Isn't it really more than 'mind' even in that [Eastern] system? Isn't it really 'soul' [some internal structure that is 'us']?

Doesn't so much depens on how one defines 'life' and 'reality', what is to be done, what is not to be done? The bliss or peace or grace that we feel may not be enough.

I assure you I am in no trance.

What is to be done : 1.) Attain Nirvana: understand the true nature of everything, thus yourself.

That is purpose of life. The end.

Next exercise meditate some more on emptiness.
@

[movingalways]

Cathy, you concluded that my viewpoint was fatalistic, that I was implying no end to suffering, but such is not the case. I was referring to the necessity that is first the experiencing of suffering, second, the acknowledging of suffering, third, of questioning the reason for suffering and fourth, of seeking the way out of suffering. One cannot teach from the heart of truth that which they have not thoroughly explored with their own consciousness.

I assert that suffering goes beyond the delusion of "self", that suffering is known to all sentient creatures. Does a cockroach have a "self?" No. Does a cockroach suffer hunger, thirst, disease, injury? Yes. To find the cause of suffering is to agree with the first noble truth that "life [sentience] means suffering." The Buddha did not say "having the delusion of self means suffering", he used the all-inclusive concept "life." A cockroach, a lion, a bird is attached to life, not to a self, which means that a human who becomes detached from "self" finds him or herself in the same position as the cockroach, the lion and the bird - attached to life.

The way to end suffering then is to be the God of becoming detached from life. I know of no one who is wholly detached from life [if you are aware of sentience you are attached] ergo, the need for, as you say, to meditate more on emptiness.

[Dennis Mahar]

Cahoot,

The Buddha’s middle way is about knowing the nature of mind.

conceptual designator or meaning maker.

in the case of,

a husband and wife occur at the same instant.
they depend on each other for existence.

they depend on a conceptually designated agreement between each other and other conceptually designating minds called a culture that go along for the ride.

a husband and wife conjoined in marraige,
cannot exist outside conceptually designating minds.

there are rules to marraige conceptually designated as essential for marraige to remain unbroken.

marraige is conceptually invented and is understood to have conventional status only or exist by common agreement. (fantasia).
the ultimate reality of marraige is that it is empty of intrinsic meaning.
it is an opinion or a belief or a project of a consortium of meaning makers.
in the middle of a chain reaction.

what is distinguished is 2 truths.
conventional truth and ultimate truth.

the point is not to designate marraige as good or bad and get into an emotional fugue about it and dredge up afflictive emotions.
the point is to recognise all existents arise dependently, are of dependent origination and are the result of causes/conditions.

what can be noticed is,
a mind conceiving of marraige as distinct from a marraige that a mind conceives.
therefore a mind has a property,
conceptual designation.

Does a mind that conceives of marraige depend upon the property, conceptual designation, for its existence?
Yes.
The case of the mind conceiving of marraige is itself an object designated by another conceptual mind.
This latter mind designates the property, meaning maker, to the former mind as 'a mind that makes meaning'.
It is the designating mind that demarcates its object from other things and identifies that object as having a property.


when phenomena are not closely examined, they seem to exist in their own nature, independent of conceptual constructs.

[Cathy Preston]

Cathy, you concluded that my viewpoint was fatalistic, that I was implying no end to suffering, but such is not the case. I was referring to the necessity that is first the experiencing of suffering, second, the acknowledging of suffering, third, of questioning the reason for suffering and fourth, of seeking the way out of suffering. One cannot teach from the heart of truth that which they have not thoroughly explored with their own consciousness.

"The only thing left for the man or woman who has become aware of suffering in all its expressions is to explore what it is to suffer one's awareness of suffering."

Where does this say you're seeking a way out of suffering? You say the only thing left is to suffer one's awareness of suffering. That seems like a closed loop to me.

I assert that suffering goes beyond the delusion of "self", that suffering is known to all sentient creatures. Does a cockroach have a "self?" No. Does a cockroach suffer hunger, thirst, disease, injury? Yes. To find the cause of suffering is to agree with the first noble truth that "life [sentience] means suffering." The Buddha did not say "having the delusion of self means suffering", he used the all-inclusive concept "life." A cockroach, a lion, a bird is attached to life, not to a self, which means that a human who becomes detached from "self" finds him or herself in the same position as the cockroach, the lion and the bird - attached to life.

Pain is not Suffering. Pain is an experience like any other experience, it comes and goes, suffering occurs when we resist the natural flow, we resist the natural flow because we identify with a self separate from everything around us. Are you saying you think the Buddha was lying when he said:

I reached in experience the nirvana which is unborn, unrivalled, secure from attachment, undecaying and unstained. This condition is indeed reached by me which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, tranquil, excellent, beyond the reach of mere logic, subtle, and to be realized only by the wise.

The way to end suffering then is to be the God of becoming detached from life. I know of no one who is wholly detached from life [if you are aware of sentience you are attached] ergo, the need for, as you say, to meditate more on emptiness.

So you are saying suffering is inevitable, since in your theory we would have to all be dead to end suffering. If you see someone suffer over a loved one that died several years ago do you then just wish them a speedy death? One can only be detached from life when one is in the midst of life, you're implying the dead are detached from life, but they've gone well beyond detachment, they are dead, with no way to be involved with life at all. Being a virgin and living in a convent is not detachment of sex, it's avoidance of. I wonder why you resist the end of suffering?
@

[Talking Ass]

Naw. I don't hold that up as a 'value', Cathy, though I suppose it is an attainment. Those states are states from which we then live our lives, they are not the end of our life or of living. I think (if you'll allow me to express it in this way) that my position is more mature than yours. Unlike as with some others around here I can't criticize your position because it is only expressed in hyper-subjective terms. You seem to have little background in wider philosophical or cultural concerns and hence no pretentions whatever. Unlike with, say, David who has a world-mission.

Have you had success in communicating this nirvana to anyone else? Doing that seems.very important to you. I am curious what the result has been.

[movingalways]

Pam wrote:
The way to end suffering then is to be the God of becoming detached from life. I know of no one who is wholly detached from life [if you are aware of sentience you are attached] ergo, the need for, as you say, to meditate more on emptiness.

Cathy wrote: So you are saying suffering is inevitable, since in your theory we would have to all be dead to end suffering. If you see someone suffer over a loved one that died several years ago do you then just wish them a speedy death? One can only be detached from life when one is in the midst of life, you're implying the dead are detached from life, but they've gone well beyond detachment, they are dead, with no way to be involved with life at all. Being a virgin and living in a convent is not detachment of sex, it's avoidance of. I wonder why you resist the end of suffering?

I put forth that when one is in the midst of life that they are not detached from life. This is naught but the tricky old intellect mistaking the idea of detachment with the reality of detachment. A degree of detachment has been reached when one sees through the temporal comings and goings of pain and pleasure, but even the subtlest degree of detachment is still attachment.

The sentient intellect has a deep invested interest in boxing God into sentience, into the "natural flow." In using two metaphors for consciousness from the bible to expand upon what I am saying, it is the Lord God of the "natural flow" of Genesis 2 that is so deeply covered with the mist and the dirt of the ground that he cannot see that these things are but coverings [attachments] only; they are not the uncovered [unborn, unattached] Mind of the Spirit of God of Genesis 1. It is this unborn spirit that I believe the Buddha of your quote reached and realized. However, reaching and realizing the unborn to become wise is not the same experience as attaining to or becoming the unborn, which is the experience of going beyond/above all sentient-born concepts, of which "being wise" is but one. It is not pain that is suffering, as you say, it is the repetition of pain [and its twin sister, pleasure] that is suffering.

When I speak of going into suffering to go beyond suffering, I am speaking of just the opposite of what you are putting forth, the denial of sex, etc. It is only when one gives themselves fully to their awareness of the sentient experience, to the natural flow as you call it, in combination with having the wisdom of having reached the unborn spirit, that they are able to be filled with what the Buddha called infinite pity and what Jesus called justice and mercy, love for God and love of neighbour - compassion for the suffering the covering of sentience has caused in the hearts of man and beast. Compassion that includes the knowledge that for every man or woman who reaches or touches the Unborn within, the repeating DNA loop of pain and pleasure will one day cease to turn for all sentient beings.

The spirit of man is the conscience of consciousness.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

I put forth that when one is in the midst of life that they are not detached from life. This is naught but the tricky old intellect mistaking the idea of detachment with the reality of detachment. A degree of detachment has been reached when one sees through the temporal comings and goings of pain and pleasure, but even the subtlest degree of detachment is still attachment. am,

Distinguishing a mind that conceives meaning from the meaning a mind conceives,
distinguishes the primordial essence existent prior to the formatting of meaning.
mind must in a logical investigation come to know itself,
its ability to construct meaning and attach for the time being.

It is this primordial essence that is always/already present,
profoundly silent,
ineffable,
uncaused,
not finite.

one can 'grok' it and move about in a World,
in the 'atmosphere' of it,
in the ultimate reality of it,
and never be lost.

one can recognise meaning as essentially junk on the one hand and explore it's possibilities for pleasure on the other.

knowing ultimate reality as the condition 'without intrinsic meaning'
gets 'absence of meaning',

'absence of meaning' gets freedom of being,
true nature.
no mind.

the conversation for transformation is for the mind to see itself in it's activity.
In it's Act.

[Cathy Preston]

The spirit of man is the conscience of consciousness.

The Fall of Man: In Christian doctrine, the fall of man, or simply the fall, refers to the transition of the first humans from a state of innocent obedience to God to a state of guilty disobedience to God.

The Fall of Man: The Fall of Man (also called "The Story of the Fall" or "The Fall") is the story in the book of Genesis [n the Torah (Old Testament) of when Adam and Eve, in God's eyes, lost their innocence. Genesis says that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge even after God told them it was not allowed. Adam and Eve lost their innocence and were thrown out of the Garden of Eden,

Our purpose is not to develop a conscience it's to forget we ever had one. To return to our innocence. Our Innocence is seeing through the illusion of separation here and now, as Dennis says "transformation is for the mind to see itself in it's activity."
#

[Tomas]

Naw. I don't hold that up as a 'value', Cathy, though I suppose it is an attainment. Those states are states from which we then live our lives, they are not the end of our life or of living. I think (if you'll allow me to express it in this way) that my position is more mature than yours. Unlike as with some others around here I can't criticize your position because it is only expressed in hyper-subjective terms. You seem to have little background in wider philosophical or cultural concerns and hence no pretentions whatever. Unlike with, say, David who has a world-mission.

Have you had success in communicating this nirvana to anyone else? Doing that seems.very important to you. I am curious what the result has been.

Come on, Cathy. Throw him something!

After all, you've been here six days longer than I have.

[Cathy Preston]

Yeah I was here briefly 7 years ago, I'm glad I was too, it's exactly what I needed at the time. As for throwing something at Ass, hmmm let me see.

Nope got nothing.

[Dennis Mahar]

there's nothing and there's language.

that 'Fall' story.
what does it do?

it clearly means or it's generative significance tells us something went wrong and something is wrong and there's something to fix.

a mind embedded in the story 'something is wrong',
ought to be examined objectively,
and realised as what it is,
that is,
a mind embedded in the story 'something is wrong'.

epistemology is how we know things.
how did the condition 'something is wrong and something to fix' get such a dream run.
there's such devotion to it.