Religious Wars are born out of the BELIEF in Separation.

[Sculptor]

The only WAR happening in REALITY is the MIND in which the 'sense of separation' is believed to be real.

Bumper Sticker

In what way is war a sense of separation?

[Dontaskme]

But this is the Hindu mistake. It's to see "existence" as a kind of curse, and liquidation into the great Oneness or Nirvana as a preferable alternative. It's the mistake that life is nothing but suffering, and the end of suffering (samsara) by way of extinction of the self is some kind of good thing.

It's not. It means you're gone. It means no more you. That's bad.

There is no you to come or go except the idea of you, and that can be either good or bad depending on which way you look at it.

Then mind is a very good thing.

and a bad thing.

Good stuff as well as bad. So what's the point?

Oh, come on...that's obviously untrue.

Wars have been fought much more often for territory, resources, race or tribe, booty, pride, secular ideology, water, women, reputation...unless you broaden the term 'religious' too include practically everything that exists and causes war. But if you do that, then the term 'religion' simply becomes so inclusive it fails to pick any particular feature out. It merges all explanations into a great, vacuous sameness. It explains nothing.

That’s because it is all nothing...namely something from nothing...all just a made up story...with no point to the point except what you want to believe or imagine.

[Dontaskme]

The only WAR happening in REALITY is the MIND in which the 'sense of separation' is believed to be real.

Bumper Sticker

In what way is war a sense of separation?

Would you stick a sharp knife through your own heart ?

[Immanuel Can]

There is no you to come or go except the idea of you, and that can be either good or bad depending on which way you look at it.

Well, it's certainly bad for you, if there's no longer you.

Oh, come on...that's obviously untrue.

Wars have been fought much more often for territory, resources, race or tribe, booty, pride, secular ideology, water, women, reputation...unless you broaden the term 'religious' too include practically everything that exists and causes war. But if you do that, then the term 'religion' simply becomes so inclusive it fails to pick any particular feature out. It merges all explanations into a great, vacuous sameness. It explains nothing.

That’s because it is all nothing...namely something from nothing...all just a made up story...with no point to the point except what you want to believe or imagine.

Okay, the problem with that kind of "all is nothing" thinking is that there is no point in saying anything about it. Why are we talking about "nothing"?

Secondly, it's also completely rationally self defeating: because if "nothing is ultimately true," then the statement "nothing is ultimately true" isn't true...which means it's false. So that makes not a lick of sense.

Moreover, according to this view, there's no "you," so there's no "believe" and no "imagine" either...because "believing" and "imagining" don't happen except when performed by a specific agent, known as "you."

So that theory is a boat that just won't float.

[Age]

But you could have answered the first question

I would crave or desire not merely life itself but a quality of life as well
Life without quality would not for me be a life that I would want to live

So, although you say you KNOW what causes wars, when you are questioned for clarification about what else, other than life, itself, would a person crave or desire, which is what you said causes wars, you still write 'trying to' "justify" that craving and/or desiring is perfectly normal and acceptable thinking and behavior.

[surreptitious57]

So although you say you KNOW what causes wars when you are questioned for clarification about what else other than life itself would a person crave or desire which is what you said causes wars you still write trying to justify that craving and/or desiring is perfectly normal and acceptable

But I am not trying to justify anything at all because all I simply said was what I would want and nothing else
And if I chose death over life as I suggested then there would be absolutely no craving or desiring by me at all

[Age]

So although you say you KNOW what causes wars when you are questioned for clarification about what else other than life itself would a person crave or desire which is what you said causes wars you still write trying to justify that craving and/or desiring is perfectly normal and acceptable

But I am not trying to justify anything at all because all I simply said was what I would want and nothing else
And if I chose death over life as I suggested then there would be absolutely no craving or desiring by me at all

If you said; Buddhism says that all of suffering is caused by craving or desire and so reducing that is the way to resolving all wars, then implies that you agree that if you were to reduce what you crave and desire, no matter what they are, then that would resolve ALL wars.

But then when questioned about what it is that you crave and desire you went on to 'try to' "justify", to yourself, that a life without quality is not a life. Therefore, you are 'trying to' "justify" doing the very thing, which you had just previously infered was the cause of ALL wars.

[surreptitious57]

If you said Buddhism says that all of suffering is caused by craving or desire and so reducing that is the way to resolving all wars then that implies
you agree that if you were to reduce what you crave and desire no matter what they are then that would resolve ALL wars

But then when questioned about what it is that you crave and desire you went on to try to justify to yourself that a life without quality is not a life Therefore you are trying to justify doing the very thing which you had just previously inferred was the cause of ALL wars

I am aware that there is some confusion so some clarification is required here
Now when I said all wars I specifically meant military conflicts and nothing else
And as I have already said I cannot crave or desire anything if I choose death over life
But were I to choose life over death then I would favour detachment just like I do now

[Dontaskme]

Well, it's certainly bad for you, if there's no longer you.

There is no you because there is no other than you. So it's neither good nor bad, here nor there.
It can appear good or bad, but there's no requirement for either. For I am neutral by default.

Okay, the problem with that kind of "all is nothing" thinking is that there is no point in saying anything about it. Why are we talking about "nothing"?

Nothing is thinking, nothing is saying anything, thinking and saying just happens to appear out of the nothingness that you are. That nothingness is everything. It's all One, it's all God. I as God's mouthpiece like talking about nothing, it's the only thing I know anything about.

Secondly, it's also completely rationally self defeating: because if "nothing is ultimately true," then the statement "nothing is ultimately true" isn't true...which means it's false. So that makes not a lick of sense.

Nothing is true and Everything is true. There is only Everything and Nothing which is God...aka the unwritten truth.
There is no requirement for anything spoken to make sense since it's all fictional story telling anyway. Makes no difference to the I am which is neutral by default.

Moreover, according to this view, there's no "you," so there's no "believe" and no "imagine" either...because "believing" and "imagining" don't happen except when performed by a specific agent, known as "you."

There is no you because there is no other than you. You cannot not happen, you are the happening that is not happening. You cannot not be, you are the being that is not being.

If you do not understand nonduality by now then stop talking to me. I only want to talk about what is actually true and real.

So that theory is a boat that just won't float.

Now come on IC we all know there is no such thing as a non floating boat. And nonduality is not a theory, a theory is a story told by no one, aka the unwritten story that is known as the dream of separation...where wars and conflict arise in thy being as part of the play of consciousness, another word for God.



.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it's certainly bad for you, if there's no longer you.

There is no you because there is no other than you. So it's neither good nor bad, here nor there.
It can appear good or bad, but there's no requirement for either. For I am neutral by default.

I had a good discussion about this idea with a Hindu once. He asked me, "Don't you agree that all of life is suffering? And wouldn't it be better if it just ended, and we all went back into the cosmic peace of oneness?"

And I said, "Let me ask you this, then. Is a sufficient definition of happiness 'the cessation of suffering'?"

He said, "That's a really good question. Can I ask my priest and get back to you?"

I said, "Sure."

But I never heard back from him.

I think the point sticks. If the end of "you" happens, it's not a good thing. You might say it's not a bad thing too, because since you're gone. But it's certainly not a desirable state. You're not going to enjoy it. You're not going to be "at peace." You're going not to exist at all, and that forever.

But there's a further problem, too. If the universe has made you to exist, and if existence is bad and we are striving to return to the tranquility of non-existence, then it means we're swimming upstream, fighting what the universe is doing to us. We're opposing the very "force" into which we hope to be reabsorbed, because clearly, it's purpose or intention (if it has one) is that there should be a "you."

Finally, it requires there to be an eternal universe. Scientifically we already know that's not true. So really, this whole view has nothing to commend it at all. It doesn't tend to our happiness, it resists the force of the universe, and it is premised on unscientific assumptions. That's pretty much a slam-dunk for...no.

There is no requirement for anything spoken to make sense

I can see that, given your view. But then, you should stop making any linear arguments, and just spout koans, or even more consistently, say nothing at all. Because if all is nothing, and there's no you anyway, then you're not talking -- by definition.

But I don't think you really believe all this stuff you're saying. Honestly, I have to think you're just playing games, maybe trying to sound "enlightened." Because if you believed it, it seems perfectly clear that you would not be speaking at all.

I only want to talk about what is actually true and real.

Why? There is no "I" who could possibly want this, there is no "talk," because all is nothing...why on earth would you value what is "true" and "real" when "all is one" anyway? If that's so, then lies are "one" with the truth...why should you prefer this thing called "truth," when everything is nothing?

You see? Even you can't make it make sense. And even you can't live it in practice. So it's pretty evident you really don't believe it at all.

So that theory is a boat that just won't float.

Now come on IC we all know there is no such thing as a non floating boat.

That's the point!

And there's no such thing as a philosophy that doesn't believe in objective truth...because if it doesn't, then by its own declaration, it's not objectively true. It's like a "boat that won't float."

See? Again, you can't make it make any sense at all.

[Dontaskme]

IC

Everything is GoD

There is only God

Including the idea of you and me writing endless meaningless or meaningful stories on a forum...it’s all God doings.

All words are what God Is

Including the word nothing.

Stop worrying about whether anything makes sense or not..for that too is God making or not making sense.

God knows what he’s doing since there is only God in control.

I trust only in God...I live that trust everyday of my life, for I have too, I’m being lived. I trust life to do what the heck it wants to do..life is God..it’s ok, and I’m ok too.

Really, I’m not playing no game, I’m deadly serious.

.

[Dontaskme]

Well, it's certainly bad for you, if there's no longer you.

There is no you because there is no other than you. So it's neither good nor bad, here nor there.
It can appear good or bad, but there's no requirement for either. For I am neutral by default.

I had a good discussion about this idea with a Hindu once. He asked me, "Don't you agree that all of life is suffering? And wouldn't it be better if it just ended, and we all went back into the cosmic peace of oneness?"

And I said, "Let me ask you this, then. Is a sufficient definition of happiness 'the cessation of suffering'?"

He said, "That's a really good question. Can I ask my priest and get back to you?"

I said, "Sure."

But I never heard back from him.

Why would the Hindu ask his priest - by priest do you mean his higher self? the self that didn't get back to him.

But coming back on the subject of happiness and suffering. Happiness is found in finding suffering both bearable and enduring without wanting or desiring an outcome of the human experience to be any different than what it is at the time, since what is cannot be changed no matter how much we wish it to be otherwise.

I think the point sticks.

I think a point that sticks is just too sticky to be even on point, therefore usually pointless, and should be unstuck from immediately.

If the end of "you" happens, it's not a good thing.

There is no you except the thought you. The thought of no you makes no difference to the thinker, the thinker still is whether it's thought into existence or not, since there is no you without a thinker of you.

You might say it's not a bad thing too, because since you're gone. But it's certainly not a desirable state. You're not going to enjoy it. You're not going to be "at peace." You're going not to exist at all, and that forever.

Well that maybe how you see it, but it's not how this one here sees it at all. So speak for yourself. You are obsessed with words like peace and desirable states..oh as if these states were actually real,dream on man...because in reality there's just what is whether you like it or not.

But there's a further problem, too.

Again, no problem from where I am seeing this, so speak only for yourself.

If the universe has made you to exist, and if existence is bad and we are striving to return to the tranquility of non-existence, then it means we're swimming upstream, fighting what the universe is doing to us.

Again your emotional mentally construed blah blah blah rubbish is only conceptual dogma, an appearance within the dream of separation. What appears to split off and wants to come together again, NEVER splits off or desires to come together again.

We're opposing the very "force" into which we hope to be reabsorbed, because clearly, it's purpose or intention (if it has one) is that there should be a "you."

It has no intention, but then in the dream story, the intention is the rider of the will to be, as a mental construction. Just more mental masturbation about conceptual blah shit again.

Finally, it requires there to be an eternal universe. Scientifically we already know that's not true. So really, this whole view has nothing to commend it at all.

What you are talking about has no existence except in this conception. All truth claims about reality is purely conceptual within the dream of separation no one is having, and the dream is all there is to be KNOWN.

It doesn't tend to our happiness, it resists the force of the universe, and it is premised on unscientific assumptions. That's pretty much a slam-dunk for...no.

That's pretty much a load of crap nonsense you just made up which you are entitled to do since all you've got to play with are made up words, words being like lego bricks, you think something and you make that thinking manifest as a model of your thinking. Just more blah.

There is no requirement for anything spoken to make sense

I can see that, given your view. But then, you should stop making any linear arguments, and just spout koans, or even more consistently, say nothing at all. Because if all is nothing, and there's no you anyway, then you're not talking -- by definition.

That's right, no one is talking, there is just talking appearing here from nowhere and no thing. And this talking appears to be able to say what the heck it wants, it's just simply free like that, so it is. Try it and see for yourself, see how you can just say anything you like and watch those words come flying out of your mouth effortlessly, you are doing it all the time every time you post on this forum. The thoughts appear as words, and words are from what you are thinking..not from what others are thinking.
And yet there is only ONE READER of all the thoughts being expressed in words. Many authors appear, but only one reader.
Don't always assume that what you author yourself is how it is for another person, because we are each individually unique authors of our own realities. So make up what ever you like, but don't expect others to swallow your shit, we have our own shit to swallow thanks.

But I don't think you really believe all this stuff you're saying. Honestly, I have to think you're just playing games, maybe trying to sound "enlightened." Because if you believed it, it seems perfectly clear that you would not be speaking at all.

If you say so, doesn't mean it's actually what is happening here. I could say same about you there, I could say you are trying to act like you are smarter than me by attempting to outsmart or outwit what I've said with your own version of how things are. And to me that's just a typical male responsive reactive thing to do. Men do it all the time, they try to outsmart women which incidentally is impossible since the female will always be smarter than the male. The dogs have had their day, it's the women who rule the world now, so get used to it little boy.

I only want to talk about what is actually true and real.

Why? There is no "I" who could possibly want this, there is no "talk," because all is nothing...why on earth would you value what is "true" and "real" when "all is one" anyway? If that's so, then lies are "one" with the truth...why should you prefer this thing called "truth," when everything is nothing?

Again, this is just your semantic trivial nonsense, like you need to have oneupmanship that seems to just dawn on me now to come across as a typical condecending male attitude that believes it's got the knowledge about reality all figured out, when all it really does is talk a load of shit like everyone else including me,
Do you not listen to anything I say? There's just shit happening all over the joint, including mine.
I've said to you in the past you seem like a nice decent honest genuine person who doesn't resort to insulting other people, but today you've proved that wrong. You are actually very not what I imagined you to be, but then again I have a really crap judgement of peoples actual characters.

You see? Even you can't make it make sense. And even you can't live it in practice. So it's pretty evident you really don't believe it at all.

It's pretty evident you have no idea what you are talking about projecting all your shit onto me here, since none of what you said is the reality of the one here.

See? Again, you can't make it make any sense at all.

That's just not true, since I've already figured out that to try and make sense of non-sense is usually a bad idea, so I don't usually bother, and I'm not afraid to lose face, unlike your vain and smug face. Quite frankly, there is no face. I have no image of myself except the one I make up. So there.

.

[surreptitious57]

If the end of you happens it is not a good thing . You might say it is not a bad thing too since you are gone . But it is certainly not a desirable state You are not going to enjoy it . You are not going to be at peace . You are going not to exist at all

Why is the end of you not a good thing ? Why cannot it be a desirable state ?
Why cannot peace come with the end of suffering ? Is death not the end of suffering ?

Did you suffer before you were conceived ? Did you suffer after you were conceived ?
Which of these would you prefer - to exist and suffer or not to exist and not to suffer ?

[surreptitious57]

Finally it requires there to be an eternal universe . Scientifically we already know that is not true

Existence is not conditional on the universe - it is a state independent of any physical limitation

[Immanuel Can]

There is no you because there is no other than you. So it's neither good nor bad, here nor there.
It can appear good or bad, but there's no requirement for either. For I am neutral by default.

I had a good discussion about this idea with a Hindu once. He asked me, "Don't you agree that all of life is suffering? And wouldn't it be better if it just ended, and we all went back into the cosmic peace of oneness?"

And I said, "Let me ask you this, then. Is a sufficient definition of happiness 'the cessation of suffering'?"

He said, "That's a really good question. Can I ask my priest and get back to you?"

I said, "Sure."

But I never heard back from him.

Why would the Hindu ask his priest - by priest do you mean his higher self? the self that didn't get back to him.

That's hilarious.

Yes, he should have "asked his higher self." But as it is, Hindus do have priests or gurus. They think there are some people who are "enlightened" more than others, and hence who can help others achieve "enlightenment," and so should be consulted on these matters.

But coming back on the subject of happiness and suffering. Happiness is found in finding suffering both bearable and enduring without wanting or desiring an outcome of the human experience to be any different than what it is at the time, since what is cannot be changed no matter how much we wish it to be otherwise.

Well, when most people say, "I want to be happy," they are not saying, "I want to be freed from unbearable suffering." Usually they mean they want something much more than that, something positive, not the mere negation of misery (samsara).

And that's the point. The "extinction of desire" is not a desirable goal. It ends in nothing...or Nirvana, if you like, which is not a "heaven" of happiness, but rather only the state of non-being.

If the universe has made you to exist, and if existence is bad and we are striving to return to the tranquility of non-existence, then it means we're swimming upstream, fighting what the universe is doing to us.

Again your emotional mentally construed blah blah blah rubbish is only conceptual dogma, an appearance within the dream of separation. What appears to split off and wants to come together again, NEVER splits off or desires to come together again.

I didn't say it did. I said that RIGHT NOW you are fighting upstream against the will of the universe. Even if you only do it once, that's a problem.

Moroever, there's a further problem here: if everyone succeeds in returning to the "oneness," then the "oneness" itself ceases to exist. It was for the purpose of existing and having something to contemplate that the "oneness" behind the universe cast you forth in the first place. So that means the universe will have to cast you, or somebody else, forth again, as soon as the "oneness" is threatened with total unification. And that's why Hindus have to believe in reincarnation cycles...the material universe of samsara and the "oneness" behind it all have to remain eternally distinct, and both eternal.

So you (or someone, anyway) will be cast forth again, regardless of your enlightenment. And you will be cast forth many times, and forever.

We're opposing the very "force" into which we hope to be reabsorbed, because clearly, it's purpose or intention (if it has one) is that there should be a "you."

It has no intention,

In Hinduism, it does, at least in a very vague sense. It's not a person, true; but it does make at least one thing happen, which we might call an intention. It "intends" that there should eternally be both a material world of suffering and a great, nihlizing "oneness."

It doesn't tend to our happiness, it resists the force of the universe, and it is premised on unscientific assumptions. That's pretty much a slam-dunk for...no.

That's pretty much a load of crap nonsense you just made up which you are entitled to do since all you've got to play with are made up words, words being like lego bricks, you think something and you make that thinking manifest as a model of your thinking. Just more blah.

There is no requirement for anything spoken to make sense

Then there's no use in speaking it. In fact, to speak at all is to deny that it is impossible to make sense.

I can see that, given your view. But then, you should stop making any linear arguments, and just spout koans, or even more consistently, say nothing at all. Because if all is nothing, and there's no you anyway, then you're not talking -- by definition.

That's right, no one is talking, there is just talking appearing here from nowhere and no thing.

That can't be. There's no one to talk, and no one to hear. There is no one to whom it can "appear" that these things are happening, even.

But I don't think you really believe all this stuff you're saying. Honestly, I have to think you're just playing games, maybe trying to sound "enlightened." Because if you believed it, it seems perfectly clear that you would not be speaking at all.

If you say so, doesn't mean it's actually what is happening here.

Absolutely. You're implicitly denying your own creed at this very moment. That's what I'm saying. If you believed there were no speakers, no listeners, no talking and no meaning, then this conversation would not be happening. It would have no speaker, no recipient, no content and no origin.

...a typical male responsive reactive thing to do. Men do it all the time, they try to outsmart women which incidentally is impossible since the female will always be smarter than the male. The dogs have had their day, it's the women who rule the world now, so get used to it little boy.

Awesome. Love it.

Listen, sorry to flip you out. I couldn't have known whether you were male or female. I guess I do now.

I'm sorry I've got you all riled up. I wasn't trying to. I'm just pointing out the inherent problems in transcendental religions, particularly Hinduism. I'm sorry if it makes you feel like I just shot your pony. So if talking about it makes you uncomfortable, we can quit. But thanks for the chat anyway.