Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hate is really just disappointed love. You can't be upset with someone who fails or betrays or disappoints you unless you care that they live up to whatever ideal or expectation you projected upon them in the first place.
The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.
I do not hate god, or the concept of god; I am indifferent to them. They have no utility and no explanatory power. So that is not my "go to" when I'm trying to make sense of my life, make decisions, etc.
What love I have for my fellow man, if I'm not careful, becomes annoyance or even anger when they (inevitably) don't live up to my hopes for them.
So there's validity in the notion that one must care, but not have particular expectations. Expectations of, say, reciprocity, understanding, kindness even ... one can have boundaries and remove oneself from toxicity but Other People can in no way underpin your happiness or contentment. That has to come from within.
Indifference is lack of any kind of attachment to the object of perception. It is a neutral state of being at best or a cultivated and deliberate state of emotion, in which case it is close to aversion, related to hate.
This line of discussion loses the main point, looking for weeds when it is the forest that we are looking at.
The point is that all emotions of hate, love, or cultivated indifference, attaches to the object. But the objects themselves are not the cause of ultimate suffering, it is the disturbance that these emotions cause in the mind[/b]. The reason is that all objects of attachment are time bound, subject to change and decay, and will invariably disappoint us. The only true source of joy is within, the Self is the source of everlasting joy, it is the only true thing, changeless, eternal.
Ultimately this means we are the only cause of our suffering, and the only source of liberation from suffering. What we make of life is in our control, nobody else to blame. Acceptance of what is dealt to us due to the absurdity of life itself is the cure, not the struggle with a barrage of emotions. Nobody else to blame, it is us.
Indifference is lack of any kind of attachment to the object of perception. It is a neutral state of being at best or a cultivated and deliberate state of emotion, in which case it is close to aversion, related to hate.
This line of discussion loses the main point, looking for weeds when it is the forest that we are looking at.
The point is that all emotions of hate, love, or cultivated indifference, attaches to the object. But the objects themselves are not the cause of ultimate suffering, it is the disturbance that these emotions cause in the mind[/b]. The reason is that all objects of attachment are time bound, subject to change and decay, and will invariably disappoint us. The only true source of joy is within, the Self is the source of everlasting joy, it is the only true thing, changeless, eternal.
Ultimately this means we are the only cause of our suffering, and the only source of liberation from suffering. What we make of life is in our control, nobody else to blame. Acceptance of what is dealt to us due to the absurdity of life itself is the cure, not the struggle with a barrage of emotions. Nobody else to blame, it is us.
Albert Camus anyone?
So in the example of a child who is abused. The child himself is to blame for his reaction to the abuse? That the source of his suffering is himself? Because he is not accepting the abuse because "this world is crazy!"
I'm not trying to be dramatic, here with the above example, but it's a valid question.
What you are saying in the above quote, can certainly apply to SOME situations in life, but it seems to be a bit shallow and just completely self-centered view of life in general, n my opinion.
Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding what you are saying.
So in the example of a child who is abused. The child himself is to blame for his reaction to the abuse? That the source of his suffering is himself? Because he is not accepting the abuse because "this world is crazy!"
I'm not trying to be dramatic, here with the above example, but it's a valid question.
What you are saying in the above quote, can certainly apply to SOME situations in life, but it seems to be a bit shallow and just completely self-centered view of life in general, n my opinion.
Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding what you are saying.
It is a good question.
The abuse of a child falls on all of us. We all equally share the suffering of the child and the responsibility for the abuse. All actions against Dharma, the Cosmic law and order, have repercussions. The adult abuser is often the product of abuse and violence himself. His actions cause suffering to all of us. Only if you think you are an isolated being would you think the suffering the child endures is his alone. It is not. We are one soul, one spirit, divided by bodies that are unreal.
The consequences of actions against Dharma will bear fruit. But by cosmic time, which is not same as sun up to sun down. The atrocities of the past will bear fruit, but not according to our sense of time and place. Only acts of kindness and compassion will mitigate the suffering we all are bound to endure. This is the reason all religions teach kindness and compassion above all else.
It is a good question.
The abuse of a child falls on all of us. We all equally share the suffering of the child and the responsibility for the abuse. All actions against Dharma, the Cosmic law and order, have repercussions. The adult abuser is often the product of abuse and violence himself. His actions cause suffering to all of us. Only if you think you are an isolated being would you think the suffering the child endures is his alone. It is not. We are one soul, one spirit, divided by bodies that are unreal.
The consequences of actions against Dharma will bear fruit. But by cosmic time, which is not same as sun up to sun down. The atrocities of the past will bear fruit, but not according to our sense of time and place. Only acts of kindness and compassion will mitigate the suffering we all are bound to endure. This is the reason all religions teach kindness and compassion above all else.
So, in your opinion, what is the point of life, and do you personally form any relationships with people, bonds with people that you share in your personal life? How deeply do those bonds go? Not very deep, because "attachment" is a negative thing in your view? I'm really just trying to understand where you're coming from.
It seems like a contradiction. On the one hand, it's all "self" and "detachment", and on the other hand, we are all just going to morph into some cosmic spirit where there is no longer individuals? Your attachments to people in this life means little to nothing, on a personal level, because the relationship will ultimately (in your view) end? What if it doesn't end? What if the "decay" and "death" is just a temporary fleeting state of being?
I personally see our human relationships as sacred and far more meaningful and a "treasure" than we even now can fathom. I believe the things we go through together, good and bad... there are lasting effects, positive and negative and we gain knowledge in this contrast of love vs non-love. This is probably why I'm dissecting your views a bit, because on the one hand, I agree with the sort of overall thing you are saying.... but only on a certain level. Like an overall, umbrella universal law type thing. Of love conquering all. Of the trickle down effect. .Once it gets down to a more detailed view, this is where I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are saying, because for me that's when it turns into misty vagueness with little regard for that which I personally believe is quite sacred, which is our human connection, our realtionships, our loved ones.
Some things I can agree with you, I think, but maybe not.
Sometimes someone will say something that sounds like the same thing I feel/think/believe too.... but then there is an odd twist where it totally goes down a weird (to me) path.
We all have different viewpoints, and it's because we've lived different lives. Not mocking your viewpoint, or trying to tear it apart, the only tearing apart is just me trying to dissect what you're really saying. It's good to do, it either strengthens or weakens your own viewpoint, and causes you to look at , once again, your own lens in which you view the world. Maybe you pick up something along the way from someone else, a new revelation. Or maybe your own viewpoint just becomes a bit strengthened, because going down as many paths as you can and looking around is the only way to grow.
So, in your opinion, what is the point of life, and do you personally form any relationships with people, bonds with people that you share in your personal life? How deeply do those bonds go? Not very deep, because "attachment" is a negative thing in your view? I'm really just trying to understand where you're coming from.
It seems like a contradiction. On the one hand, it's all "self" and "detachment", and on the other hand, we are all just going to morph into some cosmic spirit where there is no longer individuals? Your attachments to people in this life means little to nothing, on a personal level, because the relationship will ultimately (in your view) end? What if it doesn't end? What if the "decay" and "death" is just a temporary fleeting state of being?
I personally see our human relationships as sacred and far more meaningful and a "treasure" than we even now can fathom. I believe the things we go through together, good and bad... there are lasting effects, positive and negative and we gain knowledge in this contrast of love vs non-love. This is probably why I'm dissecting your views a bit, because on the one hand, I agree with the sort of overall thing you are saying.... but only on a certain level. Like an overall, umbrella universal law type thing. Of love conquering all. Of the trickle down effect. .Once it gets down to a more detailed view, this is where I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are saying, because for me that's when it turns into misty vagueness with little regard for that which I personally believe is quite sacred, which is our human connection, our realtionships, our loved ones.
Some things I can agree with you, I think, but maybe not.
Sometimes someone will say something that sounds like the same thing I feel/think/believe too.... but then there is an odd twist where it totally goes down a weird (to me) path.
We all have different viewpoints, and it's because we've lived different lives. Not mocking your viewpoint, or trying to tear it apart, the only tearing apart is just me trying to dissect what you're really saying. It's good to do, it either strengthens or weakens your own viewpoint, and causes you to look at , once again, your own lens in which you view the world. Maybe you pick up something along the way from someone else, a new revelation. Or maybe your own viewpoint just becomes a bit strengthened, because going down as many paths as you can and looking around is the only way to grow.
Thanks for the conversation.
peace.
Thanks for your point of view and the opportunity to expand on the topic.
As to the point to life? There is no point to life, it is essentially a state of delusion. The purpose of life however is to understand what we are in our true essence. We are not this relatively short lived body-mind-complex of flesh and bones, but the same existence-knowledge-fullness that is the only truth. This understanding will liberate us from the very limited state of being called Life.
Until we reach that state, yes we do have to transact with this world of names and forms as best as we can, reduce our subjective projections and increase our objective awareness.
Thanks for your point of view and the opportunity to expand on the topic.
As to the point to life? There is no point to life, it is essentially a state of delusion. The purpose of life however is to understand what we are in our true essence. We are not this relatively short lived body-mind-complex of flesh and bones, but the same existence-knowledge-fullness that is the only truth. This understanding will liberate us from the very limited state of being called Life.
Until we reach that state, yes we do have to transact with this world of names and forms as best as we can, reduce our subjective projections and increase our objective awareness.
I don't believe we are only relatively short lived body-mind comples of flesh and bones, either.
Can you perhaps, try to answer some of the actual questions I posted?
What you are saying is vague and only adding to the confusion and just kind of turning this into a non-conversation, (from my perspective).
If your view is a strong one, you should be able to tackle some of my questions. They are, afterall, not trick questions or "gotcha" questions. They are real inquiries into your views.
It is a good question. The abuse of a child falls on all of us. We all equally share the suffering of the child and the responsibility for the abuse. All actions against Dharma, the Cosmic law and order, have repercussions. The adult abuser is often the product of abuse and violence himself. His actions cause suffering to all of us. Only if you think you are an isolated being would you think the suffering the child endures is his alone. It is not. We are one soul, one spirit, divided by bodies that are unreal.
The consequences of actions against Dharma will bear fruit. But by cosmic time, which is not same as sun up to sun down. The atrocities of the past will bear fruit, but not according to our sense of time and place. Only acts of kindness and compassion will mitigate the suffering we all are bound to endure. This is the reason all religions teach kindness and compassion above all else.
I don't believe we are only relatively short lived body-mind comples of flesh and bones, either.
Can you perhaps, try to answer some of the actual questions I posted?
What you are saying is vague and only adding to the confusion and just kind of turning this into a non-conversation, (from my perspective).
If your view is a strong one, you should be able to tackle some of my questions. They are, afterall, not trick questions or "gotcha" questions. They are real inquiries into your views.
I am sorry, i took your “peace” as a salaam, namaste, goodbye. It seemed you had stated your views and were done. I did not realize you had questions other the important one, in my opinion, what is the point of life.
Which I answered.
I have trouble separating questions that seem simply rhetorical rather than explorative.If you think you can list your questions separate from your views and opinions, I am happy to try. I may not have answers to all of them, but i can respond to those that my teachings and learning have revealed to me. These are not new ideas, these are teachings of Vedanta philosophy that are thousands of years old and millions of people live with them comfortably.
Looking forwards to explore your questions.
Hmm. Maybe it is your problem if you project hypocrisy on me?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
