Meaning

Originally posted by Suzianne
Besides being incredibly short-sighted when one prefers this to the Glory of God?

Atheists do not have a god.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Atheists do not have a god.

Wow, you're on your toes today.

What do you think that means then?

That's right. I think atheists are incredibly short-sighted.

Good of you to make the connection.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Wow, you're on your toes today.

What do you think that means then?

That's right. I think atheists are incredibly short-sighted.

Good of you to make the connection.

The thread is entitled "meaning" and when an atheist gives an opinion you
have to call them short-sighted because they do not believe in your
superstitions?

I was trying to point out that an atheist's life has meaning without a god; and
you cannot deny that; it is fact.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No meaning to life,though.

My friend, I must disagree, and I thank you for your facilitation..

Are we also not life itself, perhaps the very depositories of its meaning, where the great whirling galaxies and weird electrons, and relationships and sufferings are all revealed, experienced and ridden?

When we separate and analyse, we find no meaning "out there". The same happens with dissected music and poetry. The deepest meaning of the whole thing is only experienced when "self' is forgotten and there is a merging. Clinging to a "self" and pining for a meaning for that so-called 'self' prevents the meaning arising...when we are empty of self fixation...the meaning is more likely to coalesces into view for us. Is it not a gathering together of meanings, some transient and others not, that most resemble what we call a "self"? This is one of the messages from the East.

Without meaning we see no magic in the tuning of the orchid especially to the insect that fertilizes that and that only orchid, for the orchid has evolved to look like and attract that insect itself, with exactly the right mechanism for only that insect to enter! Both insect and flower evolved to each other at the same time, like the myriad components and highly complex interacting (non-linear and holistic) processes in our cells and our brain. This is not just mutating cogs and wheels stuff, no matter how many billions of years you give it.

Without meaning, life is not life as we know it - perhaps a dull gong substituted - we appreciate no magic in the great scenes of nature, (that somehow just happen to correspond to our inner delight at such breathtaking views). The wonder of a cells functioning, an elegant formula, or a victory over injustice or loss - we may as well close up all theatres, galleries, memorials and libraries, and pull the petals of all the flowers while we dissect, dissect, dissect looking for the meaning of it all, while it is in our very hands or eyes or heart, right now!

This is where the magic and meaning arises for me anyway. We are not just analytical scientists and hard-nosed engineers or profiteering businessmen - needed as they are (or not) and part of the meaning too - we are also artists, lovers, warriors and explorers, creating paths of wondrous varyng meaning in each moment, through the universe that has given us birth.

To the Jewel in the Lotus. OM!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The thread is entitled "meaning" and when an atheist gives an opinion you
have to call them short-sighted because they do not believe in your
superstitions?

I was trying to point out that an atheist's life has meaning without a god; and
you cannot deny that; it is fact.

So, my belief is 'superstition', while your opinion is 'fact'.

Interesting. Excuse me if I hold a contrary position.

Their short-sightedness is because they deny God. Their lives would have far greater meaning with God. And you may deny that if you wish - free will is important - but it is still fact.

Originally posted by Taoman
My friend, I must disagree, and I thank you for your facilitation..

Are we also not life itself, perhaps the very depositories of its meaning, where the great whirling galaxies and weird electrons, and relationships and sufferings are all revealed, experienced and ridden?

When we separate and analyse, we find no meaning "out there". The same happens wi ...[text shortened]... oment, through the universe that has given us birth.

To the Jewel in the Lotus. OM!

It's been sometime, Taoman, best to you and yours and thank you for this thread.

Methinks all the observers are phenomena in flux and they do not exist “out there” as independent and self-enclosed entities that can be separated in a condition of pure isolation, therefore in my opinion it is not proper to say that they are inherently existent. These observers can be understood solely as momentary forms, whose existence is dependent in full on both their relationships to other observers (phenomena in flux) and the conceptual labels we impute for our convenience as regards their nature. Being parts of the observer universe, all these observers have as much “meaning” as the observing mind imputes to them, therefore any kind of implied meaning is empty.

The lack of inherent existence and the lack of an inherently existent “meaning” of all the phenomena in flux, means neither that these phenomena are non-existent (because the fact that they are conventionally existent in our macrokosmos makes them real), nor that their magical dancing in emptiness is not wonderful.

But... Pick “something” (in other words, pick any epistemic object you want, ie yourself, your child, a car, a tree, a planet, the universe, an idea etc.), and after the proper analysis you will hopefully see that this “something” cannot be properly said that has inherent existence. Since you see The Jewel in the Lotus, which is also empty of inherent existence even when you directly perceive it as clear light, how can you properly say that the Jewel itself has meaning? Furthermore, what is this meaning?
The Jewel is the generator of meaning, yes, because it is the mirror. But its products are stains on its surface that block the clear light.

But the Jewel, the Meaning, the Mirror, the Stains and the Clear Light are pure noise when you comprehend, and as such can well be discarded. Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy%

gatagateparagateparasamgateTaoman
😵

Originally posted by Suzianne
The page you quoted on the Gnosis.org site on the Mass was excellent. I particularly enjoyed the part on "C.G. Jung and the Mass" since my studies in psychology led me to Jung, and had I continued my education to a doctorate, I probably would have followed a Jungian approach in my own practice. It was also his interest in the occult which led to my own pa ...[text shortened]... ut couldn't quite make the final leap (of Faith? ).

All in all, thanks for the links. 🙂

The pieces of information at that link, stink. Hinayana and Mahayana systems are neither contradictory nor different; instead, they must be regarded as different perspectives of a single reality under analysis. You cannot play with relativity etc. if you are cannot understand the classical physics; all in all, the conventional epistemic objects lack of inherent existence, whilst all the epistemic objects are manifested out of the mind-only ground of the potential for the potentiality of their manifestation.

Now, what exactly do you know as regards "Self" in Buddhism, from which perspective and therefore from which specific school? For the tetralemma is clear to the well versed.
Also, what is "the right answer" in your opinion? Mind you, Emptiness in Buddism is not a religious doctrine but a corrective means when one suffers of the illusion that the epistemic objects are inherently existent; this corrective means is also discarded once the practitioner sees directly the point.

Finally, leaps of faith are products of delusion. Why should one take a leap of faith? By knowing what exists, one knows what cannot exist😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No meaning to life,though.

Repeated post - deleted.

Originally posted by black beetle
It's been sometime, Taoman, best to you and yours and thank you for this thread.

Methinks all the observers are phenomena in flux and they do not exist “out there” as independent and self-enclosed entities that can be separated in a condition of pure isolation, therefore in my opinion it is not proper to say that they are inherently existent. These ...[text shortened]... h can well be discarded. Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy%

gatagateparagateparasamgateTaoman
😵

Greetings EB. I trust you and all about are well and happy. I and mine are pretty good, thank you.
As you know, though poetic liciense and adaptive appearance may suggest otherwise I have no argument at all with the absence and the openness, the no-found self existing entity, mental or otherwise. It appears this is the difficulty to verbally corral the meanings that arise, for the meaning in the attempt changes that very moment into some other capturing meaning, which itself is as ephemeral. A bit akin to Heisenberg's immeasurabilty observations. Yet the particles dance, and our meanings, our intentions get mirrored back.
Some hang around for a while hooked on events and mentations, but there is, as you so finely remind me and others, no final carved in stone or text or act or event or person or age, or holiness or wickedness that contains or expresses some eternal captured meaning. If it did we'd all be stone, eh? Yes indeed, there is no partless fully independent thing including meaning. Nevertheless meanings and their ever-changing gestalting contexts yet arise and float this world a merry dance.
"Nothing holy" pops that holy phrase too.

Amitiés, mon ami.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The page you quoted on the Gnosis.org site on the Mass was excellent. I particularly enjoyed the part on "C.G. Jung and the Mass" since my studies in psychology led me to Jung, and had I continued my education to a doctorate, I probably would have followed a Jungian approach in my own practice. It was also his interest in the occult which led to my own pa ...[text shortened]... ut couldn't quite make the final leap (of Faith? ).

All in all, thanks for the links. 🙂

Greetings Suzianne. I have seen no indication in Jung of him distancing himself from his well-known fascination and experiences with synchronicity and in particular his explorations of the Yi Jing, the ancient "oracle" of China. The most wise and perceptive traditions of China, though expressed obviously in a Chinese cultural way saw how mysty images meeting with mind can elicit helpful and guiding meaning often in a very synchronistic and jolting way. It's not the book, its not the mind, its everything, and everything participates with the meanings that feed and propel our lives.

Jung shared his fascination with synchronicity with client and later friend, Wolgang Pauli, a core physicist in the early quantum encounters. Pauli had a sort of conversion it appears when confronted with the mysteries of synchronicity. And don't worry they happen within the Christian traditions as well, as they did in the gnostic traditions from which it arose. It is not all of devils, I can only assure you.

Originally posted by black beetle
The pieces of information at that link, stink. Hinayana and Mahayana systems are neither contradictory nor different; instead, they must be regarded as different perspectives of a single reality under analysis. You cannot play with relativity etc. if you are cannot understand the classical physics; all in all, the conventional epistemic objects lack of . Why should one take a leap of faith? By knowing what exists, one knows what cannot exist😵

"The pieces of information at that link, stink."

I get a whiff of dogmatic rigor being imposed.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So, my belief is 'superstition', while your opinion is 'fact'.

So is it your claim that an athiests life has no meaning? Because the opposite of that is what you claim is mere opinion. I say it is fact and that you have no justification whatsoever for terming it opinion. Its like calling 2+2=4 opinion.

Originally posted by JS357
"The pieces of information at that link, stink."

I get a whiff of dogmatic rigor being imposed.

No dogmatism from me, so my position is not ruined; instead, the author of the link you provided appears to know next to nothing as regards the way the six schools of Buddhism built up a holistic synthesis based on the accurate teaching and the factual theses of all the so called Hinayana and Mahayana systems😵

Originally posted by black beetle
No dogmatism from me, so my position is not ruined; instead, the author of the link you provided appears to know next to nothing as regards the way the six schools of Buddhism built up a holistic synthesis based on the accurate teaching and the factual theses of all the so called Hinayana and Mahayana systems😵

All we need to know about Buddhism is that it is a false religion and a waste of time. 😏

Originally posted by Suzianne
So, my belief is 'superstition', while your opinion is 'fact'.

Interesting. Excuse me if I hold a contrary position.

Their short-sightedness is because they deny God. Their lives would have far greater meaning with God. And you may deny that if you wish - free will is important - but it is still fact.

I did not say that your belief is superstition, I'm sure your belief is a fact - I
have no reason to think you are a liar. However you do believe in superstitious
nonsense (aka religion)

My fact is that my life has meaning to me. You cannot dispute that.

And as you keep using the sight metaphor I would say that you have your eyes
tightly closed and feel no need to open your eyes because a book has already
described everything there is to see.

OPEN YOUR EYES