Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Most Anything > Philosophy & Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-11-2018, 07:07 PM
Kioma Kioma is offline
Guide
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: The Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 584
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
The entire framework is, therefore, a person knows 'goodness' subjectively, is empowered to chose between good and evil, and is deserving of pleasure or displeasure respectively (indeed, these outcomes would be resultant of inevitable universals). However, being compelled to act by desire for pleasure along with aversion to displeasure is seen as unwholesome since such desire and aversion propagates the purely selfish view that all events are acting on me - and hence I react to experiences with either craving and hatred to lesser or greater degree. However, if the experience affecting me causes me to react - which is also the compulsion to act - that defies the third Axiom, free-will. By extension, if I act to effect pleasure/avoid pain, I re-enter causality, which defies free will. Therefore, what we call free will implies nothing about acting, which is cause and effect in action/reaction unification.
I feel this is on the right track, but think further exploration of these points could be very interesting.

Just what is 'Good' and 'Bad', and why are they good and bad? Just what is 'Free will', just how is it freeing, and what are the implications of that? I think so much flows from these basic understandings.
__________________


Willing to experience aloneness,
I discover connection everywhere;

Turning to face my fear,
I meet the warrior who lives within me;

Opening to my loss and pain and ignorance,
I remember who I am and what I'm here for.

Surrendering into emptiness,
I find fullness without end.

Each condition I flee from pursues me,
Each condition I welcome transforms me

and becomes itself transformed
into the blessing it always was.

~Jennifer Welwood~
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-11-2018, 07:52 PM
inavalan inavalan is offline
Ascender
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 785
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
Hi, Guys


If you haven't see the TV series 'The Good Place', I recommend that you watch it - all. It is about 4 people who find themselves in the afterlife (since they died on Earth, of course). The subtext of the main plot is basically a treatise on moral philosophy, and the show fundamentally questions what it means to be a 'good person'.


The concept of moral reward is when you do good things because you receive a reward, like a place in heaven, or otherwise, eternal punishment in hell, as Christianity says. Christian morality is fundamentally predicated on reward and punishment, which is also how "The Good Place" represents the afterlife.


Without too much of a spoiler alert, toward the end of season two, the way people are judged in the afterlife, as deserving of the 'good place' or 'the bad place' is questioned. Mainly, if one does good things to earn a heavenly place for themselves, does that mean they are not a good person because they expect the reward in return, and are really only doing it for the own selfishness? If something is done because a reward is promised, is that 'goodness' in essence? Is there essential goodness at all?
__________________
.

The way it works is: do always what you think is right, and you'll get in return what you deserve ( from the Universe / God / fate / whatever ...).

In your example, both deeds and intention will be considered.
__________________
Everything expressed here is what I believe. Keep that in mind when you read my post, as I kept it in mind when I wrote it. I don't parrot others. Most of my spiritual beliefs come from direct channeling guidance. I have no interest in arguing whose belief is right, and whose is wrong. I'm here just to express my opinions, and read about others'.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-11-2018, 08:53 PM
inavalan inavalan is offline
Ascender
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 785
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
...
There is still the issue of how goodness is associated with motive, so the pure selfish act as opposed the act to general benefit is merely a representation of why one does what they do. ....

Thoughts create thought forms. They materialize, and are attracted to, and attach to their creator, spanned over one or more lifetimes.

The thought forms that follow us are those we created not those created by those we acted upon. Theoretically ....

If your actions are "good", and your thoughts are "bad", then you create "bad" thought forms. If the recipients of your "good" actions have "good" thoughts then they create "good" thought forms, if they have "bad" thoughts then they create "bad" thought forms. Only the thought forms you created get attracted to you and will materialize in situations and people in like.
__________________
Everything expressed here is what I believe. Keep that in mind when you read my post, as I kept it in mind when I wrote it. I don't parrot others. Most of my spiritual beliefs come from direct channeling guidance. I have no interest in arguing whose belief is right, and whose is wrong. I'm here just to express my opinions, and read about others'.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-11-2018, 09:09 PM
inavalan inavalan is offline
Ascender
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 785
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kioma
I feel this is on the right track, but think further exploration of these points could be very interesting.

Just what is 'Good' and 'Bad', and why are they good and bad? Just what is 'Free will', just how is it freeing, and what are the implications of that? I think so much flows from these basic understandings.

Interesting ... "Good" is what you perceive to be "good" according to your best ability. If the feedback you receive doesn't feel "good" it means you didn't do good. Everything is balanced (a.k.a. karma).

You can't rely on others' advice, opinion, even if sometimes you have to take those in consideration.

"Free will" is exactly what the phrase means: you're free to do whatever you wish. You (your subconscious) create your own reality, conforming to your beliefs and emotions, not as you consciously wish.
__________________
Everything expressed here is what I believe. Keep that in mind when you read my post, as I kept it in mind when I wrote it. I don't parrot others. Most of my spiritual beliefs come from direct channeling guidance. I have no interest in arguing whose belief is right, and whose is wrong. I'm here just to express my opinions, and read about others'.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-11-2018, 01:48 PM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,236
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by inavalan
Thoughts create thought forms. They materialize, and are attracted to, and attach to their creator, spanned over one or more lifetimes.

The thought forms that follow us are those we created not those created by those we acted upon. Theoretically ....

If your actions are "good", and your thoughts are "bad", then you create "bad" thought forms. If the recipients of your "good" actions have "good" thoughts then they create "good" thought forms, if they have "bad" thoughts then they create "bad" thought forms. Only the thought forms you created get attracted to you and will materialize in situations and people in like.




It is fundamentally an issue of intent, good will or ill will, that underpins morality, and to truly know ones own intent requires absolute honesty, because sometimes we might be driven by desires to help and call that good-will, yet feel angst if we are not heeded or don't receive gratitude. It is a dilemma as a human with human needs to be sincerely kind in thought, word and deed completely independently of we ourselves might need, and feel we deserve in return.
__________________
.
Check out my signature.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-11-2018, 02:41 PM
7luminaries 7luminaries is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,481
  7luminaries's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
There are a couple of axioms to consider. Axiom 1: there is virtue concurrent with a universal goodness, and deviation from that sublimity is degenerate. Axiom 2: all people have an inherent instinct for Axiom 1. Axiom 3: A person is an entity with free will and therefore deserves comeuppance.


Whether the first 2 axioms are true of not, they pertain to universal law, and as such, are outside an individual's choice. The third axiom posits free will as the fundamental criteria of individualism, and because free will means individual choice, a human being has just desert with respect to the fixed axioms, 1 and 2. That is the basis of judgment.
Hello Gem,
I agree that there is an assumption of recognition of the value of self-aware sentience and our respective lives and existence, more broadly. Of the awareness that my highest good is equally valuable to yours and cannot abrogate yours without misalignment with the good. This foundational assumption of what aligns with or constitutes good is what must clearly be discounted or put aside, in order for misalignment to be intended or perpetrated.

Quote:
The entire framework is, therefore, a person knows 'goodness' subjectively, is empowered to chose between good and evil, and is deserving of pleasure or displeasure respectively (indeed, these outcomes would be resultant of inevitable universals). However, being compelled to act by desire for pleasure along with aversion to displeasure is seen as unwholesome since such desire and aversion propagates the purely selfish view that all events are acting on me - and hence I react to experiences with either craving and hatred to lesser or greater degree. However, if the experience affecting me causes me to react - which is also the compulsion to act - that defies the third Axiom, free-will. By extension, if I act to effect pleasure/avoid pain, I re-enter causality, which defies free will. Therefore, what we call free will implies nothing about acting, which is cause and effect in action/reaction unification.
So you are saying that our action can be guided by our free will (intent) only so far as it is not mindless or unreflectively driven by craving or aversion? If so, then yes, I would agree with that.

Quote:
In kammic law, will or volition is the cause of the kammic cycle. Will in this sense isn't only the desire to act (effect) and/or be acted upon (affected), that is, to experience sensation, but is also the more sublime notion of 'good-will vs. ill-will'. The latter fundamentally assumes axioms 1 and 2, forming an objective basis for morality in universal law.

Kammic law, however, does not posit an individual with free will. There is no third axiom in this paradigm. The kammic individual, called the santana, does not have any substance of enduring quality or entity - no 'identity' which endures from moment to moment. No one is there to cause an effect nor to be be affected. This resolves the individual causal-free-will dilemma of the typical Western paradigm (albeit at the expense of free will), and therefore, all notions of desert. The kammic paradigm thus does not allow for judgement even though it does involve consequences of sensation.

I'll have to come back later to describe 'cause and effect' (consequence) in context with kamma, because the thought I had for now has ended.
I have only the basics of the Pali cannon and Therevada Buddhism and am more familiar with Tibetan Buddhism. But within the eternal change paradigm, I get how one posits as a Buddhist that there is no self and so forth.

However, my own experience is that whilst there is eternal change in each moment, so too is there continuity of individuated consciousness. Kabbalah likewise says the world is recreated in each instant, but it also says that there is continuity (spiritually and thus also temporally and physically) between each instant and all instances up to that moment. So, yes and no. I still see that the essence of who we are -- and especially our core strengths and our core challenges -- remain across lifetimes. Not just the difficult or dark bits but the good as well. Lessons accrue, and actions taken shape the mettle of our individuated consciousness across the long arc of our spiritual growth.

Back to your point...are you saying that due to "no self" there is (or can be) no judgment or discernment for the individual regarding his or her intent, thought, word, or deed? Or do you mean there is (or can be) no judgment of others? Clearly, we seek become self-aware, to right-align intent...deed, and we seek to leave off intending or doing misaligned things. By "no judgment", are you saying from the Buddhist perspective that we note an intent or act is misaligned (i.e., bad in the sense of not good) and stop doing it, but we strive not to attach shame or moral inferiority (etc) to ourselves or others, or similar? If so, I can understand this and it is the right way to proceed, IMO.

Given our self-aware sentience and our ability to reflect and choose (however difficult or poorly informed it may be, LOL), we do take decisions and make judgments -- and must do, as I see it. It is an aspect of being self-aware that we must assess and take ownership for our intent, thought, word, and deed. But I also agree that judgment without equanimity, humility, compassion, and lovingkindness is imbalanced and often quite harmful. As the history of humanity to date has often proven.

Peace & blessings
7L
__________________
Bound by conventions, people tend to reach for what is easy.

Here we must be unafraid of what is difficult.

For all living beings in nature must unfold in their particular way

and become themselves despite all opposition.

-- Rainer Maria Rilke
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:17 AM
Ordnael Ordnael is offline
Knower
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 127
 
Quote:
Without too much of a spoiler alert, toward the end of season two, the way people are judged in the afterlife, as deserving of the 'good place' or 'the bad place' is questioned. Mainly, if one does good things to earn a heavenly place for themselves, does that mean they are not a good person because they expect the reward in return, and are really only doing it for the own selfishness? If something is done because a reward is promised, is that 'goodness' in essence? Is there essential goodness at all?

If there is Justice, then yes, a good deed is rewarded regardless of the expectation of the person, or anyone else's expectations.

They could say the contrary, let's suppose you were raised by very selfish parents who taught you that good deeds are punishable in the afterlife, does that make it true?

What they are basically implying is that your afterlife is shaped by your beliefs and expectations, and not by what you actually did and achieved, which sounds absurd. Anyone could believe and expect whatever they want, that doesn't necessarily make it a reality. For instance, those famous rock stars who killed themselves at the age of 27, expecting to meet in a heavenly place where they could enjoy pleasures and eternal youth. If there are higher orders of beings, they might not comply at all with the whims and fantasies of humans.

What is not advisable, though, is to do something good out of vanity, to be popular, to be famous, to receive the applause and praise of people, because that is vain. Vanity nullifies charity, therefore, one gains nothing when motivated by vain desires instead of spiritual purposes.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15-11-2018, 08:59 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,236
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
Hello Gem,
I agree that there is an assumption of recognition of the value of self-aware sentience and our respective lives and existence, more broadly. Of the awareness that my highest good is equally valuable to yours and cannot abrogate yours without misalignment with the good. This foundational assumption of what aligns with or constitutes good is what must clearly be discounted or put aside, in order for misalignment to be intended or perpetrated.

So you are saying that our action can be guided by our free will (intent) only so far as it is not mindless or unreflectively driven by craving or aversion? If so, then yes, I would agree with that.


In my meditations I have seen or felt or somehow discovered something which has no will but emanates pure infinite love, and I rate goodness by a standard with is not intellectual, but endemic to It's nature, and even though the human desire for such an experience can be strong, there is no way of making it happen. It happens unexpectedly and suddenly all by itself and there are no steps to take or any methodical approach. There is no way to achieve it, some say because it already is, and although that is true, as it is 'always', when you look for it, it is always behind you.


Quote:
I have only the basics of the Pali cannon and Therevada Buddhism and am more familiar with Tibetan Buddhism. But within the eternal change paradigm, I get how one posits as a Buddhist that there is no self and so forth.

However, my own experience is that whilst there is eternal change in each moment, so too is there continuity of individuated consciousness. Kabbalah likewise says the world is recreated in each instant, but it also says that there is continuity (spiritually and thus also temporally and physically) between each instant and all instances up to that moment. So, yes and no. I still see that the essence of who we are -- and especially our core strengths and our core challenges -- remain across lifetimes. Not just the difficult or dark bits but the good as well. Lessons accrue, and actions taken shape the mettle of our individuated consciousness across the long arc of our spiritual growth.


In Buddhism, the individual, santana, is eternal in its own right, but not continuous. It is recreated in each moment but this moment shares the characteristics of the last. However, there is no substance which survives from one moment to the next. Thus the context, there is santana, but no continuity of an enduring soul...


Quote:
Back to your point...are you saying that due to "no self" there is (or can be) no judgment or discernment for the individual regarding his or her intent, thought, word, or deed? Or do you mean there is (or can be) no judgment of others? Clearly, we seek become self-aware, to right-align intent...deed, and we seek to leave off intending or doing misaligned things. By "no judgment", are you saying from the Buddhist perspective that we note an intent or act is misaligned (i.e., bad in the sense of not good) and stop doing it, but we strive not to attach shame or moral inferiority (etc) to ourselves or others, or similar? If so, I can understand this and it is the right way to proceed, IMO.


Yes. We don't attach value judgments to people because there is no continuous person to whom it applies, but we can discern how intent is genuinely kind in that it is truly inspired in selfless love, or how intent is malicious in that it is inspired by personal reactivity, desires and aversions, towards one's own sensational experience. Fundamentally, it has nothing to do with others and everything to do with one's own generation of mind - intent being the urge to move the mind - the genesis of kamma. Therefore, should you enter into value judgement of another such as what they deserve, that is your kamma, and not theirs.


Quote:
Given our self-aware sentience and our ability to reflect and choose (however difficult or poorly informed it may be, LOL), we do take decisions and make judgments -- and must do, as I see it. It is an aspect of being self-aware that we must assess and take ownership for our intent, thought, word, and deed. But I also agree that judgment without equanimity, humility, compassion, and lovingkindness is imbalanced and often quite harmful. As the history of humanity to date has often proven.

Peace & blessings
7L




Quite.
__________________
.
Check out my signature.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old Today, 03:20 PM
Kioma Kioma is offline
Guide
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: The Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 584
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
There are a couple of axioms to consider. Axiom 1: there is virtue concurrent with a universal goodness, and deviation from that sublimity is degenerate. Axiom 2: all people have an inherent instinct for Axiom 1. Axiom 3: A person is an entity with free will and therefore deserves comeuppance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
I agree that there is an assumption of recognition of the value of self-aware sentience and our respective lives and existence, more broadly. Of the awareness that my highest good is equally valuable to yours and cannot abrogate yours without misalignment with the good. This foundational assumption of what aligns with or constitutes good is what must clearly be discounted or put aside, in order for misalignment to be intended or perpetrated.

So you are saying that our action can be guided by our free will (intent) only so far as it is not mindless or unreflectively driven by craving or aversion? If so, then yes, I would agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
In my meditations I have seen or felt or somehow discovered something which has no will but emanates pure infinite love, and I rate goodness by a standard with is not intellectual, but endemic to It's nature, and even though the human desire for such an experience can be strong, there is no way of making it happen. It happens unexpectedly and suddenly all by itself and there are no steps to take or any methodical approach. There is no way to achieve it, some say because it already is, and although that is true, as it is 'always', when you look for it, it is always behind you.
I find this line of discussion very interesting. It implies a great many things, but leaves some fundamental things unconnected. Just what is 'pure infinite love' in this context, and how does it relate to universal goodness, justice, and moral reward?
__________________


Willing to experience aloneness,
I discover connection everywhere;

Turning to face my fear,
I meet the warrior who lives within me;

Opening to my loss and pain and ignorance,
I remember who I am and what I'm here for.

Surrendering into emptiness,
I find fullness without end.

Each condition I flee from pursues me,
Each condition I welcome transforms me

and becomes itself transformed
into the blessing it always was.

~Jennifer Welwood~
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums