|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 1:51 am
I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I can't seem to get it out of my head. So I'll put it onto a thread. (I'm a freakin poet)
What would it mean to eliminate all suffering? Could it be done, I accept the answer it probably couldn't, but hypothetically if it could be, how would that change the meaning of things? Would it be a good thing?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:43 pm
To end all suffering would be to create a utopia. To create a utopia would be impossible. If it were possible, inevitably mankind would create their own problems. American leaders would call up Iraqi leaders, and say, "you know, you haven't attacked us lately. We know you're up to something." Iraq would respond with, "b***h, please! It's you who has been scheming against us!" America would respond with "Nuh-uh!" Then we'd start a nuclear war. Because there were no problems. So no, I'd say the world is better with the problems it has now.
YESH! I AM NOW IN YOUR HEADZZZZZZZZZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:44 pm
DrasBrisingr To end all suffering would be to create a utopia. To create a utopia would be impossible. If it were possible, inevitably mankind would create their own problems. American leaders would call up Iraqi leaders, and say, "you know, you haven't attacked us lately. We know you're up to something." Iraq would respond with, "b***h, please! It's you who has been scheming against us!" America would respond with "Nuh-uh!" Then we'd start a nuclear war. Because there were no problems. So no, I'd say the world is better with the problems it has now. What she said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:10 pm
Well personally, I'd say North Korea is a bigger issue... but...
If suffering were removed, people would no longer understand things like pain... and thus when it did occur, they would not know how to deal with it (should it occur). We judge the good, the "light," by the bad. With nothing to judge it against, neither would exist. From there, we move towards "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:21 pm
So there is no good without bad? Does that make it good to do something bad, in order to demonstrate the balance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:25 pm
Joshua_Ritter So there is no good without bad? Does that make it good to do something bad, in order to demonstrate the balance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:26 pm
Joshua_Ritter So there is no good without bad? Does that make it good to do something bad, in order to demonstrate the balance? What the hell? Green and blue? Apocalypse?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:03 am
As a Buddhist, I of course have to say this.
If suffering were to end, the wish of the bosatsu is complete and enlightenment for all is within grasping distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:05 am
Khalida Nyoka Well personally, I'd say North Korea is a bigger issue... but... If suffering were removed, people would no longer understand things like pain... and thus when it did occur, they would not know how to deal with it (should it occur). We judge the good, the "light," by the bad. With nothing to judge it against, neither would exist. From there, we move towards "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Even "good" acts still create suffering due to the fact they are finite. What's more, you're suggesting that in order to define something we need something else to measure it against. Not true. I don't need to see a bush to know that a tree is indeed a tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:45 am
Suffering can only be eliminated within the mind, as that is where it is created. Pain cannot be eliminated, as it is a phenomenon. No solution lies pandemically, only within each person on the path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:38 am
Joshua_Ritter Joshua_Ritter So there is no good without bad? Does that make it good to do something bad, in order to demonstrate the balance? . I would run but Dras said I better check some of my posts so now i'm on the hunt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:04 pm
Blind Guardian the 2nd Khalida Nyoka Well personally, I'd say North Korea is a bigger issue... but... If suffering were removed, people would no longer understand things like pain... and thus when it did occur, they would not know how to deal with it (should it occur). We judge the good, the "light," by the bad. With nothing to judge it against, neither would exist. From there, we move towards "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Even "good" acts still create suffering due to the fact they are finite. What's more, you're suggesting that in order to define something we need something else to measure it against. Not true. I don't need to see a bush to know that a tree is indeed a tree.
Thanks, Resident Buddhist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:33 am
Joshua_Ritter Blind Guardian the 2nd Khalida Nyoka Well personally, I'd say North Korea is a bigger issue... but... If suffering were removed, people would no longer understand things like pain... and thus when it did occur, they would not know how to deal with it (should it occur). We judge the good, the "light," by the bad. With nothing to judge it against, neither would exist. From there, we move towards "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Even "good" acts still create suffering due to the fact they are finite. What's more, you're suggesting that in order to define something we need something else to measure it against. Not true. I don't need to see a bush to know that a tree is indeed a tree.
Thanks, Resident Buddhist.Do you mean that, once someone becomes enlightened, do they remain that way forever? Because that answer would be yes. Or do you mean to ask if an enlightened beings acts are infinite because of the fact they are beyond good and evil? No. A enlightened beings actions are no longer fuelled by desire, hatred or ignorance, meaning all of their acts will simply be actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:25 am
Blind Guardian the 2nd Joshua_Ritter Blind Guardian the 2nd Khalida Nyoka Well personally, I'd say North Korea is a bigger issue... but... If suffering were removed, people would no longer understand things like pain... and thus when it did occur, they would not know how to deal with it (should it occur). We judge the good, the "light," by the bad. With nothing to judge it against, neither would exist. From there, we move towards "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Even "good" acts still create suffering due to the fact they are finite. What's more, you're suggesting that in order to define something we need something else to measure it against. Not true. I don't need to see a bush to know that a tree is indeed a tree.
Thanks, Resident Buddhist.Do you mean that, once someone becomes enlightened, do they remain that way forever? Because that answer would be yes. Or do you mean to ask if an enlightened beings acts are infinite because of the fact they are beyond good and evil? No. A enlightened beings actions are no longer fuelled by desire, hatred or ignorance, meaning all of their acts will simply be actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
