Are we just smarter animals faking morality because we wear clothes?

[mustbetribbin]

Apparently you haven't read the Jakta tales where Siddhartha talks about his past lives where he did some major kick ass, but were in reality metaphors of events of what happened in his own life before enlightenment.

Yes and don't you just understand that even so called Buddha's were not perfect, they are set in stone promoting this philosophy so that others can achieve more and do better in this life, it is not for us to continue making the same mistakes as they did, this does not allow for proper ascension, therefore is not what believe a Buddha would advise a follower to do, I am not a Buddhist however so I cannot say for certain.

You say you've achieved enlightenment but yet you belittle as so called boring life, just where exactly does your perception of life reach such greatness, why is what you perceive important, if you have defeated yourself as you have now claimed.

 

[mustbetribbin]

I would like to think that the goal of a religion is to progress understanding over time until a final apex of enlightenment is reached and sustained, clearly humans are not there yet but why would reverting backwards morally progress a people into a new age as most religions promote?

Life is not about making the same mistakes over and over as a population of human beings, it's about making new ones and reducing collateral damage as much as possible, repetition of the same mistakes over and over leads to many undesirable factors, who couldn't agree with this? Only those who crawl from a cesspool would desire such an existence.

 

[Buddha2525]

Yes and don't you just understand that even so called Buddha's were not perfect, they are set in stone promoting this philosophy so that others can achieve more and do better in this life, it is not for us to continue making the same mistakes as they did, this does not allow for proper ascension, therefore is not what believe a Buddha would advise a follower to do, I am not a Buddhist however so I cannot say for certain.

You say you've achieved enlightenment but yet you belittle as so called boring life, just where exactly does your perception of life reach such greatness, why is what you perceive important, if you have defeated yourself as you have now claimed.

Here's a story I've heard.

A Rama devotee, one of the most popular deities in India, who devoted his whole life to God came into old age, and for once had a little doubt. Although he's quite sure God exists, he asks himself, "Suppose I'm wasting my whole life doing Ram Ram Ram?"

See, this doubt will only come if you invest your whole life to something, but if you only invest ten minutes a week, it's alright what's the problem? You know?

Then there are others who believe in nothing and for them too the sun still rises and sets everyday. You wonder, he seems to have a better time than me? Why?

But he knows there's a God and those others are just wrong, yet he begins to doubt a little more.

Now before him is an enlightened being, Gautama Siddhartha, whom everyone calls Buddha. If anyone can alleviate my doubt, it's him, so he thinks.

Not wanting anyone to think him a hypocrite, for being greatly known as a proseltyizer of Rama, he comes early in the morning and stood in the shadows, and was the first to confront Buddha, asks, "Is there God?"

Gautama looked at the man and gave a clear emphatic, "No."

A congregation formed, and hearing the news Guatama had finally after years of silence not confirming nor denying the existence of God, for the first time gave an answer of, "No God."

Everyone was relieved, except the poor devotee of Rama,.who became devastated. But the others shouted for joy, because the enlightened one has declared, there's no God!

Throughout the day celebrations happened, because just imagine the freedom. Nobody is sitting up there, keeping accounts of what you did, and what you didn't do to punish you, burning you in hell, this or that.

Life is completely yours!

In the evening, once again the congregation is sitting, when another man came, a Charvaka, an out and out materialist, who don't believe in anything other than what they can see.

He was also standing in the shadows, like the devotee before. Which was very unlike him, because he was an expert Charvaka. Whatever kind of believer you are, if you talk to him for ten minutes, he'll prove to you, "No God."

For thousands of people he has proved no God. But he too came into old age, and inside him doubt began to form, "Suppose there's God? When I die, will he judge me, and punish my blasphemy? All these believers say He's got all kinds of torture equipment, and because I went about proving to everybody He doesn't exist, He may torture me that much more?"

But he knows better, and proved to thousands of people there's no God, yet his doubt becomes even greater.

Now an enlightened being is here, and he wants to confirm, asking the question, "Is there God?"

Guatama looked at the man and said, "Yes."

Once again turmoil started. In the morning he said, "no God", they were all really happy. In the evening he says, "There's no God."

So what's the game Gautama's playing? See if you believe there's God, or if you believe there's no God, you're in the same predicament. You believe something you don't know. Am I really a Buddhist? What only matters is what each of us believes.

I believe this, you believe that, which makes no difference. You can believe whatever you want. Everybody can believe whatever they want. It need not have anything to do with reality.

If you say, "I don't know," the longing to know will arise within you. If the longing arises, the seeking arises, if the seeking arises, the possibility of knowing exists.

 

[Grandpapy]

If you say, "I don't know," the longing to know will arise within you. If the longing arises, the seeking arises, if the seeking arises, the possibility of knowing exists.

Once the knowing exists, you "chop wood and carry water".
Good luck to you, I hope you can deepen your zen.

 

[Buddha2525]

I would like to think that the goal of a religion is to progress understanding over time until a final apex of enlightenment is reached and sustained, clearly humans are not there yet but why would reverting backwards morally progress a people into a new age as most religions promote?

Life is not about making the same mistakes over and over as a population of human beings, it's about making new ones and reducing collateral damage as much as possible, repetition of the same mistakes over and over leads to many undesirable factors, who couldn't agree with this? Only those who crawl from a cesspool would desire such a existence.

But that can only happen once you shame a person, and hopefully after a bit of self pity, they'll look at their wrong and change so they don't feel that way again.

But that assumes the person feels. Some are so broken there's no fixing them. What are we to do at that point?

Yet most when given an emotional incentive, will begin to ponder their action. Appeal to pure Vulcan logic doesn't work.At that point you need to agitate them, and make them realize they're trying to hard. Then finally a person will not want to bother and find an easier way.

 

[Fogdog]

That article is saying pretty much what I have. Your atheism has clouded your brain that what science cannot currently, or won't ever explain, is fruitless to pursue.

By dominant I mean the ability to destroy Gaia beyond repair. Until before man, it was able to recover from the worst situations. We have the ability to change that if we don't stop our current path.

Pollution and resource management are more important than fixating on the symptom we don't fully comprehend, which scientism labels "climate change."

"I read a book" "Mushrooms increased man's brain size." "It's True"

LOL

Now you make up your own definition of dominant. Facts are, man does not dominate the earth. What you call dominant is only the ability to destroy ourselves and a majority of the species on earth as if that's a worthy goal. We don't have the ability to destroy the earth or life. Both will go on if we do ourselves in. What a chump.

 

[Rob Roy]

There are videos of wild animals helping, even saving, other animals lives. As well
as there are several species of animals that mate for life.

Mate for life? Even when I was younger I usually had to stop after several hours.

 

[Bugeye]

I think consciousness separates us from animals. The study of consciousness is far from complete and one of our great human mysteries.

 

[yummy fur]

I think this is an interesting thought someone else commented on.. To those in the other thread, that I unintentionally derailed, I apologise. So I will continue here answering comments from there for now on. Again Icm very sorry.

Moving on....

But what are we really? Do the random thoughts we have while stoned define our true self which only comes out without the filter society places on us to act a certain way?

That's the real reason marijuana is banned. It makes us question why we do things, but at the same time leaves us unmotivated to act upon them. But the man is afraid one day some motivated stoner might come along and wreck havok on our society.

Haven't read the thread and not gonna, but I will address the OP.

But what are we really?

So you have begun with the most vexing and basic of all philosophical question. I am not even going to begin to attempt to address this question. But I will cherry pick a couple of simple points that can be expanded, and in fact need to be expanded until one understands.

In this case it's more fruitful to see what we are *not*, you are asking in fact. Who and I. What do I mean when I say 'I'. There's the colloquial meaning, which is not what you are asking. When I say "I will come over to your place" you know what that means, you're not going to ask 'are you going to bring your body'.

I is the subject, I is not an object. Therefore anything that can be objectified is not I.

So it's easy to see for yourself what is not I. I'm clearly not my body because my body is an object for me. I objectify my body as you objectify my body. What about my thoughts well you do not objectify my thoughts, but clearly I objectify my thought. I know what I know. And I even objectify my ignorance, I know what I don't know. Even if I don't know what I don't know, you only have to mention it and I can tell you if I know it or not. I'll leave it there for the moment.

 

[SexForBreakfast]

Man in theat atempt to defend Buddhism I think you've done it the greatest disservice @Buddha2525

NPK farming is probably worse then factory farming for our environment. Using salt based nutrients rather than living biology makes water retention go down and water levels rise. You see it in major cities that arent designed well, small rain spouts create floods from there being no earth to obsorb the water

And you seriously are talking about Terrence McKenna? Dont get me wrong he was interesting but the guy literally believed he was god. He tried to make up some ridiculous math equation to predict the future. The guy was a fraud but a very interesting one.

You cling onto your religion and look down upon those who you feel aren't enlightened meanwhile you're on a rock by yourself. You really have no objective perspective just following what you were told to more or less. Your religion is more about you feeling correct and moral to you as far as I can see. That's a terrible direction to go.

Stop listening to so much Jordan Peterson and taking it all to heart man. He's brilliant but you aren't him.

 

[New Age United]

Time is an illusion but the Earth is very real. That is true Enlightenment. Anyone who does not understand that simple statement has not attained Enlightenment.

 

[Grandpapy]

Then Ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
Remaining teachable and open to knowledge is one the the greatest assets one can posses.

 

[yummy fur]

Time is an illusion but the Earth is very real. That is true Enlightenment. Anyone who does not understand that simple statement has not attained Enlightenment.

When you say, 'the Earth is very real', the problem here is that we have to define what is meant by real, in the context of a philosophical discussion. This is a problem because the English language does not have a word fine enough to make the distinction.

All we have in English is 'real, or not real', but in Sanskrit there is the word mithya, which I'm sure you have heard. Although it's meaning is not often clearly understood. It is neither real, nor unreal. The meaning of the word is 'dependently real'. That is it's reality is dependent on the existence of something else.

Then there is a further split between Absolute and Relative reality.

For example. Is a shirt real. Does it exist. Well you cannot say it does not exist, and you cannot say that it is not real because when it is cold and you put it on you are warm. But what is it's degree of reality. The word for 'real' as opposed to mithya, in Sanskrit is satyam. Another word I have no doubt you are familiar with.

Now if we say the shirt is real satyam, then from the POV of the cloth, it is mithya. Because the weight of the cloth is the weight of the shirt, the colour of the cloth is the colour of the shirt, you cannot destroy the cloth without destroying the shirt, in fact the shirt is just a form (here's another 50c word, 'rupam' form) of the cloth.

Like a gold ring and a gold chain. The chain and ring is just a form of the gold. Heat them up and the gold remains while the form melts and is no more. So the gold is satyam, real. The cloth is satyam, real.

BUT, that's a relative satyam, not an absolute satyam, because of course you can say the cloth is but a form of the fibres which are a form of the molecules and the atoms and the sub atomic particles which are just a vibration in a field which is an idea in the mind, which is an object of your knowledge, so that's also not you.

So the question then is there anything whose existence does not depend on the existence of something else. That which is independently real. This is called Sat. Which means Existence. It is synonymous with Cit, which is consciousness. They have the same meaning.

To cut to the chase, the answer to the question 'who am I' is absolute existence. I is. or I am. Existence, consciousness. However that is not what we take ourselves to be. And therein lies the fundamental human problem.

 

[New Age United]

When you say, 'the Earth is very real', the problem here is that we have to define what is meant by real, in the context of a philosophical discussion. This is a problem because the English language does not have a word fine enough to make the distinction.

All we have in English is 'real, or not real', but in Sanskrit there is the word mithya, which I'm sure you have heard. Although it's meaning is not often clearly understood. It is neither real, nor unreal. The meaning of the word is 'dependently real'. That is it's reality is dependent on the existence of something else.

Then there is a further split between Absolute and Relative reality.

For example. Is a shirt real. Does it exist. Well you cannot say it does not exist, and you cannot say that it is not real because when it is cold and you put it on you are warm. But what is it's degree of reality. The word for 'real' as opposed to mithya, in Sanskrit is satyam. Another word I have no doubt you are familiar with.

Now if we say the shirt is real satyam, then from the POV of the cloth, it is mithya. Because the weight of the cloth is the weight of the shirt, the colour of the cloth is the colour of the shirt, you cannot destroy the cloth without destroying the shirt, in fact the shirt is just a form (here's another 50c word, 'rupam' form) of the cloth.

Like a gold ring and a gold chain. The chain and ring is just a form of the gold. Heat them up and the gold remains while the form melts and is no more. So the gold is satyam, real. The cloth is satyam, real.

BUT, that's a relative satyam, not an absolute satyam, because of course you can say the cloth is but a form of the fibres which are a form of the molecules and the atoms and the sub atomic particles which are just a vibration in a field which is an idea in the mind, which is an object of your knowledge, so that's also not you.

So the question then is there anything whose existence does not depend on the existence of something else. That which is independently real. This is called Sat. Which means Existence. It is synonymous with Cit, which is consciousness. They have the same meaning.

To cut to the chase, the answer to the question 'who am I' is absolute existence. I is. or I am. Existence, consciousness. However that is not what we take ourselves to be. And therein lies the fundamental human problem.

Very good to see the rising of awareness and understanding. Very good post thank you.

 

[yummy fur]

Thanks NAU, I may as well answer the OP...

Are we just smarter animals faking morality because we wear clothes?

Well, of course we are animals, but we differ from animals in a fundamental way. The way we differ from animals also is the root cause of morality.

Animals are conscious beings, I think this is safe to infer without further explanation. However as alluded to in the earlier post, human beings have a fundamental problem which is the cause of all their problems. Human beings are conscious but unlike animals they are conscious of their consciousness. They are aware, but they are aware that they are aware. This gives humans the peculiar ability to come to a conclusion about themselves. To make a self judgement.

Animals cannot do this. The winning dog at a dog show does not have a superiority complex, this complex belongs entirely to the owner of the dog.

It is inevitable that a human being will come to a self conclusion, and that conclusion is as obvious as it is erroneous. A child sees the sun rise and set, that child will come to the obvious conclusion that the sun goes around the earth or at the very least the sun is in motion and the earth is not. No one is stupid for thinking that, if they have never been introduced to physics or astronomy. The point is that it is a natural conclusion.

And similarly it is a perfectly natural conclusion for a human being knowing that his/her strength is limited, knowledge is limited, eyesight is limited, on and on. The natural conclusion will be 'I am limited', wanting. I am a wanting person. I want, I lack.

This is why an enquiry is necessary into 'what is the 'I' that I seem to use all the time.

If I am the mind and the body, then clearly the body is limited, clearly the mind is limited. If I am the body and/or the mind, then clearly I am limited. And if I am what I take myself to be, then, I'm fucked. Why? Because the limited cannot become the limited by any addition of some limited thing.

I either already am the whole or I'm not and I never will be. There is not becoming there is no doing.

However no human being is content to be a wanting person. Someone who lacks, someone with a feeling of 'I want'. A wanting person. Everything we do is to get rid of this feeling of want. That will immediately tell you that being a wanting person is not our true nature because no one complains about the true nature of anything. You don't complain the fire is hot, it may be too hot for your comfort but you need to move away, you do not wonder why fire can't be cold.

So this peculiar faculty that allows us to come to a self conclusion also gives us the faculty of choice. Animals are run by their instincts. A dog is free enough to bark, but it is not so free that it can choose not to bark if it feels like barking. It is the ability to completely freely choose a course of action that give rise to morality.

All morality is based on the fact that I know how I wish to be treated and I am well aware that EVERYONE on earth wants to be treated the same way. We do not need to be told this, we do not need religions it is in build. Imagine if we were to have the faculty of choice but no way to know how to choose. If we needed religion to guide us then there would be something fundamentally wrong with the creation.

If a donkey kicks you in the head when you walk behind it, there was no malice. It does what it does, the owner is prosecuted not the donkey.

Take a group of people, randomly selected throughout the course of human history, in any place on earth. Line them up and ask them. 'Do you wish to be lied to, do you wish to be cheated, do you wish your property to be stolen, in fact do you wish to be harmed in any way'. You will get one resounding NO. Even a two year old knows it's wrong to hit because he himself does not want to be hit.

Jesus said do unto others etc, but we all already knew that. Even a burglar does not want to be robbed. It's not that he robs people and when he's robbed he doesn't care.

This is not complicated. It's pretty straightforward. Many people do not want to accept this, they will want to make excuses. This is because it adds to the negative self judgement. People ask for respect, or demand respect but other people shoring you up will not help. This inbuilt morality is annoying, you see if you do what is wrong, and I've just explained how you know, then no amount of other people shoring you up or justification will help.

Even if god stood in front of you all floaty and radiant and said to you "in my eyes, you are OK, and I'm god and you cannot get better than that" it would not help you because you'd just think to yourself 'yeah well that's such a god thing to say, he's just being nice and kind and loving, but I know I'm an arsehole".

So if you do wrong action you cannot get away from it. Human consciousness is a blessing and it's a curse. But it's only a curse if you perform wrong actions. It's a puzzle. It's not a problem. A puzzle has a solution.

 

[yummy fur]

Because the limited cannot become the limited by any addition of some limited thing.

This has been corrected to Because the limited cannot become the *limitless* by any addition of some limited thing.

It's worth pondering that the reason we strive to be limitless, that is not a wanting person, is because we have tasted it. And once someone has tasted their heights, they will not be satisfied with less. Even the most miserable person in the world has had moments when he wanted nothing, everything was fine just as it was. Even with a mortgage and marriage problems and job issues and children worries, even with the weight of the world upon your shoulders, it is still possible that your attention is captured for a moment. Perhaps you were driving in an unfamiliar place and as you round the bend a stunning vista opens up and for a moment you forget yourself. In that moment you are content. With none of your problems solved. Can you be sad without memory. It takes effort to be unhappy, but to be happy you just need to forget the erroneous notions that you have about yourself.

This is the purpose of entertainment, drugs, and other distractions. When we forget the ideas that we have about who we think we are, we are spontaneously happy. And if we are content when we drop our ideas about ourselves, then that must be our true nature.

Which raises the interesting question, should we work for self knowledge or self forgetfulness. I'll leave that one for you to ponder.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Human's are by far the most intelligent and resourceful species on the planet.

Why is this even being asked? You're asking the question on a fucking computer, using the internet..... sending 1's and 0's across intricate human inventions.

By the way, humans are not herbivores either. We have a much shorter digestive track than herbivores, because it's intended to be suitable for meat AND veg.... true carnivores have shorter, more aggressive tracks which lets them eat raw meat.

We, as humans, have an in-between digestive system and in-between teeth (and no second stomach). We cannot pull the same kinds of nutrients out of veg that say, cows can, and we can't eat raw meat like a wolf because it will make us sick due to us processing things slower and having them sit inside our bodies for longer.

Karma isn't real, and neither is god.

Namaste. lol

 

[New Age United]

Human's are by far the most intelligent and resourceful species on the planet.

Why is this even being asked? You're asking the question on a fucking computer, using the internet..... sending 1's and 0's across intricate human inventions.

By the way, humans are not herbivores either. We have a much shorter digestive track than herbivores, because it's intended to be suitable for meat AND veg.... true carnivores have shorter, more aggressive tracks which lets them eat raw meat.

We, as humans, have an in-between digestive system and in-between teeth (and no second stomach). We cannot pull the same kinds of nutrients out of veg that say, cows can, and we can't eat raw meat like a wolf because it will make us sick due to us processing things slower and having them sit inside our bodies for longer.

Karma isn't real, and neither is god.

Namaste. lol

Where in the fuck did God come into this? Can't we humans have a conversation, a debate, without ever mentioning God, jesus christ.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Where in the fuck did God come into this? Can't we humans have a conversation, a debate, without ever mentioning God, jesus christ.

Depends on the topic of conversation. If mystical nonsense is brought up that implies or involves god, it's hard to ignore the elephant in the room.

 

[ANC]

Where in the fuck did God come into this? Can't we humans have a conversation, a debate, without ever mentioning God, jesus christ.

Either you are right or wrong.... the repercussions of either is big enough never to leave any possible part out of the story.