Life's meaning/purpose

Cryacuz, that is probably one reason the Buddha adopted the middle way, neither self-indulgence nor self-denial. Both serve only to strengthen one's sense of separateness (as manifested in pride and vanity). The illusory nature of the self is realized only by careful examination (viz. mindful meditation of some sort), not by asceticism. We do not kill or suppressthe ego; we expose it for what it is.

Speaking about the middle way, I have been thinking about that lately. The issue that has been bothering me is love vs attatchment. I noticed the issue was up a few posts ago. Buddha denied hos followers to love, because he said that it would only lead to attatchment. I have experienced the truth of this, as have we all, and I find it ironic that love is such a liberating feeling. The attatchment is, after all, what invariably destroys it. I think it happens because we do not know ourselves.

I am, of course, speaking of love between individuals, between man and woman. I am searching for a middle way. Do you think it is possible to love without attatchment?

Of course. To truly love otheres is to appreciate them, and in so doing to foster and accept their independence. The other kind of love is where we desilre to possess, to own, others because they satisfy our needs. In successful marriages and love relations there exists some degree of both kinds--let's be realistic--but the RATIO must skew very strongly in favor of the first kind.

The kind of "buddhist" love, referred to as compassion, is totally selfless. If any self is involved it is anidentification with the other, as in the case of empathy. But "attachment", as I understand it, is a different matter. It is either the desire to benefit, possess, injure, avoid, etc. . Whatever results from our depriving others of their fluid nature. To accept the impermanence and flux of others is to be unable to attach in any way to them.
At base, however, is our core attachment, our attachment to the illusory notion or feeling of a solid "self", one who can grasp and possess other solid beings and things.

A very enlightening post JL.



The conventional lingo in thes kinds of arguments, when they are conducted between lovers, is that "it" should go both ways. In this particular case I felt love for her, but not attatchment. That was not good enough for her, because it did not make her feel wanted or loved.

My conclusion was that she was not enough for herself, in a way, and that she was also inadequate for me for that reason. The thing is that I am repelled by these attatchments. There is a kind of deference in the process that too often makes me lose interest.

But maybe this is all wrong too. Maybe I think like this because I have only met people who wished to attatch themselves to me, not to wich I wanted to attatch myself.

Could be. When I have been infatuated, I have been a bit crazy. The Greeks called it Divine Madness for good reason. But I seem to benefit only from the love I have for others, and this never involves the attachment of possessing them--only a deep affectionate appreciation for their uniqueness, not totally unlike my love for great works of art.

The survival and perpetuation of ribonucleic acids and their associated proteins, according to Dawkins.

Permit me to pontificate: If life's "meaning and purpose" is not realized in each fluid, ever changing sensation, thought, and moment, one is suffering the "dukkha" described by the Buddha. Do not look for release by way of abstract plans, dramatic plots or theoretical truths. We can only find rest in the immediate concrete reality of living experience. Amen

I second that opinion.

Btw, do you think there is a connection, linguistic or otherwise, between the words "amen" and "omm"? "Amen" translates, as I understand it, to "let it be so", or "may it be so". "Omm" translates to something similar, only it is stripped of the notion of time, unlike "amen". What say ye?

I havn't the foggiest idea. I hope someone does.

I think we are driven by some abstract principal in our DNA.

Right. If suffering the dukkha means not spouting out a load of hippy claptrap, give me the molecular biologist's thoughts on life's meaning any day.



Of course not.

It's given an array of loose English translations. "So be it" is the most common. As a good little Jew, I was once taught "amen" was an acronym. A/E(l) Me(lech) N(e'eman); God, king who is trustworthy.

However, now I know that all Semitic words have a three letter root, this one alef, mem, nun. Many words related to the concept of belief have these three key letters. "Emuna" is faith, "l'ha'amin" is the verb to believe.

Anyway, to answer your question, obviously there's no linguistic relationship between a particular word in an Afro-Asiatic language and one in some... what, Tibeto-Burmen language? They're completely different language trees with different roots.

Couldn't they both be rooted in the dioxynuclyshazzamatazz.

Watch it, Spendius. That sounds a bit like hippy claptrap.
Thanks to Levy for the advice. The next time I suffer some spiritual existential crisis, I'll look up a molecular biologist. Oh, my mistake, he was not talking about life's meanings; he was talking about the technical meaning of "life."

On the contrary, if I wanted to define life technically, I'd say the generally accepted characteristics manifested in metabolism, reproduction, and environmental response, all of which must be present in any "living" organism.

However, "survival and perpetuation" are indeed acceptable as a theory of purpose of anything. It's my opinion that anything deeper than that is trivial. Certainly you were just expressing your opinions before you decided to "pontificate" me, a word implying arrogant assertion and superiority.

JL Nobody:-

I would need to know what you meant by "hippy claptrap" before I could respond.Your remark is ambiguous.

There is a danger that some people using the correct chemical name for DNA might believe that they knew what it was.Dioxynuclyrazzamattaz is a more realistic designation I feel.

I agree with Levi in the main.I am actually suprised he hasn't taken my point on board.

Levi, thanks for that information. But I bet even the roots of the afro-asiatic and the roots of the "Tibeto-burmen" both vanish in the fog long before we see their origins. What if all knowledge is fragments of what was given us by Manu, the sun god?

When it comes to the purpose and meaning of life I find it unneccesary to separate the various qualities of life. The mechanical functions of sustained life are every bit as purposeful as the spiritual aspect of it. I, for one, see purpose everywhere. I cannot see it's origins or it's intentions, wich leads me to sometimes doubt that there is anything apart from my desire. But I know the doubt is fallable.

A meaning of life can not be looked at by only looking at DNA structures. It provides the information for our phenomena to arise, but one can not look at a mere DNA strand and decide a meaning for life.

Then one would have to look to other things or give up the quest.

What other things are worth looking into?

For the record, I didn't mention DNA specifically, but all ribonucleic acids (nor did I say that "looking at their structure[s]" would provide meaningful insight).

If you are referring to another post (I wasn't sure), then disregard this message.

That's closer to the razzamaatazz.