Who Wants to Live Forever? And Why?

[muichimotsu]

Consciousness is not what solely makes us human, I'd argue and not through any religion, but humanism in general, metaphysics in philosophy

 

[Madhuri]

So because I want to use my thought on practical matters, I'm wasting my energy?

You made a generalisation that people are unwilling to accept 'reality' (which apparently you know all about) and wish to live in some dreamland. I said speak for yourself.
You read into my answers in a strange way.

So devas have physical bodies? That seems fairly new. I wasn't aware that they were just floating around somewhere in the universe as aliens or the like. I'm aware they're meant to be progression, this is the case in both Buddhism and Hinduism.

Devas have astral bodies, which is a step up from material but a step down from spiritual. That's why the devas are 'gods' of particular planets and material elements and places etc. They also belong to the universe.

Your disgust at imperfection seems to be a personal problem more than anything objective. That's like being averse to the existence of pain or disease. Those enable us to solve problems, develop immunities, etc. The same thing could be said for imperfection: it allows us to grow, which is admittedly your goal in some sense. You should welcome imperfection, even if you happen to want the unattainable and undesirable perfection. See my signature for more on that.

It isn't that I don't value 'imperfection' although if I'm being honest I don't believe in imperfection (can anyone define 'perfection'? Seems completely subjective to me). What I don't accept, the way you seem to, is that this world is great the way it is or that you wouldn't want to exist in a peaceful or happy environment. I have no problem admitting that I would immensely prefer to exist in a place without suffering.

 

[Madhuri]

Consciousness is not what solely makes us human, I'd argue and not through any religion, but humanism in general, metaphysics in philosophy

I never said it was.

 

[muichimotsu]

You made a generalisation that people are unwilling to accept 'reality' (which apparently you know all about) and wish to live in some dreamland. I said speak for yourself.
You read into my answers in a strange way.

I only work with what you give me. If I misinterpret, requalify and correct, by all means. I don't claim to know reality as it is, but I feel like I'm closer to it by not wasting time with the supernatural.

Devas have astral bodies, which is a step up from material but a step down from spiritual. That's why the devas are 'gods' of particular planets and material elements and places etc. They also belong to the universe.

Like the Greek pantheon? Can't say I've looked much into perspectives on devas and asuras, so I'll take your word on it for the moment

It isn't that I don't value 'imperfection' although if I'm being honest I don't believe in imperfection (can anyone define 'perfection'? Seems completely subjective to me). What I don't accept, the way you seem to, is that this world is great the way it is or that you wouldn't want to exist in a peaceful or happy environment. I have no problem admitting that I would immensely prefer to exist in a place without suffering.

Suffering in what way? Suffering in some cases is unavoidable and even benefits us, even if we don't always see the positives. Death comes to mind. Perfection is subjective, I'll admit, but we have quite large imaginations as humans, so perfection can go to extreme levels, I've found

I'd want to exist in a better environment, not a utopia, which in the Greek, is ironically, no place

 

[muichimotsu]

I never said it was.

But you seem to focus on consciousness over our actions and stuff that, while admittedly resultant in some sense from consciousness, is also separate in some sense, as much of a nondualist as I am in some sense.

 

[Madhuri]

Then you admit it's purely subjective and unfalsifiable?

I don't know what it is, only what it is like.
I do believe that time is subjective.

And I can imagine what it's like to fly without any machinery, doesn't mean I can. This seems to boil down to near solipsism in that anyone's criticism or otherwise poking holes in these beliefs is met with dismissal

All I'm saying is that my experiences grant me the ability to see possibility in a concept. Sometimes something may seem impossible because we can't imagine it. In my case, something seems possible because my experience allows me to be able to imagine it.

If we relate this to our original topic, which is the question of would I be ok to exist as an immortal then I would say that yes, I would be quite ok with it. This is because from my experiences, whether real or not, I can imagine what it would be like to experience timelessness, peace, unity and joy. And I can believe that I would not tire of existing in that state.

Please take special attention to this above paragraph as it is key to my whole argument.

Because human love isn't good enough and we always want better and better. We're so grateful for what we have...

Where do you get these ideas from? Projection, maybe?
Where did I say human love is not enough?

Human love is just fine when it is real.
The main difference between loving someone or something while human and loving while in the state of Realisation is that this spiritual state is characterised by equal love for all things. Humans tend to limit their love. This is not a criticism btw.

So we become a hivemind, it appears. No sense of even remote individualization, we cease to be as a consciousness with uniqueness

Not necessarily. The philosophy I adhere to is actually called 'simultaneous oneness and difference'. It teaches that although we are part of God (the Whole) we are eternally distinct and unique.

 

[Madhuri]

Suffering in what way? Suffering in some cases is unavoidable and even benefits us, even if we don't always see the positives. Death comes to mind. Perfection is subjective, I'll admit, but we have quite large imaginations as humans, so perfection can go to extreme levels, I've found

I'd want to exist in a better environment, not a utopia, which in the Greek, is ironically, no place

Suffering is beneficial when it allows us to grow and learn and become wise.
I'd like to reach the goal of complete awareness where suffering is no longer possible or necessary.

So I'd very much like to exist in a space where suffering is not necessary.

What kind of better environment would you like to live in?

 

[Madhuri]

But you seem to focus on consciousness over our actions and stuff that, while admittedly resultant in some sense from consciousness, is also separate in some sense, as much of a nondualist as I am in some sense.

My original comment was not a comment on what makes us human.
I don't believe our core self is human either. I follow a belief system that sees the self as a soul that wears one body after another. What makes us human is a range of things, particularly relating to genetics.

You said that in this state of immortality, we would be dehumanised and exist as some disembodies thing. We would be half human at best, you said.

My comment in reply was to say that we wouldn't be human at all. We would be something other. But it wouldn't be 'less' it would be 'more'. In terms of our capacity to do things and to think things and be aware (ie/ consciousness), it would be much more than what our capacity is right now in this limited human vehicle. There is plenty of material in Hinduism to suggest that the soul has an eternal spiritual form as opposed to your suggestion of being disembodied.

My emphasis on consciousness is due to the fact that according to Vedic religions, consciousness is not material at all but is part of the eternal soul. It is not a human thing. It is also something that can be limited or expanded. So my previous comment where I said 'especially consciousness' is because in the state of enlightenment/Realisation, consciousness is complete. That means we have full awareness of everything (omniscience).

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't know what it is, only what it is like.
I do believe that time is subjective.

I can agree with this in principle. Time seems to fly by in some cases and drag through in others

All I'm saying is that my experiences grant me the ability to see possibility in a concept. Sometimes something may seem impossible because we can't imagine it. In my case, something seems possible because my experience allows me to be able to imagine it.

If we relate this to our original topic, which is the question of would I be ok to exist as an immortal then I would say that yes, I would be quite ok with it. This is because from my experiences, whether real or not, I can imagine what it would be like to experience timelessness, peace, unity and joy. And I can believe that I would not tire of existing in that state.

Seems like this might be easier if you took the 5 pairs and set up what your immortality is so we can compare.

Where do you get these ideas from? Projection, maybe?
Where did I say human love is not enough?

Human love is just fine when it is real.
The main difference between loving someone or something while human and loving while in the state of Realisation is that this spiritual state is characterised by equal love for all things. Humans tend to limit their love. This is not a criticism btw.

Love being something you have to work at feels more genuine to me than a love that is perfect from the start with no effort

Not necessarily. The philosophy I adhere to is actually called 'simultaneous oneness and difference'. It teaches that although we are part of God (the Whole) we are eternally distinct and unique.

Not quite a hivemind, but still tricky with the binding to God innately

 

[muichimotsu]

My original comment was not a comment on what makes us human.
I don't believe our core self is human either. I follow a belief system that sees the self as a soul that wears one body after another. What makes us human is a range of things, particularly relating to genetics.

You said that in this state of immortality, we would be dehumanised and exist as some disembodies thing. We would be half human at best, you said.

My comment in reply was to say that we wouldn't be human at all. We would be something other. But it wouldn't be 'less' it would be 'more'. In terms of our capacity to do things and to think things and be aware (ie/ consciousness), it would be much more than what our capacity is right now in this limited human vehicle. There is plenty of material in Hinduism to suggest that the soul has an eternal spiritual form as opposed to your suggestion of being disembodied.

My emphasis on consciousness is due to the fact that according to Vedic religions, consciousness is not material at all but is part of the eternal soul. It is not a human thing. It is also something that can be limited or expanded. So my previous comment where I said 'especially consciousness' is because in the state of enlightenment/Realisation, consciousness is complete. That means we have full awareness of everything (omniscience).

If it's purely spiritual, it's more disembodied. Heck, you admit it's just changing souls like you change jobs or some such thing.

Your idea gets into other discussions, admittedly, such as the nature of evolution in human nature, etc.

Human nature would have to be another discussion entirely, but I appreciate the qualification of your position. It's certainly interesting.

 

[Straw Dog]

I maintain my original position. The temporal and the eternal allow an equally qualitative degree of bliss and tranquility for the wise person living in the moment.

 

[muichimotsu]

If there is no real concept of time in the eternal, you can't live in the present moment, since there isn't any real sense of a sequence of moments-past, present, future, all blending together. Admittedly this is a nitpick in metaphysics, but it doesn't seem to make sense when I think about the position. A person who lives in the moment in eternity would probably only have no issue if they were also content in themselves, because merely living in the moment without that has a hedonistic aspect to it, no?

 

[Madhuri]

Love being something you have to work at feels more genuine to me than a love that is perfect from the start with no effort

So the love a mother has for her child is not genuine?

 

[Straw Dog]

If there is no real concept of time in the eternal, you can't live in the present moment, since there isn't any real sense of a sequence of moments-past, present, future, all blending together.

I have a concept of time per my human conditioning.

Admittedly this is a nitpick in metaphysics, but it doesn't seem to make sense when I think about the position. A person who lives in the moment in eternity would probably only have no issue if they were also content in themselves, because merely living in the moment without that has a hedonistic aspect to it, no?

We're all hedonists at heart. The variation is in the degree to which we are enlightened in our pursuit of self-interest. Most systems that deny the hedonic aspect tend to indirectly promote mass hypocrisy among their adherents.

 

[muichimotsu]

So the love a mother has for her child is not genuine?

Quite the opposite. She has to put effort into it, but it is innate. It doesn't mean it's perfect, since every mother differs.

 

[Madhuri]

If there is no real concept of time in the eternal, you can't live in the present moment, since there isn't any real sense of a sequence of moments-past, present, future, all blending together.

Wouldn't this mean that you are always living in the moment?
With timelessness, there is no past and future. There is only the now.

A person who lives in the moment in eternity would probably only have no issue if they were also content in themselves, because merely living in the moment without that has a hedonistic aspect to it, no?

I agree. Part of being Realised is to understand the true nature of the Self and to be completely content with the Self.

 

[Madhuri]

Quite the opposite. She has to put effort into it, but it is innate. It doesn't mean it's perfect, since every mother differs.

The love comes naturally. She is in love the moment the child is born. She puts in the effort because the love is already there.

Could you expand on your concept of love takes effort? It's possible I don't completely understand your meaning.
I've never felt that I've had to work for love. Love seems to come naturally to me.

 

[muichimotsu]

I have a concept of time per my human conditioning.



We're all hedonists at heart. The variation is in the degree to which we are enlightened in our pursuit of self-interest. Most systems that deny the hedonic aspect tend to indirectly promote mass hypocrisy among their adherents.

Admittedly there are different systems of time, though some make sense and are universal across the earth, far as I'm aware, at least in modern society (24 hour time system, for instance). Calendars are different, but that's below the basic daily system.

I wouldn't call myself a hedonist, though I do appreciate pleasure for what it is. But there is also such a thing as excess, which is what hedonism was in some ways condemned as excess, beyond moderation of pleasure.

 

[muichimotsu]

The love comes naturally. She is in love the moment the child is born. She puts in the effort because the love is already there.

Could you expand on your concept of love takes effort? It's possible I don't completely understand your meaning.
I've never felt that I've had to work for love. Love seems to come naturally to me.

The love is there, but she hasn't habituated it in all aspects of behavior.

To love as fully as possible takes effort. Anyone can love with selfish underlying motivates, but unselfish love is more difficult. That's the distinction I'd make. Love in the impulsive sense is neither discerning nor a good habit, but love in a conditioned sense of compassion is markedly different, since it is ideally tempered with wisdom.

 

[Madhuri]

The love is there, but she hasn't habituated it in all aspects of behavior.

To love as fully as possible takes effort. Anyone can love with selfish underlying motivates, but unselfish love is more difficult. That's the distinction I'd make. Love in the impulsive sense is neither discerning nor a good habit, but love in a conditioned sense of compassion is markedly different, since it is ideally tempered with wisdom.

I don't disagree.
And I don't think your idea conflicts with mine in this instance.
Since the state of Realisation comes from the cumulative experiences of our material existence, love is something (like wisdom) that is arrived at. That state of complete awareness and bliss (love) is not something that happens magically. We become that. So all this effort and learning we accumulate through life results in that state.