I will suggest right now that this topic be moved to another location as it has nothing (directly ) to do w/ the Necronomicon. Dont misunderstand me--it is a good topic--just needs to be in the proper location....

I dont know whether you read Rudolf Steiner he is describing three main forces than influence humanity in negative way.Lucifer who influences minds to create illusions of every kind from philosophic to religious (fucks up human mind),Ahriman who influences carnal desires to make humans mechanic materialists and beast that only wants to satisfy its desires (fucks up human emotions),Sorath who controls both and want humans to revert to evil in every way possible including black magic,influencing our spirit.He said if they succeed they will cut off the evolution of Earth from the rest of the universe.He most seriously warned about reality of such forces.If you observe the world you can see all these influences.They are doing a good job.

I believe that there are high level demons that control hoardes of lesser demons. I believe a human can not only be possessed but also become a demon if they choose too. Many very intelligent and subtle demons (not like you see in movies) contribute to occult learning such as ours but also to the demise of the world. We do treat the world like crap. And we are influenced in ever changeing and very subtle ways mainly by the lesser demons. Not to mention that as we treat our own selves like crap the world responds to this in turn. So we are influenced by negative (and positive) beings all the time. Its no differant than when you here "heaven is only an inch away". It literally is just need to change how we are tuned. ok more later

Greetings Smoking Fox,

Re- read my posts and you will see that I am merely arguing that it is impossible and egotistical for us to believe that we can destroy the earth.THe current ecosystem yes, but that is not the earth. As humans we want to hang on to that which is dear to us (our forests, etc.), but in the grand scheme of things the earth is not the one that will pay the price of our behaviors, we will.

I state as a hypothetical that perhaps we are here to annihilate ourselves and the current biological status quo in order to bring on a new cycle of creation. It is the Tabula Rasa paradigm. Such a pattern is evident in our human history (as pointed out by Enochian) and our planet's history (as pointed out by myself, Edunpanna, and Seraphin). Our existence, everything we have come to love about "nature" is only a tiny wrinkle in the existence of our planet.

As for the spirit-all I'm advocating is the destruction of the Ego. When you realize that "I am" from a non-dual perspective, meaning I am all (emanation/creation ), or I am nothing (contraction/destruction), then our petty worries about a-bombs and the current ecosystem become irreverent. My alchemical references in the previous posts are a metaphor to describe the processes through which the Planet evolves, not our own Great Work- for when our own Work is complete, we experience the gnosis that the spirit of the Earth is also us , for we are everything and nothing at once.

In sum, there is no point in speeding up the process of destruction intentionally. The destruction will come-either from the microcosm (our A-bombs) or from the macrocosm (another meteorite). It is this destruction that will pave the way for a new form of existence... From the ashes of a destroyed ecosystem, new and wonderful things emerge that paint life on this planet in a new light. It is the limitations of physical human life that make this concept difficult to grasp. A human lifetime is nothing. Think in thousands and hundred of thousands of years and you will come to see the beauty of this process in which we find ourselves. For this reason I embrace the destruction. After all, as the Ouroboros reminds us, alpha is omega and destruction is creation.

This post has been edited by Faustopheles: Dec 19 2006, 07:40 PM

That's the human ego my friend. We, with a strong mind, have complete control of ourselves, this is coming from an ex-satanist.

Satanists who abide by demons are not even all alike, Rudolf Steiner's claims are as ambiguous just as any other christian's would be on Satanism, thus demons.

All I learned in my months as a Satanist were beneficial to me, the demonic influence on me has been vast, psychologically influencing me for the better, I learned how to love empathetically by Lucifer himself.

Lucifer has contacted many non-satanists (neo-pagans) to aid them and help them with mental problems they have had (Konstantinos for example).

ps. You do know that most Goetic Demons were Ancient Greek and Egyptian Deities right? Unless Rudolf is talking about the "lesser demons" thus astral junk, then I can see what you're talking about. But Lucifer is no way what Rudolf thinks he is.

If you want to discuss this post a topic on it and I'll fain post my insight, but once again, this thread has nothing to do with demons and Satan so I won't cultivate this any longer.

...hence I believe this thread belongs in the fight forums. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/butcher.gif)

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Dec 19 2006, 03:17 PM

This does need a new thread but is interesting.

Quote Deathstalker
That's the human ego my friend. We, with a strong mind, have complete control of ourselves, this is coming from an ex-satanist.

Satanists who abide by demons are not even all alike, Rudolf Steiner's claims are as ambiguous just as any other christian's would be on Satanism, thus demons.

There are few that are strong of mind. And most that are are looking in the wrong direction. So stuck in the materialism and love of themself and money.

The Demon is among us "as i started to say" as heaven is near us also. The manipulation can be seen in everything from music,television,movies, government warmongers are easy pray because there Meditative like goals for power and domination are a gateway, Christians (not all no flames needed) are so focussed on how right they are and the rest of the world is fallen that its a negative and also a gateway. Any "over indulgence" such as sexualy or with food. These are just being reaped all the time. The sevn deadly sins are simple enough to understand. Follow those and the ten commandments and you will not go to far off course.
Now how does it affect our world? Natural disasters occur regularly when the world is not "balanced" when to many people beleieve the end is comeing it affects the outcome of this as well. Just one persons thoughts as you all know by now can and have changed the world. But when you have millions that believe the end is near you can feel the energy of it all about you.
All energy follows certain things for instance a person who is stuck on themselves, or negative about everything or full of hate this is a powerful energy that you can see and feel. When you have his kind of "attraction" other things begin to look at this also. The demonic see this from where they are and feed on it, As you continue it becomes a gateway. The term used by us is like attracts like. well indeed you feel the energies of someone in you mind frame and the energy is attractive. The same goes for ego. The bigger the ego the more focussed it is on debachery or hatred the more energy it builds and the more negative it attracts.

Just want to add to that spirit of the earth, spirt of the air thing. In south america the aztec shamans call the underworld dietys spirit of the earth and the catholic saints spirts of the sky. IF you ever get a chance to hang with shamans in south america and drink Ayahuasca jump on that opportunity. They are very similar to the sumerians.

This post has been edited by distillate: Dec 19 2006, 06:43 PM

oh man I can't resist quoting ozzy in his black sabbath years...


Now I have you with me under my pow'r
Our love grows stronger now with ev'ry hour
Look into my eyes, you'll see who I am
My name is Lucifer, please take my hand

That's true.

In my opinion the only "negative force" upon us is that of the oppression of society, and the atrocity in guile of hope, of the government. We are being brainwashed by the electronic media without even knowing it. Our views and personal thoughts cast astray so we won't have a mind of our own; thus making us easy prey for manipulation by our beloved Government, which itself, is controlled incessantly by vigilant religious tethers... the same religions who blame any kind of knowledge (which is a threat to the government and religous reign) as Lucifer's work, or "demonic influence".

The true devil is that which introduced us to fear and sin, the true devil is he who tries to usurp us of our free will and knowledge, the true devil is our government (thus, the church).

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Dec 19 2006, 11:18 PM

And thus the demon is influencing the government that trys daily to control us more and more. Maybe even demonic beings in the government itself? But i believe to say all government is corrupt to be wrong. There are always some angelic and true people in any part of religion and the government. If the balance was totally gone we would have to fight daily just to stay alive.

I disagree with but one thing you say that government is fallen so religion is. They are not one and the same. Religion does have good attributes in it it does at the least either scare people or change people to believe in god and thus pay attention to there spirit in return. Dont get me wrong religion trys to herd people and make believers of false doctrines. But at the least they realize spirit and eternal life to exist.

Hence why I've created my own (very spiritual) religion.

Me to my friend, me too. Its my own and well i doubt any would ever join. Nor do i care. The study of all esoteric materials and religions in general the goal of gnosis is my religion.

LOL
You dont know what i meant and what you are answering to... Never mind. You have Your opinion and i have Mine ;-)

your statement on "we humans can never kill the earth" reminds me of stuff that previous people thought as "we humans will never fly" "we humans will never walk on the moon" etc etc... i again say that you take things in matter of proportion. if humans are much much smaller that the earth, then humans cant harm earth.

As for final fantasy, yes i watched it several times and also for the playstation game. I mostly liked FF7


what you meant by this! was it a sort of threat???

This post has been edited by mystick: Dec 20 2006, 12:31 AM

No, no threat. It is more like saying think before you speak (or in this case write). You intended to insult my intelligence in your post, and I demonstrated how your attempts failed. I guess the analogy would be more akin to you sticking your foot in your mouth...no threat. Anyway, I don't wish to play at this level.

I have nothing against you My stick, in fact I find myself often agreeing with and enjoying your posts. Really, don't dwell on this. We can't see eye to eye because we cant shift to the others perspective...it may be fun to comeback to this at another date and time and see if we can understand the others argument without getting overly emotional.

Peace brother

lol the way you typed My stick...lol. Ya dude i guess i have taken it too far when i read the part "the earth does not give a fuc&*" and got a bit nasty. I know you wrote this in a sort of anger towards humans ;-) Infact i am not even taking the part of mankind as such...

Pardon for the insult to your intelligence.

Ya sure i guess we can comeback to this without getting overly emotional. but i guess my english is not that good for me to express all i want, still i get your point... It might be that mankind was supposed to be only a phase of earth evolution. but Mankind has got a lot of aid from above to be able to have a much bigger influence :-)
Sometimes humans can just make a snow ball but this ball can cause an "avalanche" -forgot the english name, and this can be rather bad...

regards ,
My Stick ;-)

LOL

apologies for the misspelling, Mystick.

Your a good man.. and your English is fine. We might share more in common than you think...

holy shit (no pun intended) that has to be the funnyest thing I ever saw!

Faust, i understand well enough that we cannot destroy the earth as a planet. And that life will reemerge continually.
But that does not mean we cannot do damage to the planet.
Your idea of the need for destruction is full of holes. There is just nothing to be gained from it.
There doesn't need to be destruction for new things to emerge. Evolution comes naturally and peacefully over years, there is no need for the destruction of anything.
Destruction only delays evolution, it brings a wasted deadland for millions of years on this planet, something the planet has no desire for.

You claim it is egotistical to think we can kill earth, even more so, i think it is egotistical to think we cannot harm the earth.
I think we can all agree that earth's natural state of being, its "enligthenment" is to be filled with life. Because that is what the earth strifes for.
It is the point towards what earth moves every time again and again.
At every destruction, after every ice age, it moves towards life again. It evolves towards a green planet, filled with life.
So, this seems to be earths own wish, its goal, becouse it comes naturally to it.
Wo are we then to deny it, and on what logic do you claim the need for the damage you seem to advocate.

I understand your point well enough, so we can'tt "kill" earth. But not all that damages and hurts a being kills a being.
Perhaps if we where to take your standpoint, it would be best to really try to kill earth, since torture is a cruel fate.

And then we come to the point of every living creature on earth, nature itself.
So, compassion and respect for whats green and alive on this earth is egotistical to you?
Caring about nature at the expense of your own species (by researching green energies) is what you see as selfish?
I think it takes an enlightened being to put the needs of other life before his own, and not the other way around as you claim.
But our defenition of egotistical behaviour and enlightenment could differ, i suppose.

I still cannot see how you could advocate the death of millions based on the idea that ours destroying earth is an egotistical notion.
So if we try not to kill every life on this planet, we are being just plain selfish? (sarcasm intended).
Sorry, i just disagree with that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

(Sarcasm heavily intended (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) )
I do agree that your standpoint is a comforting one. Hey, what the hell, lets all polute and kill the squirrels crossing the street while riding our big suv's.
Because you have a standpoint that negates the need for caring about the state of our eco-system.
Mighty convienient, and, will you believe it, its a spiritual idea as well.
So kill the earth then, its good for our soul, its compassion in its highest form?
(End sarcasm)

Sorry man, i don't see your logic... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

LOL (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happydance.gif)

Greetings A Smoking Fox,

I fear that you may be extrapolating notions from my argument that do not exist. I have gone through your post and have made an attempt to address each issue you bring to the forefront to the best of my abilities. I ask that in the future you do the same for me,so that I may know from where you gather the information and accusations you level against me.



I accept your point… indeed we can damage the planet temporarily



Here I respectfully disagree… indeed the destruction of dinosaurs was necessary to bring forth the age of the mammal. Yes in a sense it delays evolution, but it also paves the way for new forms of evolution that could not arise in the previous epoch. This is crux of my thesis…it is everywhere around us; things die to make room for newer and different things. Natural selection is a clear example of this, albeit at less drastic scale.



Fair enough, that is your opinion



Once again, I turn to the above example. In the long-run, when life on earth reaches a status-quo (i.e. no new apex species will arise via natural selection)…destruction is the only means by which life can extend in a new direction. Now here we get into religio-philosophical issues, and thus naturally we will not all agree.

It is my belief that humans are not the purpose of creation. Our physical “hairless monkey” bodies are merely vessels to incubate the immaterial aspect (soul, life force, spirit, call it what you will) that has evolved alongside our physical bodies. This immaterial aspect is one in the same with the spirit of the earth, the gods, and the goddesses as it is an emanation of the One, the Godhead. It returns once more to this source to be emanated again in the next cycle of creation.



I enjoy torture; that is why I stick a pitchfork in the earth and into my girlfriend each and every day (heavy sarcasm).



No, what is egotistical is the belief that we can function outside of nature, fix nature, heal nature. We are nature and as I expressed in my first post everything that we make and do is nature. By destroying the current ecosystem we are letting nature take its course, by not-destroying the current ecosystem we are letting nature takes its course. In the end nature’s course will be destruction and then creation once more. My point being that whether we bring it upon ourselves or nature brings it upon us it is going to happen, and when we talk about saving the planet – we are really just talking about saving ourselves, or at least prolonging our existence. I have no moral objection to this; however, I do think it is a reflection of the human Ego and should be expressed as such.



Read above, or better yet, understand the above.



An enlightened being realizes that there is no separation between him/herself and other life. There is no hierarchy of what comes first as there is no separation.



Have I been advocating the death of millions? No, re-read my posts, I explicitly mention the words “hypothetical” or “perhaps” to indicate an alternate view point that is worth considering. Not once do I say that we should blow each other to bits, I only posit an alternate perspective viewed from outside the realm of human experience.



Man, I must be a horrible writer. You did not comprehend anything that I wished to get across. Either that or you’ve become too emotionally attached to this subject and have opted to pick and choose my statements to fit your argument. I quote the last paragraph of the post that I directed to you yesterday:



Perhaps I should be more clear. I embrace the destruction in whatever form it comes. I am not condoning selfish consumption to bring a quicker end. I am simply addressing the issue of this threads topic in a manner distanced from our human experience.

Dear Faustopheles,

I am very eager to understand your posts, but there has been such a long dialogue here already I keep forgetting who said what. But you were the first person to answer one of my posts here at Sacred-Magick.com, so I like you:) Help me to understand, okay?

You seem to have a very evolutionist view of the universe. Hence, Humans are probably not the ultimate end of the universe, but are just a link in an ever evolving chain of life forms, is that right? I've probably got you wrong already, but if that is what you think, then may I ask you if you think a human's life has anymore spiritual value than an Amoeba's?

For what it's worth, Hayao Miyazaki, creator of 'Nausicaa' and 'Princess Mononoke', believes that it's the height of human arrogance to believe that we are the most highly evolved of species. That we are the purpose for which the earth was created.

Some say, 'With great power comes great responsibility', would you agree with this statement as far as it implies humanity's responsibility to shepherd the earth?

Masamune Shirow once had one of his characters say something to the effect of 'The very fact that the word 'Unnatural' exists shows how screwy humans are.'. I've probably horribly misquoted it, but the gist of the passage was, 'nothing is unnatural, for we all stem from nature'. This is your point, isn't it? If humanity nukes the earth to a rock with only bacteria left, this too is part of the natural order of things.

Anyway, I enjoy your stimulating arguements, even though I don't exactly agree with them. You show a consistency and logic that is quite impressive.

Hagetaka Kuro

As far as the 'Necronomicon' goes, doesn't it follow Sumerian beliefs? Isn't the earth the remains of Tiamat, mother of Chaos? The earth may be sad, but it may be inevitable, given our tainted existence that we perish in a Ragnarok/Armageddon style cataclysm. Guess it depends on your religion huh?

I'm really ignorant, but I loved HP Lovecraft before I even saw Simon's Necronomicon. Part of me wants to see Simon's writings interpreted from an HPL perspective, instead of seeing the whole deal getting more and more Derleth-ish, heh heh.

Well, no need to comment on this, since i agree.


Natural selection is perfectly fine, and i agree that to that point some destruction is needed.
But human beings are no longer part of that cycle of natural selection. We have awarenes of our action, we know that by doing such and so we cause death to certain life forms in nature. We do this because it is easy for us to burn fossil fuels, and it is easy to use batteries that contain poisonous substances. Its far more easy to not recycle our garbage, and so on.
These are choises that are made from the notion "me me me, i i i". These choises that destroy life are selfish choices, they are based on the superiority of our human life.
That is the main problem i have with your logic. You claim that being nature loving and being against the destruction of life on earth is selfish, that it is based on the greatness of our human ego. While i think its more logical to be the other way around.
If you think about other life, and try to maintain it, is that not giving. Is that not being free of the ego, to let go of some comforts for the good of many others?


i agree, wich is why we should not just waste the other forms of life on this planet. I think the birds sitting in the tree in my back yard have the same right to live as me. Wich is why i don't kill them. Sure, worms would have a feast over the birds dead body, but who am i to interviene, who am i to play God.
Wich is what you are claiming. You state that it is the human ego that thinks we have to "save" the earth. That our destruction of life on it is natural. Yet, by saying so you are playing god on this earth. You are actively destroying life becouse you think you have the "natural" right to do so. I am actively searching for alternatives that have a small impact on the environment.
I can not see how you can claim that as being the hugenes of my human ego.



I agree to a certain extent. Yes, we are part of nature. But we are also destroying eco systems beyond our own.
By doing so, yes we are damaging our selves, and killing our self of in the end. But not only our self, we are also killing millions of other life forms on the planet. So yes, your point is completely valid, but not the only possibility.
You can either, safe the earth for your own skin, wich is selfish.
Or you can safe the earth for the other life forms living on it, wich is generous.
It seems you are fixated on that first option being the only option, while i function according to the second one.


I respect that you are trying to provide the other point of view. Becouse otherwise i would not be able to have this discussion.
But i do not think there is reason or logic in your point of view.
An enlightened being realizes that all life has the right to live, it does not consume natural resources to provide comfort for only himself at the expense of many others. The buddha was a beggar, and he would not even kill a worm. His environmental impact was zero, nothing, nill.
If you truly realise that there is no difference in life, then you would not use that as an excuse to promote killing.


I know perfectly what you mean. I also embrace the destruction when it comes. But i think it should not come from human hands.
We have our intelect, and we know what damage we can or cannnot do. I am against useless killing of life. Its not natural.
Life feeds on life, but we don't feed on life, we poison life and let nothing usefull come of it, wich is not natural at all.
Our ego is what seperates us from nature, we consume and seek out whatever pleasures us, with complete disregard for the costs.

besides, if you really believed your own philosohpy, you would live by it. And that means killing yourself because you would make great worm food and plant fertilizer. But that is not the case, you value your own life. You value the life of your loved ones and friends. You value other human life. Wich is perfectly natural. If your mother dies you would not embrace her death, you would be devastated, such is human. And you certainly would not advocate her destruction.

Your logic is like me going out on a busy shopping street and start shooting around, not caring what i hit. And then me claiming it is enlightened to do so, since all life is one anyway.

We are killing nature, and we know it well. There is no excuse for that. And we should do all we can to minimize this, because we can.
Because we are aware of the damage we do to life. And we are capable of preserving it.

I understand your point of view perfectly, but it just makes no sense. There is nothing to be gained from our destruction. Natural selection is one thing, but we are not doing natural selection. We are killing for no reason but our own entertainment. I am guilty of this as well, while my computer hums silently on, fuels are burned to power it, fuels that destroy our ecosystem. All for typing this message. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush2.gif)

Your logic is flawed, because if i just ask you "Why would you advocate this, what do you have to gain from pursuing destruction" then you would have no answer. There is no reason, no goal, and no purpose other than personal pleasure that drives our destruction of life on earth.

This post has been edited by A_Smoking_Fox: Dec 20 2006, 08:52 AM

I do not feel the cries of the earth per se, but i can hear the trees. I feel that every tree species is a sentient spirit. Not each individual tree. So to me every oak is almost the same. It is the spirit oak. Wich is logical, since they are often from the same flesh.
And they do cry because of pollution and things like that. But to be honest i am not that focused on contacting these trees or the earth.
I just do my part in reducing my environmental load as much as i can and focus on meditating and going towards enlightenment in my free time.

Greetings A Smoking Fox,

Once again I turn you to my previous posts. You have this idea that I am advocating the destruction of the ecosystem. I am not… Please show me from my text, where you got this idea. I am merely arguing our human insignificance and stating that one-day the current ecosystem will be destroyed…it is the process which has continuously occurred in this planets 4.5 billion year history.

I hate to say it, but this is one argument were my logic is airtight. In fact you might say that I have approached this question through a callous and entirely logical perspective distancing myself from emotion and morals. You need to understand that I too love “nature”, I hate needless consumption – but I don’t judge people based on their chosen lifestyles. In the end they are destroying their own existence and simply speeding up the biological see-saw (not once have I said that this is what I believe should occur, I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation).

Greetings Hagetaka Kuro,

I shall do my best to articulate my point of view.


Yes, I take an evolutionary approach; and yes, I think humans are merely a phase in this grand path of evolution. Indeed, a human’s life is no-more spiritual than any other living thing. I see all spirit as an aspect of the same One. We all have a role to play.

You might say that I take a very emenationist/illuminationist point of view (along the lines of esoteric Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and North Indian Tantra). For me there exists a Universal Mystical Spirituality which underlies each and every religious faith on this planet. To grasp this you must look at religious traditions from a base geometrical theory; get rid of all the mythology, words, etc to arrive at its purest concept, shapes, and vibrations. These are the constants that permeate most (if not all) religious traditions and indeed are representative of the very structure of our universe. Whether we are a product of the Big Bang or if a Creator God created us, each and every living and non-living thing in the Universe, has the same point of origin. Thus, the subtle matter (i.e. the spirit) within us is simply a fragmented portion of the same One.

I see everything occurring in cycles of creation-destruction. We as humans are only a tiny insignificant fragment of this cosmic see-saw. Our human selves are a part of this
cycle and will not carry over to the next phase; our spiritual selves are forever expanding and the next evolutionary phase will grant it new possibilities that are today hindered by our flesh and bone.



I fully agree with Hayao Miyazaki. In a universe of billions of suns, and uncountable numbers of planets; it is arrogant to believe that we are the reason for it all.


I would say that that we do not have any power. Power is an illusion made to govern the hairless monkey; it is the myth that gave way to hierarchical society.

I think that the view that we have the “power” to change the course of evolution is arrogant. The only true Power comes from the Godhead; on occasion, this power is channeled through us in order that we may realize Its Will. There is also no individual Free-will, this is another myth put forth by the rationalism of the western mind.


Exactly! I don’t advocate an end-of-days nuclear war, but if it were to occur my soul would be content knowing that it was part of the natural order of things. And as our planets history has shown over and over again, there will one day be a cataclysmic event which will pave the ground for a new phase of evolution.


Thank You Hagetaka, I look forward to our future discussions.


Good points, perhaps you should direct this to some of the Nec. practitioners. Wow, has this topic strayed from the Necronomicon!

Regards,

F

Some quotes i gathered togheter from your all previous posts Faust.
While i must agree that you are not directly advocating the destruction of life, you are indirectly doing so.
You where advocating being passive about saving the earth so as a result you are indirectly destroying life on earth.
Its a point of, if your not part of the solution your part of the problem.

And on some level you where even directly advocating its destruction at one time. You say we are a part of nature,
with our atomic bombs and pollution, and then you say to let nature run its course, meaning our destroying of life on earth.

Another main point is that you claim the earth does not care about destruction of life. Wich i believe is false to say.
To show this i pointed out the moral flaws in your logic, i did not make this clear, wich was my error, but i knowingly turned it into a moral debate.
My moral point was in my eyes a direct result of your point of view. You said the A, and i said what i felt the resulting B.

As far as the value of life goes, with logic you will always win this discussion, because there is no logical reason for life to even exist. There is no logic that can define the importance of life, there is also no logic that can define the goodness or the need for life. The moon has no life, an neither does the sun, yet they exist. Nothing on this planet, not even nature has a logical reason to exist. That is because nature is pure chaos, it just seems orderly on the outside, it has no reason it just exists.
Logicly speaking, life has no real value, hell, the existance of the universe has no logical value, it just exists. being coldly logical it does not matter if the universe exists or not, but that logic serves no purpose.

But as far as the earth goes, that does not mean it is incapable of being sad.

Also, you seem to base some part of your reasoning on the idea that being enlightened equals being cold and logical. In this point i disagree.
Why is this important, because you claim the earth does not care about the life on it, you seem to be of the idea that the entity "earth" is cold and logical in nature.
For this, neither of us have proof. But if the earth is an enlightened being, i believe it cares for the life on its surface and desire to keep it alive.
As such we should respect its wishes. So we may not be damaging the earth physicly, we surely are i believe, damaging it spiritually and emotionally.
So it could be possible that the earth is crying out in pain.


Yore logic about the destruction of earth eventually is true. But that does not mean there is logic and reason to accept an early end for life on its surface.
Its not because someday you die, you have to kill yourself now. Its not because someday the earth will die we have to kill it now.

You seem to forget the existance of time in your argument. It is cold logic that if we do not interviene and play god, the earth will have this ecosystem for some million years into the future. The value of this time may be debatable, but the time is here, and we humans play a significant role in the scale of that time.
Your logic equates a million years of life, to perhaps a few years if we go out killing things at a massive scale.

Youre logic is flawed in the same way as this.
If a is a letter and b is a letter then a and b are the same.
If "destruction tomorrow" is destruction , and "destruction in a million years" is destruction , then both destruction are the same.
They are both deaths, but they happen on a different scale, and different beings are killed. Also, the millions of creatures and people that might live in between the two points make the two deaths different.
You claim there is no difference in the two destructions, while there clearly is. There is a clear logical difference between the two destructions of life on earth, and that difference lies in the time and events occuring in between the two.
You can claim that there is no value in the life and time that goes between these two events, but that is not logic, you cannot prove or disprove the value of that time and life and the equality of the two events. You can claim it holds no value, but that is not logic, that is negative morality, or what some call "evil".


Also, don't get me wrong, i am really enjoying this discussion at the moment (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Greetings A Smoking Fox,

Good post. Now I know from where you draw your conclusions.


Common, that’s circular reasoning. I am telling you now (as I have directly said in previous posts) that I am not advocating the destruction of life, my posts did not advocate the destruction of life. I am apathetic to a concept which seems to be of primary concern to you…I merely point out that from death comes life, from destruction comes creation… something which you are now agreeing with.


Yeah I’ve heard this rhetoric before… I don’t buy it. You are swinging from extremes; I don’t find myself at either end. It just seems like a political attempt to polarize mass consciousness. Following this logic, by living on this planet we are all contributing to the problem so we might as well all commit mass suicide (sarcasm intended)!!!


Yes I did say something along those lines (though I never mentioned pollution), and yes I meant that natures course will be eventual destruction.

Here I quote my last post directed to you:

“We are nature and as I expressed in my first post everything that we make and do is nature. By destroying the current ecosystem we are letting nature take its course, by not-destroying the current ecosystem we are letting nature takes its course. In the end nature’s course will be destruction and then creation once more.”

I think that’s pretty clear. Notice that both possibilities are mentioned as natures course.


Ok? Morality and logic are two separate things; I think I stated that clearly in the last post.

Your transitive argument (A=B) is flawed. The process is occurring in your head, not in what has been said. Normally the transitive argument would be expressed A=B and B=C therefore A=C. Problem being that there never was a “B” in the conversation, since I never took a definitive stance on A. You are simply extrapolating “B” from what you “felt” and are therefore bringing emotion into your argument thereby automatically rendering it as biased.


You were the one who questioned my logic, now you are saying that my logic will always be right. Which is it? Also, what is this “purpose” of which you speak?

Do you know why we are here? I don’t. Can you answer the eternal philosophical question of what is our purpose? No, it can’t be answered. For this reason I embrace an approach where we look at various possibilities regardless of how callous, cold, and immoral they may seem (after all, these are only human perceptions).


You see I have a problem with extending human emotions and perceptions to non- human realities. Sad::Happy, Bad::Good, Love::Hate these are all human perceptions of duality used to understand, order, and orient our existence. They simply don’t apply to non-human beings.


No, I didn’t mention anything about cold and logical in reference to enlightenment. My exact words were “An enlightened being realizes that there is no separation between him/herself and other life. There is no hierarchy of what comes first as there is no separation.”

In other words, it is the realization that you are everything and nothing, or better put, that you are not everything and not nothing, not something, not anything. It is embracing and loving (in the highest sense of the word) the void.


I stated my cosmological views in the post to Hagetaka Kuro. The spirit/ entity earth and our spirit are one in the same…they are both fragments of the One source. This is what I have come to know. You, of course, are welcome to your own interpretation and belief. I’m not here to preach.



Yes, I now see your point of reference. Unfortunately time does not exist. It too is a human perception. To be more precise Time is a human perception of galactic motion.

Don’t get me wrong, you indeed have a strong argument coming within the framework of human experience. If one accepts time, morality, and emotion as universal constants then there is no argument- your point of view is clearly the more logical. However, as I have explicitly stated, because we do not know the purpose of creation (and in particular because WE are NOT the purpose of creation), we must look at the question of destruction outside the realm of human experience. In these dark waters, time, morality, and emotion do not exist hence they cannot be used to structure an argument. In this abyss, Creation and Destruction are one in the same.



Would not be the first time I was called evil…;)



Likewise, my friend. There is however no point in continuing the debate since it will not be resolved for the reasons stated in the bold section of this post. Were coming at it from two entirely different frameworks.

Peace be with you

F

This post has been edited by Faustopheles: Dec 20 2006, 08:48 PM

true, we can agree to disagree.


This just does not make sense, there is no logic or reasoning in this statement. And its not because you say so that it is the truth. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Your notion that time does not exist is not based on any logic evidence. It is true that we can percieve time, but that does not mean it is not real.
However limited our perception is, sometimes it sees some truth.
I think most scientists and scholars would agree time exists. Because it can clearly be proven and is shown to exist.
It is used in various calculations in science and is shown to be correct. If it wasn't for time i wouldn't be able to type this post, hell my computer would even refuse to run.
Because the speed of every action can be measured by the distance it travels over time. you cannot travel any distance if you do not use a factor of time.

me too i stopped arguing coz my point of view is opposite yours even if there are interleavings. we already showed our views and i will stick to mine while you to yours. It has been a good debate :-)



Well lets see what other people have to say... I assume those people who meditate in early morning might at one time or the other felt something coming from the earth's spirit!



regards

mystick

This post has been edited by mystick: Dec 21 2006, 11:34 AM

Greetings fellas,

I am not trying to be a dork hole but please only quote the part of the persons posting that you are responding to and not their entire post. It eats up the forums resources if you quote the persons entire post unnecessarily. BYM put me in a strangle hold for doing this once so I am warning you guys before a moderator bites off your a$$ cheeks.


Peace