From: punditster@gmail.com
On 2/16/2026 2:27 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:56:08 -0800, Dude wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2026 7:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 05:13:24 +0000, Creon wrote:
>>>
>>>> At Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:50:06 -0500, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:14:08 -0500, Wilson
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/13/2026 12:53 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/12/26 9:15 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2026 9:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that governments can grant that they will not impose
>>>>>>>>> certain situations on you, which they still might.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But as far as the universe is concerned. You have no rights.
There
>>>>>>>>> is no natural law to base social structures on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It there were natural laws that are inherent, universal, and
>>>>>>>>> inalienable, derived from human nature and reason rather than
granted
>>>>>>>>> by governments, to be inalienable natural laws, there would be no way
>>>>>>>>> to not receive them. Nobody would die, everybody would have
liberty,
>>>>>>>>> and loving spouses. The truth is you have no right to such things,
>>>>>>>>> and far too many around the world don't have them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To be natural laws that are inherent, universal, and inalienable,
they
>>>>>>>>> would have to apply to everybody in the world, not only americans.
And
>>>>>>>>> when suffering people come to america seeking a place where they can
>>>>>>>>> have such things, we could not send them back where they came from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a deliberate misstatement of what natural law is all about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is: There are certain principles that work better than others.
>>>>>>>> When human law and society aligns with those principles, the systems
>>>>>>>> created within that structure perform better, allowing greater human
>>>>>>>> flourishing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what worked last century, may not work this century, and will not work
>>>>>>> next century
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > the "law" can change when as technology unfolds
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > #god
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not how universal principles work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Things like:
>>>>>> - Don't steal
>>>>>> - Don't initiate harm to or murder other people
>>>>>> - Don't deliberately speak untruth
>>>>>> - Take responsibility for your actions
>>>>>> - Don't envy or promote resentment for what others have
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian principles. Not universal. Although it might seem like
>>>>> that to a true believer.
>>>>
>>>> How do you feel about the "perennial philosophy" school of thought?
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
>>>
>>>
>>> I remember from my communal days, sitting in a room listening to some
>>> guy talking about, jesus says this, buddha says that, rumi says
>>> thisnthat. And so putting together what feels like to him a coherent
>>> something which is none of those. I don't think that works.
>>>
>> Not sure you've thought this through.
>>
>> They were probably talking about Aldous Huxley's The Perennial
>> Philosophy, where he goes to great lengths to demonstrate the common
>> themes which are present in religions across the planet, and tie them
>> together into what he terms the perennial philosophy.
>
> Sure aldous you can do that, but when you jumble it all together do
> you have more than a jumble.
>
Compared to reading the originals?
> > Intent:
>
> Do you refrain from killing because there is something wrong with
> doing that or because killing things interferes with your spiritual
> progression?
>
Some people refrain from killing but others do not. There are hunters
and there are gatherers. Everything you do or act on can effect your
spiritual progress, o not.
What's needed is a middle way, not too extreme, but practical.
>
> After learning the difference between good and evil, as he should not
> have, is mankind now doomed to be ever obsessed with doing or not
> doing evil? Or was there something more important for him to do here?
>
The most important thing for mankind to have learnt was to realize the
fallacy of dualism - the belief in dual opposing forces.
In reality, there is just one reality - the Singular.
Indian philosophers define non-dualism as the reality that only one
undivided, absolute consciousness exists. All ideas of separation and
duality are illusions created by the mind.
> > One eternal message of all religions is said to be: there is
> something wrong with life and we know what to do about it.
>
According to the Buddha, the first historical yogi in India, we are all
bound and destined to suffer. At first this sound pessimistic, until you
think it through, or live a little while and see fr yourself.
So, if we are bound, by what means can we free ourselves?
>
> Is that so?, the monk says to the mother giving away her baby. Is
> that so?
>
The phrase highlights accepting the reality of the present moment
without judging it or fighting against it. Be here now!
> >
>> We read that in philosophy class in college. It's required reading.
>>>
>>> In tone and intent, it seems to me that buddhism has nothing like the
>>> 10 commandments. Although buddha does sorta say that you should avoid
>>> killing things because it interferes with spiritual development. Adam
>>> and eve were thrown out of eden because they disobeyed and learned the
>>> difference between good and evil. Buddha says forget about all that
>>> and seek enlightenment one way or the other.
>>>
>>> Sure you can say that, in effect, they hold similar ideas, if you want
>>> to forget about that tone and intent stuff.
>>>
>> In some Buddhist sects, the factor of intent is very important. For
>> example, you are a Buddhist walking in the woods and you accidentally
>> step on a beetle and crush it. What was your intent?
>>
>> According to Buddha, it's extreme to go about sweeping the ground before
>> you, in case you might encounter an ant, walking to the store.
>>
>>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
