The Power of Joy (Happiness) - It is who you really are...

reply to post by arpgme


I wouldn't show compassion while an animal was eating me.. I'd probably show agony. But the shark is just being a shark if it eats me. I wouldn't want the shark killed for eating me. And if it just took my arm I'd be on the news telling everyone that we need to stop the senseless slaughter of these animals.

Animals show compassion. We agree on this. The difference between humans and animals is the depth of their compassion. Animals will die to protect their family groups, but Zebras don't sacrifice themselves for Impalas.

What if I'm a psycho/sociopath and it makes me happy to manipulate others? Should I follow my happiness then? What if I'm a murderer?

You'd think you have to train yourself to love everything, And I suppose in way you do. You have to work to generate bodhicitta, but once you do loving everything is as easy as breathing.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
reply to post by arpgme

 

Peace and acceptance is love.

No, love already has a basic definition and that is compassion. Love is not Peace or Happiness, they are all 3 different concepts, which is why they have three different names.

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by arpgme

 

What if I'm a psycho/sociopath and it makes me happy to manipulate others? Should I follow my happiness then? What if I'm a murderer?

Using the word "should" implies that there is a good and evil, which there isn't proven to be. Happiness is following one's nature, and yes some people are psychopaths and that is their happiness, and yes some are cops and putting them behind bars is happiness for the cop.

reply to post by arpgme


Okay.. I get what you are saying. I disagree with you. But I understand it now.

You're premise is we are here to follow our happiness.

I'd say we are here to become conscious beings.

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
reply to post by arpgme

 

Peace and acceptance is love.

No, love already has a basic definition and that is compassion. Love is not Peace or Happiness, they are all 3 different concepts, which is why they have three different names.

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by arpgme

 

What if I'm a psycho/sociopath and it makes me happy to manipulate others? Should I follow my happiness then? What if I'm a murderer?

Using the word "should" implies that there is a good and evil, which there isn't proven to be. Happiness is following one's nature, and yes some people are psychopaths and that is their happiness, and yes some are cops and putting them behind bars is happiness for the cop.

I'm not referring to the same love you are. =)

reply to post by Buddha1098


conscious being is more of right sense then happy

in truth, the sense is to be free absolutely so true active right objective source constancy, when truth is freedom and truth freedom is always first absolutely objective, then right sense is the relative freedom becoming constant in inventing the abstraction of its absolute right alone which can never become objective in absolute terms, since what is first is always more then last

which explain what we see, how positive geniune sense is a lie for wills, while will by definition is of need so do never exist

and, evil is absolute oness life, for what free individual sense is becoming constant by meaning being above or superior to truth freedom for getting itself freedom out of truth existence which is always first so more objective source

in other terms, to b happy is to b own positive source alone, while in fact there is always else starting from objective truth as else, so any objective fact cant b owned even if one is truly absolutely objective one
that is why we talk about individuals rights and not about individuals fact eternity
so again it proves the same thing from another way, to b happy is a lie premise it is impossible as a fact objectively to mean and impossible as a subjective will to get a sense constancy of

why it is invented? evil fasicules paragraph concerning positive will invention surely explain it clearly

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by arpgme

 

Okay.. I get what you are saying. I disagree with you. But I understand it now.

You're premise is we are here to follow our happiness.

I'd say we are here to become conscious beings.

No, I'm not saying we are here TO follow it. It's not like it is the "purpose" of life or anything. It is just the natural order.

reply to post by arpgme


it is not the natural order when natural life is mostly observed in animals means, humans are not of nature when they are principally individuals existence

animals dont look like meaning their happiness, they all seem to agree on meaning willing to eat, they could die for too much eating
what mean to get smthg cant mean being happy, happiness is the sense of living so oneself superiority not the relation with inferior thing which is always the else concept hated to possess