You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Tracks of good and evil
The weight of good needs to be measured, just in the same way we measure the consistency of actions, to in the end decide, whether one is "good" or "bad".
who provides the measure?
I'd say objectively we all know what is "good and bad", but
I don't think that this is necessarily true although there is likely an average. Still, take away any form of self- seeing thinker and I don't know if the universe itself would discern good from bad, there would only be 'possible'.
What provides the measure not who, who is irrelevant.
The answer is simple, who benefits and who doesn't, as in how many. Kill a fly, bad, kill a Buddha, insurmountable. Heal one, great, heal a million, insurmountable.
Why is the Buddha weighted more heavily than the fly?
Think about it, how much can a fly heal, help or enlighten, and how much can a Buddha.
In your view.
In my view? Please enlighten us, why do you think a fly is just as important as a Buddha, I've not said anything that was an opinion or belief, it's simple logic.
you have now put a price on livesin a ranking system, lives that you can't possible under stand except through your opinion of their importance. So now, which life is more or less important Buddha, Jesus or a child's?
You asked who provides the "weights" and it's clear now you did so only to say that there's no "hard coded" or "list from above" of transgressions and virtues which leave no room for interpretation or questions, because when you were prompted to simply think about it in terms of "how many" or "how much" you didn't ask "why" afterward because you actually considered what was pointed out and hoped to get clear and concrete, an indomitable explanation, but obviously now, you asked that simply to repeat what you think about morality, what you believe a "concrete " morality ought to be, or that "who weighs deeds", as in a ultimate arbiter, because when you were asked simply next to Think About It-HOW:MUCH:CAN:A:FLY:HELP:HEAL:OR:ENLIGHTEN:OTHERS:AND:HOW:MUCH:CAN:A:BUDDHA you hardly considered such simple thought exercise and instead yet again you sought to establish the same nonsense that good and bad doesn't exist, that it's not in nature, and that there's no list from an ultimate arbiter that was handed down on indestructible stone for all to know by sight and for the blind to crawl their fingers over and confirm it as well, because why would you ask yet again, yet this time you make it about "importance" and trying to bridge the gap which was there to help understand that the good a fly can do is inconsequential to the good a man can do which is inconsequential to the good someone who's wisdom is untouchable and who's virtues are limitless and who's understanding topples reality and their teaching inspires innumerable beings to strive for virtue, for wisdom and peace, unless you asked that again as you previously insinuated, that there's no morality besides the invention of society or whatever marginal, inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, you believe morality is? Correct me if I'm wrong, why are you asking yet again what ought to be obvious, and tell me, how futile is it imparting your beliefs and how unimportant and actually detrimental such belief is, and how unimportant or detrimental my "view" is?
Some paragraphs would be nice because reading text like this makes it very hard to extract sense.
I did consider the question yet it is a question from your perspective believing that you know what good a fly can do or what a fly may be capable of doing now or in its future or, evolutionary pathway. You say you understand the fly's role in the greater universe.
For you, you believe that the Buddha holds more significance to the universe yet, there is no evidence that can nor ever will be available to prove such a stance. This means that good or bad is always dependent on the viewer as the universe itself only deals in what is possible and does not have a position either way.