Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
What is the meaning of life?
I think Douglas Adams had a useful take on this question. In the first book of his five part trilogy, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", it was postulated by Deep Thought, a supercomputer, that the answer to Life, the Universe and everything was 42. The problem was that the question had been insufficiently defined to allow the builders of the computer to understand the answer.
If we look at this from a Taoist perspective, it is easy to see that Douglas Adams is, in fact, poking fun at the human need for clear cut answers. Our seeking for meaning takes us away from our enjoyment of the now. Our planning for the future and rehashing of the past mean that the 'now' is missed and we never simply live each moment as it comes. As for the pan-dimensional beings, their answer of 42, whilst being clear cut, did not actually mean anything because they didn't really understand the question; so it is for so many humans - the answers are clearcut and simple but we don't understand them because we are actually asking the wrong questions. Existence does not need to be agonised over, it is there to be enjoyed.
If we look at this from a Taoist perspective, it is easy to see that Douglas Adams is, in fact, poking fun at the human need for clear cut answers. Our seeking for meaning takes us away from our enjoyment of the now. Our planning for the future and rehashing of the past mean that the 'now' is missed and we never simply live each moment as it comes. As for the pan-dimensional beings, their answer of 42, whilst being clear cut, did not actually mean anything because they didn't really understand the question; so it is for so many humans - the answers are clearcut and simple but we don't understand them because we are actually asking the wrong questions. Existence does not need to be agonised over, it is there to be enjoyed.
Comments
Consider this: Think of 'the' answer as being a cause in a 'cause and effect' senario, with the cause naturally being deeper rooted than the effect. Tracing the present back to the big bang leaves you with the question, what caused the big bang... what caused existance to come into being? The ultimate cause preceded the big bang, the ultimate cause is a question and a mystery. Thus, the ultimate answer is simply and truly the ultimate question.
Of course we'd never accept that due to our biological need for definitive resolution. We need to have it "named", don't we.
It is all fine and well to say that all we ?need? to do is accept. Alas, the ?self? that needs to accept is not the master of its biology, but an emergent property arising out of biology. The sense of self, the ?I? is capable of imagining scenarios of self control to bring about the ?acceptance? we know will sooth our suffering. Yet, we suffer because to ask the ?self? to surrender the ?self? is like asking the eye to see itself. Words flow more easily than the deeds they anticipate.
In Peter Pan theres a line 'to die will be an awfully big adventure' But to live is a bigger adventure-just go with it, don't question it...
the only meaning of life I'm intersted in is the Monty Python movie...
We fear being different from our fellow man, no matter how low they go, we're willing to go with them...
We can do all sorts of stuff, because life is free unless you're in a prison or something.
Didn't you know? The answer is 42! Of course, the problem is that we don't really know what the question was/is/will be!
Sorry, couldn't resist
there seem to be no better answer for what is the meaning of life or
purpose of our existance.but from my religious point of view there is
an answer to it and to discuss it here it will be a lenghty discussion.so to make it short i can tell you that the purpose of our existance is to pay back our own karma and to do so we need to go through our daily life and cultivate good virtue and this is the best things or the best meaningful
things that we need to know.no other things that can supercede this statement as most of the religion in this world are always taught us to
cultivate good virtue. what do youll think?
Howdy and welcome,
The Taoist view on virtue is a bit outside the 'norm' I suppose. For example, [chref=38]A man of the highest virtue does not keep to virtue and that is why he has virtue.[/chref] And again, [chref=41]Ample virtue seems defective; Vigorous virtue seems indolent[/chref]. There are actually quite a few references to virtue but these are representative. "Cultivating good virtue" is like trying to be honest... you either are, or you are not. There is no cultivating to be done, as I have experienced it anyway.
cultivating good virtue means you need to be honest rather than not honest
and its more like changing your bad habit to a proper one where you will not offend anyone including yourself.so a good virtue has to be practiced rather than you dont practice.as for your reply it seem that you dont
bother about this good virtue or its just a normal practice for you not to
take into accounts on whatever you did to others? so my meaning of cultivating good virtue means get rid of the bad habits and stop doing harm to others and i dont get why you cant practice it?please elaborate if you
misunderstand my meaning of cultivating.
Welcome to the board Josh. Life is quite a [chref=4]journey[/chref], eh? Here is how it looks to me after 60+ years of it...
1) I want a [chref=41]way [/chref] that helps me live as balanced a life as possible.
2) Amen. Without [chref=33]purpose[/chref] life feels unbalanced. My actions and attitudes simply reflect this need to feel of purpose. The unintended consequences of my actions and attitudes can easily knock me off balance and short circuit my sense of life meaning. The deeper I [chref=47] know the whole[/chref], the less that occurs.
3) My life's meaning lies only in what I give to life, and not in what I want life to give me. Jesus put it this way, "whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it."
Ironically, we only truly have what we give.
I do know that I have made things mean stuff that, when looked at logically, I see that I derived that meaning; what I made it mean. I cannot say it has no meaning, because I don't know. I do know that the meaning I had for it did not inherently exist. And even that I am not absolutely sure about. But I know my life changes when I give up those meanings. It creates an emptiness where anything nothing is possible.
I'm of the persuasion that life has no meaning and I have no purpose except to keep all these cells together for a while and when that's over, to just dissolve into the emptiness. I'm okay with that -- it's good for growing more humble and being able to take the lower position.
I see there are two sides to this issue of life meaning and purpose. One is philosophical and the other emotional. The question "what is the meaning of life, or does life have meaning?" is a philosophical query. Rather unanswerable in any definitive way. That's why we have so many religions, eh?
The nitty gritty is the emotional root which drives this question. We need to feel life meaning and purpose. If meditation gives you that feeling, you will meditate and feel better. If running around till your blue in the face gives you that feeling, you will do that and feel better (all though you may end up with a shorter life span).
The actions people take, from volunteer helpers to terrorists, originates in their emotional core. What they do gives their life meaning, and so they are apt to continue doing that. Because we no longer live a simple wild natural ('hunter' / gatherer) existence as other primates, we often find ourselves adrift with a lack of life meaning and purpose for awhile, until something 'clicks', and off we go (often to buy something for that satisfies the hunter gather instinct quite nicely).
Most of our attention is focused on the symptoms - ours and other people's activities - while the underlying cause (i.e., the deep need for life meaning) goes unnoticed. Naturally, because the activities are countless and contrasting - 'interesting'. The cause is singular and simple, and thus 'boring'.
This raises an interesting aspect of awareness: we don't actually see what we think we see. It is the contrast that grabs our attention. The 'reality' of our objects of awareness pass largely unnoticed for our mind's attention is soon leaping off to the next novelty... the next contrast. This, we find it much harder to notice the similarities between things than the differences.
It is only when we actually notice the similarities that we become truly aware of the 'unique' things we see. Of course, the uniqueness fades as we 'see' it blend with [chref=39]the One[/chref].
Thank you, too, Carl. I found that helpful.
It is my theory that we come into life with this but that it can be affected by life's experiences and the choices we make around them. It seems this in not very taoist, from what I have read here, even though, at the same time, I acknowledge that we are run about by our nature as human beings and our inner natures so we are not always at choice.
It seems to me like we have the power to distinguish when the human being or our inner nature is running the show and to step into another way. Sometimes I can be going about my way and someone says something that brings to my conscience something I am doing or thinking that is having my being and through distinguishing it, that can fall away. Otherwise I might have continued along in the same path.
Maybe I have misunderstood but it seems in the taoist view, that if you are a taoist, it is not because you wanted to pursue it but because you could not oppose your inner nature that drew you towards it.
1) I sense that we adopt the theory that reflects how we need to see life. Our theory doesn't tell us about what 'is', so much as it tells us about ourselves.
2) Humans are profoundly social animals. So much so than we fail to recognize just how deeply that instinct effects everything we do and think. The social instinct may be the strongest one we have.
3) Response #1 above fits this too. We don't choose what we want. It is our wants (needs and fears) that choose for us. Yet, our egos [chref=34]claim[/chref] we are in control. Ha
My own, other people's and all other animal's choices, in the end, simply reflect the need and fear we all feel - right then and there. This, and [chref=16]emptiness [/chref] within it all, decides which "fork" we all take.
I don't think that I meditate to find meaning. I do it without expecting anything and that's what I get! I meditate and then what? Nothing! Meditation is practicing being present and when I can be present I can experience life. That's pretty much it for me.
On the other hand, to be perfectly honest, I find myself identifying with being "A Meditator." My ego wants to pick that up and run with it...oooo, look at me! When that happens, I just throw my hands up in the air and chuckle at myself.
I think it's important not to take ourselves too seriously. We are very very small and insignificant.
1) ...I edited my 'quote' up there to highlight feel, feel, feel. How we feel deep down is the engine that drives our actions. Throughout life we do a multitude of activity. That which makes us feel better we will tend to do more of, or at least continue doing. That which makes us feel worse, overall, we will tend to drop. Some action - well, many actions - do both. Eating makes us feel better. Getting fat makes us feel worse. The same can be said about the countless actions that give us pleasure and often result in pain, i.e., Buddha's "pleasures are the bait and the result is pain". Oops... I'm drifting. :roll:
Anyway, emotion, how we feel, drives what we do. All the thoughts, expectations and rationalizations are simply smoke rising up from that inner fire. Yet, I think we give much too much credence to thought over feeling. Why? Probably because we can exchange thought - chat - as I'm doing right now. It serves an invaluable social / tribal purpose. Still, it is all bull - - - -, or as the Tao Te Ching says more delicately, [chref=1]The way that can be spoken of, Is not the constant way; [/chref]
Our feeling, on the other hand, remains 'silent' within us driving the thoughts that bubble up into our consciousness. Feeling is simple and centers around 'need and fear'. The actions we take are simply the ways we 'stumble' across to cope with how we feel in our attempt to find equilibrium. I suppose this process is what has become popularly regarded as 'free will'. Am I drifting again? :?
2) ...That sentiment carries with it an implied 'should'. And so when we do take ourselves too seriously, we will judge ourselves as failing at something 'important'.
Another way to consider this goes like this.... When we take ourselves too seriously we feel out of sorts - off balance. However, we take ourselves too seriously because we are attempting to cope - to find emotional equilibrium. Thus, actually, the imbalance is already present and we are just noticing its symptoms in the form of "taking ourselves too seriously". Am I nit picking?
Still, I find that the more clearly I 'see', the more likely I [chref=63]do that which consists in taking no action; pursue that which is not meddlesome; savor that which has no flavor.[/chref] Slowing down enough to see the 'nits' helps me [chref=64]deal with a thing while it is still nothing [/chref].
I can't argue with that. I meditate because it feels good; it's simple, it's true. The good thing about meditation is that I have yet to find that the pleasure of meditating results in pain. Unless the pain is seeing oneself too clearly. Yes, there is that. And then, when you do it all day, the whole body screams out for some movement. Ouch.
So, are you saying that feelings are more basic and true to our natures than thought? I've experienced that when I feel some resistance to what is (and my mind spins all around it), if I look to the need/fear below the resistance some of the power goes out of the resistance and I can have some compassion for myself.
No, when you take yourself too seriously you are too busy being serious about yourself to judge not doing otherwise. When I'm taking myself seriously, I never even think about not doing it...I am just spinning around in the issue. I'm hooked like a fish and it's too late not to bite. At least that's been my experience. It doesn't matter a grain of salt whether you take yourself seriously or not; but not doing it saves you a lot of grief. I don't perceive you as nitpicking....I appreciate that you always catch when I'm talking belief instead of truth. 8)
1) Yes, and profoundly so. In fact, thought 'only' mirrors how we feel. Thus, Taoism's low opinion of [chref=7]thought[/chref] in all its forms, e.g., [chref=3]knowledge[/chref], that which [chref=1]can be spoken of, or named[/chref], [chref=5]speech[/chref], pretty much [chref=16]knowing anything[/chref], and finally... [chref=19]exterminate learning and there will no longer be worries[/chref]. Personally, I look at thought and the speech than accompanies it (like what I'm doing now) as mostly a means connecting socially.
2) Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The time to [chref=64]deal with[/chref] the chicken of 'importance' is while it is still in the egg. Once hatched we're "hooked", as you say. The more credence we give to our preconceptions (words, vocabulary, language, thought), the more likely we are to get hooked. The more [chref=15]tentative and hesitant[/chref] we are about what we [chref=71]think[/chref] we know, the less likely we will be hooked. In this area, the older and thus wiser folks have an advantage over youth.
Hooray. Everything else my old body is falling apart!