Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Yet these are opposites beliefs concerning death and dying. Can they both be right? That everything comes to an end and nothing matters; as well as nothing ever ends but is reborn in the same world suffering the same sorrows and sharing the same joys.»

Reincarnation does not mean that nothing ever ends, only that it might take longer than the arbitrary lifetime of a physical body: our suffering, sorrow and joys (more accurately, all joys that depend on situations) will all eventually end, but that will only occur once our individual perspectives are lost, rather than as soon as our current physical bodies happen to perish.

So long as we identify with a finite "individual", we suffer. It might take trillions of incarnations along with incredible suffering, but eventually all individual perspectives will pass away and suffering will end. The good news is that with a combination of effort and divine grace, we can hasten the process and reduce the number of incarnations and their ensuing suffering.

«and His promise of eternal life, not just just eternal reincarnation, are promises to be very happy about.»

You will attain eternal life, definitely, but that individual/person which you falsely believe yourself to be must first die. Not just a partial and temporary physical-death, but the ultimate death of your separate individual existence.

---

Dear Tristan,

«Yes there are problems with assuming (literal) eternity for humanity»

For sure, but who ever assumed so?

«But the more immediate question is whether there is "a second life"»

Although there is but one life, it can encompass many bodies and even many worlds.

«who is to say "Death is the end"?»

Death is the end of life, but the physical death of a body is not yet death of individual life.

«what is meant in scripture by "we are made of dust ; and to dust we return"?»

It's a lesson in humility, rather than a factual description.

«Is eternal life compatible with this?»

Eternal life is incompatible with life as a separate individual/person/human. One must first die to gain eternal life.

Dear Banjo,

I am truly impressed by your excellent definition:

«I see truth as information which has not been voluntarily deformed at the time of emission. Or, should I say, it is whatever version of reality, thought, ideas, qualia, dreams, or imagination, a particular individual is capable of experiencing and subsequently transmitting without voluntarily deforming it.»

There remains, however, the difficult problem of our responsibility for our subconscious delusions. Is it truly possible to be completely truthful? Some monastic traditions believe that it isn't and therefore observe silence.

Your definition of Love is also spot on.

It is a paradox: how can anyone love (put first) that which they perceive as another, other than themselves? Even when one is not voluntarily dishonest, one often acts out of a subconscious element of belief in some gain accruing from loving.

To be able to love even without at least some such subconscious element of belief in gain, is a miracle!

Anything less than that is not worthy of the name "love".

So either:

1) Love doesn't exist, we are selfish to the core and only seem to love due to conscious and/or subconscious assumptions (these could be instinctual as in the case of the dog; believing that it would produce nice feelings; or perhaps lacking the intellectual ability to distinguish between one's person and another person).
2) Love exists, whereby individual A puts individual B first without perceiving any gain from it, and this is an unexplained miracle.
3) Love is a logical impossibility because there are no separate 'A' and 'B' who could love each other. Since the seemingly two, lover and beloved, are in fact one and the same, what seems to be "love" is actually just self-help.

The miracle of love is in fact the same miracle of finding God in oneself, consequently seeing God in others as well. Both miracles require this leap of discontinuity or transcendence: once realising that you and I are both God rather than separate entities, putting the other first is no longer seen as a self-sacrifice, but rather a simple and logical step.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« … how can anyone love (put first) that which they perceive as another, other than themselves ? Even when one is not voluntarily dishonest, one often acts out of a subconscious element of belief in some gain accruing from loving »

If, as you suggest, it is “a subconscious element”, I am afraid that, by definition, neither I, nor you, nor anybody else, has any way of knowing. However, supposing, for the sake of argument, that one did exist – “satisfaction”, for example – it seems to me it would be largely counter-balanced by “an element of self-sacrifice” which I consider characterises “an act” of love.

If anything is done, purely for personal gain, or if the prospect of personal gain exceeds self-sacrifice, or is the sole motivation, then, obviously, it is not an act of love. Anybody who presents such an act as an act of love is either a fraud and a swindler acting out of deceit, or he is kidding himself and doesn’t know what love is.

You declare :

« To be able to love even without at least some such subconscious element of belief in gain, is a miracle ! »

I think that is an exaggeration, Yuyutsu. As I indicated in my previous post : “… most of those who think they love somebody do not. They mistake love for feelings, affection, sentiments, …”. But, happily, in my view, there remains a significant minority of our fellow human beings who are perfectly capable of loving and do so in their daily lives. As somebody wisely observed : love makes the world go round !

You conclude :

« The miracle of love is in fact the same miracle of finding God in oneself, consequently seeing God in others as well »

I think you are jumping the gun on that one, Yuyutsu. Mounting logical arguments on the foundations of faith is like building castles in the sky :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZn2wK3tErI

.

Banjo Patterson

Since Christianity is a sect with Jewish heritage, we could safely translate the meaning of love from the Hebrew.

The word love in Hebrew is “Ahava”. It consists of three basic letter forms. The meaning of the two letter base, is to “give”; the third letter is a modifier.

“The preceding modifier “Alef” enlarges the meaning of love to include “to give”.
I give, and as a consequence, I love!

So “giving”, is the intertwined meaning of love in the Christian Bible. So if you truely love, you will generously give!

The application of love by a Christian, raises more questions than answers.
Obviously the love for family you describe, is one aspect of the giving process; but isn't the love of family entirely selfish?
You love a family since they are yours. Like you love a new car because, for you it is the best. How does that form of love describe love in the true scriptural sense?

Love thine neighbour as thine self. Therein lies true love. And you love thine neighbour by giving to that euphemistic neighbour, to balance an injustice. It must have a personal “cost” in the giving process, to be correctly classified as true love!

Dear Banjo,

Satisfaction, no doubt, can motivate for actions that look like love; and it doesn't necessarily even need to be subconscious.

I agree that there are cases of people who put others first despite their expected satisfaction (if any, or any other gains) being lesser than their sacrifice. Yet how they manage to do so is beyond me, hence I consider it a miracle.

As for "castles in the sky", what I meant is that there are two situations when one sees no difference between oneself and others: BEFORE one perceives themselves as separate from others (e.g. animals, babies and the intellectually-retarded) and AFTER one ceases to perceive themselves and others as separate (e.g. realised souls who are united with God, hence with all others).

When that's the case, seeming acts of love are rather like one limb sacrificing itself for other limbs (for example when one slips and hurts their knees and elbows in order to prevent falling on their head), which is a fairly logical act rather than an act of love.

It is the ability to love while at the stage between those two, which is a mystery, which I consider a miracle.

---

Dear Dan,

Hebrew roots cannot be meaningfully broken into their constituent letters.

Love - "Ahavah" comes from the root "A-H-B(V)" while "give" ("Hav") is an acceptable shorthand of "Hav'e", of the root "B-V-A" (which includes the words "come" and "bring") and is actually an instruction - "Give/bring me" (which doesn't normally indicate loving kindness, except as in "give me your burdens").

For the difference, see:

http://he.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%94%D7%91_(%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A9%29

and

http://he.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%95%D7%90_(%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A9%29

All including Yuyutsu,

Your interpretation of the Hebrew “Ahava”, sounds like a Capitalists version of love, “to take”.

My version goes like this:

There are three basic letters in the Hebrew “Ahava”. Meaning love. Broken into two parts gives the modified (by the first letter of the three characters), as meaning “ I give therefore I love”.
That interpretation is ticked-off by my able Hebrew teacher this morning, as correct.

How English “has been castigated” by the 1984 antiestablishment ideologues, has come to include the word “love”.
And I can tell your eyes are glazed over, when you reference the word Yuyutsu!

Just to prove the point in dramatic terms. Yesterday I bought a pack of toilet rolls, with an extended plastic carry-handle carrying a continuous imprint of the word “Love”, circling the entire pack. I felt so proud and included-in, as I walked out the door of Coles.

We are living in dangerous times! Nothing can be trusted, especially English translations!
The word “gay”, is another one I will avoid, just in case any criticism of its current usage, lands me in jail!

So in conclusion, I cringe when I hear Christians blandly stating, we must “love”, to prove our dedication! Must I also be “gay” as well? New speak now cunningly combines the two in our imagination; “gay lover”.

Thanks, but no thanks