There is so much to reflect on Socrates here, his last words to friend Crito: “We owe a cock to Asclepius. So pay the debt and don’t be careless.”

Dear Mario,

All life ends. Dying is inherent and intrinsic to life. One needs to create some space for our children. Life implies surviving but surviving is not the whole of life. We rarely says at the end of a day, this one was a good day since I manage to survive today. Yes in a time of war, this expectation might fill one with joy but life for humans and most other animals is much more than the mere survival. At the end of our days, when life become mostly like that, then it is not so great anymore. But even in these miserable time, life is all we have got and it is a very precious time worth to be lived. Having been at the bed side of my mother in her last moments made me experience a bit what it is like. It will be tough but worth while I think especially if one is surrounded by family.

Regards,

- Louis

What is life?

It depends on the precise circumstances under which the lndividual makes his living, for more privileged layer life is bittersweet , hard but still optimistic, but for those living at the bottom layer, life is harsh,pessimistic and unforgiving.

Thank you for the answers.

I put this question because I have read several collections of "best texts" on this perennial issue, with the aim to learn something and to produce "the best text" on that topic. I have not learned much (what I have not already known), and I have not produced much yet either.

Regarding the question "What is life?", this is a potentially large story by itself. Biology does not have a precise answer to this question. But I do not intend to deal with biology; I am rather interested in the "poetics of existence", or how the wondrous phenomenon of living and dying can or should be practiced & interpreted.

"If you do not veer towards the near shore, do not veer towards the far shore, do not sink in mid-stream, do not get cast up on high ground, do not get caught by human beings, do not get caught by nonhuman beings, do not get caught in a whirlpool, and do not become inwardly rotten, you will slant, slope, and incline towards Nibbana." [Salayatanavagga (The Book of the Six Sense Bases), Samyutta Nikaya].

"If, through revulsion towards [form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness], through [their] fading away and cessation, one is liberated by non-clinging, one can be called [one] who has attained Nibbana in this very life." [Khandhavagga (The Book of the Aggregates), Samyutta Nikaya].

"One who fully understands [form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and conscioussnes] is freed from form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness, [freed] from birth, aging, and death; freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; freed from suffering." [Khandhavagga (The Book of the Aggregates), Samyutta Nikaya]

"The instructed, noble disciple understands form subject to arising as it really is thus: 'Form is subject to arising.' He understands form subject to vanishing as it really is thus: 'Form is subject to vanishing.' He understands form subject to arising and vanishing as it really is thus: 'Form is subject to arising and vanishing.' He understands feeling . . . perception . . . volitional formations . . . consciousness subject to arising . . . subject to vanishing . . . subject to arising and vanishing as it really is . . . This is called true knowledge, and in this way one has arrived at true knowledge." [Khandhavagga (The Book of the Aggregates), Samyutta Nikaya]

I have told my story about Buddhism and Hinduism in my books "Existence and Ephemerality" and "Reason and Passions". Roughly speaking, I concluded that nirvana (Buddhism) and moksa (Hinduism) look like dying before death. Kill all your passions and you will live and die in piece. Except for the fact that you have not lived at all. These great narratives also have great problems with the internal consistency.

I have learned a better story from the East; I will try to find time to tell it later. (I retired recently, but I still teach, even more than before. This should not last long.)

Life carries no such values or any values at all. It just is. If precise outcomes are required try chess where at least one person can win or lose but failing that draw. In life, where value judgements are concerned, a positive result.

Life can bring both.

There are are so many prizes or gifts along the way(family,friends,achievements etc)and these may make our lives worthwhile in our own and others estimations.

I wouldnt neccessarily view the other side as punishments so much as setbacks or sadness.

Punishment implies the input of another determining and delivering that which may not always be the case.

We get to live with the cards dealt to us so to speak and to manage the consequences of that.

"Punishment" may not be the proper word; in the explanation (of the question), I used the word "damnation".

"... the fact that we wish to live does not mean that life is good; the desire to live may be a damnation ...". Anyway, the question is whether life is something "good" or "bad" - or which of the two sides prevails.

Dear Mario,

'' Anyway, the question is whether life is something "good" or "bad" - or which of the two sides prevails.''

There is no consciousness of anything outside life and so life is all there is; it is something easy and nice and other time hard and painfull. Life could not evolve to create a specy of animal that wonder if it is good or bad as if this animal can reflect beyond what life permit. Human can throw language talk about life as if it is up to us to decide what life is but it is life that decides what we are and not the reverse since we are part of it and just a little ripple in the grand sceam of things.

Regards,

- Louis

Many stories have been told about the issue of the meaning of life, and about the great passion with which people have sought for this elusive something, for which it is not sure whether it exists or not. In the middle of his successive career, a man living in a big city in the West, began to be haunted by the question of the meaning of life. This question was tormenting the man stronger and stronger, so that he decided to abandon his career and consumerist life, and to go to Himalayas, and find there a sage who will tell him the answer to this essential question. The man hoped that the answer of the sage will allow him to live in peace and with pleasure, as he used to live at the time of his childhood and before the question of the meaning of life had seized his mind.

After a long trip and a tortuous climbing into the mountain, the man arrived to the cave in which a famous sage lived, and was received by him. "I came to ask you what is the meaning of life" - said the man. After a long pause, the sage raised his ayes towards the man, and said: "Life is a fountain." "What?" - shouted the man. - "What do you mean by this? Have I travelled over a half of the world and made a dangerous journey into this mountain to hear something like this? This is crazy indeed." After a shorter pause, the sage raised his eyes up again, look to the man and said: "You think that life is not a fountain?" In other variants of the story, the sage may give different answers of the same kind; for example, he may say "Well, than life is not a fountain", and similar things.

Many comments have been made and can be made to this story.

Sincerely, life is a joke, and so is death; neither should be taken seriously.

Dear Martin,

Since life is all there is then if it were a joke then ''all there is '' is a joke which nullify the original meaning of what a joke is.

Dear Mario,

I find the search of the sage journey quite cliche. The journey towards searhing some meaning in life is anything but searching to be told by someone else. Searching someone else answer is oppose to search the answer. The answer has to comes from your own life itself.

Martin: "... life is a joke, and so is death; neither should be taken seriously."

So used to say peasants from my native village. I consider this a wise attitude; and I sometimes say "... a bad joke ...".

Louis: "I find the search of the sage journey quite cliche. ..."

Indeed, but Robert Nozick, from whose essay (Philosophy and the Meaning of Life) I learned the story, intended it as a joke. I told the story in my way, but the essence is the same. A lot of serious comments can be made to this story.

Louis Brassard , is life all there is? Certainly not. Is the entire phenomenal realm a one big joke? Yes. A giant amusement/abusement park. A reality show. Is the entire phenomenal realm all there 'is'? Certainly not.

That which is the source of all is not that of which it is the source.

Jokes can only turn 'bad' when taken seriously. And when that happens -- ha ha ha -- there is nothing more funny than that.

Joking aside, life is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to die. (So don't squander it!)

In my opinion alterating mentioned terms

It’s neither prize nor punishment. It’s a GIFT 🎁 given from Allah .... He could have created us some other type of creators but he created us a human being. I feel very grateful to him.....

Very nice topic should remain live for a while...many thanks bringing up this discussion here Mario Radovan , very much appreciated 👍👍🎁🎁🎁🙏🙏🙏🙏

Dear Mario,

I was not critizing you. Yes, a lot can be said; I could have said more but I limited myself to my first gutt reaction.

Dear Martin,

I like joke too. If your life feels like a great amusement park then you are the first person that I met that feel that way all the time. I just fell off a platform last Friday and it is why I can have fun speculating. The real test for your hypothesis of the grand amusement park is not a something you could say; I would believe you if you would accept to play in a torture chamber. Since it is just a grand amusement park including the torture chamber then why hesitate? I you would do it , I would beleive that you really beleive what you say but I would not enter the torture chamber after you.

Regards,

- Louis

Louis Brassard , i covered both sides of the coin in my comment above: "a giant amusement/abusement park".

And that i am not willing to voluntarily enter the torture chamber is a part of the whole joke . . .

Reward and punishment do exist in life based upon your deeds

I returned from the forest, and I produced the following remarks..

* "The source of all" cannot exist. If every entity must have a "source", than "the source of all" should have a "source" too. But what could this source be? Besides "all" there is nothing. Hence, "the source of all" cannot exist, and the expression "the source of all" means nothing; it does not refer to anything.

* "... life is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to die ..."

Indeed, this is an excellent opportunity which you cannot afford to miss!

* "I was not criticizing you ..."

I love to be criticized; you can throw all sorts of words on me; just do not throw stones.

* Some people exaggerate sometimes, and make slightly "too strong" statements. But this is what one must do if he/she want to be heard.

* I visited a building-site near the graveyard this morning. "We do not have a good view of the sea here", - they say - "but we have a perfect view of the future!" Ah, those free masons! How wise they are.

The entire phenomenal realm has one and only one source. That source (the One) is infinite and eternal: without a beginning and without an end, and, of course, without a source. That said, the One is beyond all concepts, including truth, so nothing true can be said about it. The best way to approach the One is via negativa (the One neither does nor does not exist, the One neither is a being nor is a non-being, etc.), but even this path falls short of the simplicity of the One.

As for the forest: While dwelling alone in the forest, diligent / One can cross beyond the realm of Death. (Devatasamyutta, Samyutta Nikaya)

Bertrand Russell said, that the universe exists, and that is all we can say about that. And I agree.

Regarding the forest, it is a rather small forest on a hill, which belong to my family, and where I read and write best. Life is not comfortable there, but there is a relative peace - in comparison with the small city where I nominally live.

I will see the text you mentioned.

human life is a nonlinear journey and extreme empathy with person may be equivalent loss of length and social value with respect to rational ideology

The life is a prize for making oneself excellent for this world and for the life of eternity.

It is what you make out of it. We only live in a 'probable' world - all is illusion unless you make a reality out of it.

Life "is what you make out of it." - Indeed, and possibilities (opportunities) often seem good, but they are essentially limited. King Solomon who have done and enjoyed great things, at the end concludes that "all is vanity and vanity of vanities" (Eccl, 1:2).

George Santayana says: "There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval". - So, let us enjoy it! But, people look somehow frustrated and angry rather than joyous.

Anyway, it seems easier to be a "pessimist" than an "optimist".

Dear Mario,

Pessimsts are rarely deceived!

Regards,

- Louis

Mario Radovan , is it possible that this world is the best of all possible worlds in the state of greatest deterioration?

About deterioration: When beings are deteriorating and the true Dhamma is disappearing there are more training rules but fewer bhikkhus are established in final knowledge. (Kassapasamyutta, Nidanavagga, Samyutta Nikaya)

There is so much to reflect on Socrates here, his last words to friend Crito: “We owe a cock to Asclepius. So pay the debt and don’t be careless.”

"true philosophers make dying their profession" (Socrates in Plato's Phaedo)

"is it possible that this world is the best of all possible worlds in the state of greatest deterioration?"

It surely is possible (a lot of things are possible); but I doubt the world ever was particularly good.

“We owe a cock to Asclepius. So pay the debt and don’t be careless.” --- By this, Socrates intended to say that life is a disease, which is cured by death; it was a custom to give a gift (or to offer a sacrifice) to Asclepius after a person was cured of a serious disease.

Socrates is the man whom I criticized a lot and intensely. The next post contains two paragraphs from my book "Existence and Ephemerality"; you may read them if you will, but it is not obligatory.

Two paragraphs from my "Existence and Ephemerality"

4.44 - Socrates said and did many remarkable things during his life, but he became famous because of the incredible calmness with which he accepted his death sentence and execution. However, some things he did the last day of his life, described by Plato in the Phaedo, make me angry. After he was sentenced to death, Socrates was held in prison for several weeks, waiting for the execution. His friends were coming to visit him in prison and they spent the day with him in discourse as they used to do before. The last day of his life, at the end of which Socrates had to be executed, his friends came earlier than usual, but Xanthippe, Socrates' wife, was already there. When they entered, they found Socrates "just released from the chains, and Xanthippe ... sitting by him with little boy [their son] on her knee." But Socrates and his friends, the famous lovers of wisdom, had important things to do, so Xanthippe (with the child) had to be sent away immediately. Socrates said that "someone should better take her home", so that they can play their childish game in peace. And so, "some of Crito's servants led her away crying hysterically" (Phaedo, 60a). O, Xanthippe, the wife of my dreams! Such a dear woman spent on a man of dubious qualities. I hope Xanthippe found a better husband after Socrates was gone. ...

4.45 - Regardless of my criticism of Socrates, there is one place in the story about the last day of his life, described in the Phaedo (77d-78b), which I truly appreciate and which shows the essence of his discourse and of his life. Socrates and his friends who came to him in prison, were doing their best to prove the immortality of soul, but they were not quite happy with their proof.

- You are afraid - said Socrates at the end - that when the soul emerges from the body the wind may puff it away and scatter it, especially if a person dies on a windy day.

His friends laughed but they were confused.

- Take, Socrates, that it is not we who are afraid, but that there is a little child in each of us, who feels this fear - said one of them. - Tell us how to persuade him not to be afraid of death as if it were a bogy?

- You must say a magic spell over him every day - said Socrates - until you have charmed his fear away.

Therefore, Socrates knew that his discourse was a magic spell, the aim of which was to charm the fear of death away. Bertrand Russell says that the courage and peace with which Socrates accepted death would have been "more remarkable if he had not believed that he was going to enjoy eternal bliss in the company of the gods" (in Raju, 412). I do not think that Socrates believed much about gods. He was a master of narration and he knew that narration is the best means by which mortal beings can struggle against the spectre of death and against the fear of it.

Thank you. Is n't Asclepius a god of healing ? In that sense this is about 'resolution' in this life , regardless of what comes next (and this is not about someone who is exiting, but advice to someone who is staying back).

A great prize

Yes, Asclepius is the "god of medicine" (as Wiki says) in the Greek mythology. Regarding healing, Socrates' last sentence is usually interpreted in the way I wrote above. Some inspired souls say this in a different way; for example:

(") ... As he felt the poison creeping up to his heart he said, "Crito, we ought to offer a cock to Asclepius." It was the Greek custom after recovery from an illness to make an offering to the divine healer, Asclepius. To himself Socrates was recovering, not dying. He was entering not into death, but into life, "life more abundantly." (") - in Collected Dialogues of Plato

I am not particularly enthusiastic about such entering into life "more abundantly". For me, death is death, and Amen.

Dilshad: Socrates' last sentence "... is about 'resolution' in this life , regardless of what comes next (and this is not about someone who is exiting, but advice to someone who is staying back)."

I am not sure whether I understand exactly what you intended to say. In my view, things are clear. Socrates was seventy, he was tired of everything, and he decided that it was the time to go, before diseases and other bad things come and force him to go. I am only 65, and I can almost understand him.

To those who are "staying back" - which means, who continue to live - Socrates gave the excellent advice I mentioned above. Therefore,

- Take, Socrates, that it is not we who are afraid [of death], but that there is a little child in each of us, who feels this fear - said one of them. - Tell us how to persuade him not to be afraid of death as if it were a bogy?

- You must say a magic spell over him every day - said Socrates - until you have charmed his fear away.

Socrates understood life very well. He loved to speak, mostly in ironic way, and this is what he was doing his entire life, until his last breath. He believed that discourse is the most efficient magic spell that people can produce, and that this spell helps them to endure the horror of life and death. I will be back on Monday.

Optimists and pessimists (and all the other ists) are all equally deluded.

"Optimists and pessimists (and all the other ists) are all equally deluded."

Perhaps; and who is not deluded?

My simple answer to the perennial question of "the meaning of life" runs as follows.

The universe is a process; this process produced human consciousness. This consciousness asks questions that cannot be answered in the way that satisfies the consciousness.

Whatever you give me as the answer to the question of meaning, I can (and must) repeat the same (initial) question "Why?" (is this "good"). You can offer me paradise, but I can still ask why should I spend eternity in paradise (which seems rather boring to me). There is no "good answer" to the question of meaning: an answer that "stops" further asking of the same question.

I wrote (long ago) that consciousness is (or manifests itself as) "anxiety and yearning" which cannot be eliminated. The anxiety and yearning can (allegedly) be calmed by a "charming story" about a blissful eternity (that awaits us) but such stories do not work for everybody.

Who is not deluded? One (not me) who fully understands:

"And what (...) is full understanding? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion. This is called full understanding." (Khandhavagga, Samyutta Nikaya)

I destroyed lust, hatred & all delusions; therefore, I fully understand. (For lust I am not quite sure, because this word has many dimensions.) Anyway, it seems that I should fully understand or nearly so. But I do not feel saved & liberated. I should probably work harder in this regard.

Form, feeling, perception, consciousness, and formations / 'I am not this, this isn't mine / Thus one is detached from it. (Sagathavagga, Samyutta Nikaya)

So, if you 'do not feel saved & liberated,' maybe it's because you already are.

Incidentally, I have been reading an anthology of texts on the meaning of life. (This motivated me to ask this question.) I noticed that some authors do not differentiate concepts "the meaning of life" and "a meaningful life". But they should do this. The first concept regards the ultimate value/aim of life: it seeks the (impossible) answer to the question "Why" is life good or bad, by itself. The second concept regards the issue of "How" we should live (in the best way), since we have been born, regardless whether being born is something good or not.

"Good and bad are relative concepts, which don't really exist. (...) There is bad within the good and goodness within the bad. Good and bad within themselves don't really exist." --Kōdō Sawaki

"Good and bad are relative concepts, which don't really exist."

"Good and bad are relative concepts, ..."

All values are relationships between a subject (individual or collective) and an object. Hence, all values are essentially subjective, because they depend on subjects (whose values they are). There is a wide consensus about values, but a consensus does not make objective what is essentially subjective (i.e. dependent on a subject).

"... which don't really exist."

To be relative or a relation does not mean not to exist. It means to exist as a relation. In my system of three basic ontological categories (physical, mental, abstract), I would classify values (and relationships on which they are based) in mental entities. There are physical relationships and abstract too, but those related to values belong to the class of mental entities.

But there is nothing with goodness or badness as a property. And so the question "Why is life good (or bad)?" makes only sense if it means "Why do I see life as something good (or bad)?"

But there is nothing with goodness or badness as a property.

Correct; values depend on a subject, and they express the attitude (mental state) of a subject towards a phenomenon (object). A subject can be an individual or a community (with a wide consensus)

... the question "Why is life good (or bad)?" makes only sense if it means "Why do I see life as something good (or bad)?"

Correct; again, "I" may be "We", in a case of a community (religious, scientific, sports, hunting, etc.)

Searching for meaning is ultimately pointless. Many lives experience few extreme conditions, but simply a sameness, repeating the previous day's activities. Looking at happiness and what it actually means is the best stance to take.

Very interesting read, perhaps somewhat relevant to the discussions posted here. 'Cockroach Theory By Sundar Pichai'. Follow the link: https://seminalresearch.com/cockroach-theory-by-sundar-pichai/

For someone with a painful terminal illness who wants to die with dignity, continued life can be an unwanted imposition of suffering, if not a punishment. For someone who might've faced a death sentence, a death-evading plea bargain in return for testifying against others, can seem a reward if not a prize. And of course the afterlife can be either a reward for good behavior or a punishment for bad behavior, depending on where the afterlife takes place. In an ancient gladiatorial competition, continued life could be seen as the prize won by the victor. Note that I've managed to say all this without mentioning "meaning of life".

... Note that I've managed to say all this without mentioning "meaning of life".

I intend to write an essay on the meaning of life; the first issue that ought to be discussed (clarified) is the meaning of the expression "the meaning of life", as well as of some other expressions, such as "the purpose of life", "a meaningful life" and others.

In brief, one can speak about at lest two different things: the meaning/value of specific lives, and the meaning of (human) life in general. The later is always problematic, because people are finite phenomena with infinite aspirations, which inevitably creates a sense of frustration and anxiety. I hope I will find time and will to produce a slightly longer story about this topic.

I said that people are "finite phenomena" with "infinite aspirations"; from this opposing facts arise our greatest (unsolvable) problems.

Many people consider themselves infinite phenomena (immortal souls), but I have some doubts in this regard. For example, I read that a special space in the best Roman hospital was kept always ready and free for a former pope (in case he needed it). Why did the pope ask (or allow) that? He knew that he had excellent chance to go to paradise, so it made no sense for him to care too much about his health.

The advice given in the cockroach story is very good (stay calm, and ... be smart); the problem is whether people (on average) are able to behave in such way.

Finite respirations, infinite aspirations. Maybe that's why the yogis focus on breathing while sitting, and not on what they want to achieve by (focusing on breathing while) sitting.

Respiration surely matters, but when I see Oriental sages of various kinds (mostly on television) I am not particularly impressed. So, I will probably continue to respire in my primitive way.

That which is primitive is also the most advanced, because it is the closest to the origin.

Thank you, Fiann, for this nice theory & explanation. But I do not take seriously most of psychological and social theories. They look to me like nice fables.

People of the Old Testament and Homer's Greeks lamented about the misery of human life & death more than anybody else did. I do not believe that this was because they were not loved enough when they were children.

People die and they are not happy - wrote Camus (in "Caligula", if I remember well). This is the best sentence about people I have ever read.

This depends

Problems faced

Number of successful

And their specific handling and mentality

"Surely, brahmin, I do not have / Creditors who call at dawn, / Chiding me, 'Pay up! Pay up!': / Hence, O brahmin, I am happy." --Master Gotama [Sagathavagga (The Book with Verses), Samyutta Nikaya].

".. O brahmin, I am happy"

Buddha saw suffering everywhere and in everything, and he sought a way of liberation from the miseries of this world. This monk says he is happy! He looks to me like a heretic.

Incidentally, I produced a paper "On Qualities and Values" (8 pages); this text is intended to be part of a larger text about "the meaning of life". If somebody tries to read the text (available on RG), critical comments are welcome.

Preprint On Qualities and Values

Buddha is neither happy nor unhappy nor anything inbetween. But one does not arrive to such a state at once and Buddha knows it; and Buddha also knows the audience (its level of understanding and capacity to comprehend). So there is the case in which, really, it is correct for Buddha to say that not being indebted is being happy.

---

i agree that a consensus does not make a subjective entity objective: i will use this argument next time i deal with a coercive government agency.

i would not limit the secondary qualities to sentient beings. My refrigerator is conscious: it imitates the cracking sound made by my spine, ankles, and knees. And i try to imitate the refrigerator's empty coolness. And my little desk lamp illuminates the entire apartment! And i try to imitate . . .

Definitely a priceless gift and a prize. I am grateful with all my cells and particles in my body to the Almighty ( Allah/God)

Thanks a lot bringing up this question here dear Mario Radovan very much appreciated.

This depends on our choice

Ironically, the prize is handed at the very start; and the end inevitably comes as punishment

Oriental ontology (the movement of self from a body to a body, karma, nirvana, ...) is much more inventive than the Western/Semitic ontology (one life, which ends in paradise or hell) is. But Oriental rhetoric (especially Buddhist) is slightly irritating, because it refuses to take a clear stand and make a clear statement about too many things.

"Buddha is neither happy nor unhappy nor anything in between."

And when he died in this world, he was neither dead nor alive, nor something in between. And so forth.

Let me quote a small peace from my book Existence and Ephemerality.

6.27 - A disciple once asked Buddha to give some explanations about the existence, life, and death, or to admit that he does not know the answers to such questions. Buddha answers to this challenge with the famous story about a man struck by a poisoned arrow. It would make no sense for the man to wastes time on discussions about where the arrow came from, who let it fly, what wood the bow was made of, and similar things; what matters and what must be done is to pull the poisonous arrow from the body. Hence, Buddha does not want to waste time on dealing with ontological issues; he refuses to deal with such issues because this is not useful, because it does not lead to proper life, enlightenment, liberation, and nirvana (Eliade 1984, 92-93).

Therefore, Buddha argues that it is not necessary to know the answers to ontological questions to be able to follow the way of liberation from the sufferings of birth, living, growing old, and dying. Such questions are set aside, because this knowledge is not needed for the liberation. However, Buddha does admit that these issues are "difficult to understand" and "beyond dialectics", so that they cannot be properly expressed by the human language. Let us mention here that Socrates and Plato would probably not have agreed with Buddha about the importance of ontological issues. For the Greek masters, endless discussions about metaphysical issues were the most efficient cure against the poisonous arrows by which existence strikes every human being.

" i agree that a consensus does not make a subjective entity objective: i will use this argument next time i deal with a coercive government agency."

Tell them that you were told so by a very trustworthy person.

"i would not limit the secondary qualities to sentient beings. My refrigerator is conscious ..."

I am not sure it is, but I am sure that it is not possible to prove that it is not.

Human life is a nonlinear journey similar to flow of water in rivers originates (Birth) followed by passage with boundaries and finally 'The End'

"Human life with respect to peace of mind is boon"

It says: "Christian Jost commented on an update to your project: 'On Life and Death' "

I cannot find the comment.

It is neither a reward nor a punishment. Life on Earth is the result of humanity's stupid decision to move from a positive to a negative environment at the instigation of Draco's civilization. It happened 300,000 years ago. You will learn more about this from Laura Knight-Jadczyk's publications.

I did not find Laura on RG; anyway, I have learned quite a lot already, and will try to learn more.

Mario,

Here you have Laura's sessions

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/threads/cassiopaean-session-transcripts-by-date.13581/

The most important information comes from the sessions of 1994. I do not say that all the information is true. It may be about 70% true, because for various reasons there are distortions in the messages transmitted by Cassiopaeans.

"That base should be understood, where the mind ceases and perception of mental phenomena fades away." (Saṃyutta Nikāya)

yattha mano ca nirujjhati dhammasaññā ca virajjati ye āyatane veditabbe.

"Laura's sessions" look somehow mysterious, at first sight; anyway, I am writing my own text "On Life and Death"; a first draft should be produced rather soon.

Martin's piece of wisdom is slightly to mystical for me too.

Mario Radovan You probably don't mean that they are mysterious, but that they are doubtful and surprising. However, pay attention to how logical they are and how they explain the global situation. In total, only a few people in the world received similar messages: Barbara Marciniak, Billy Meyer, Carla Rueckert, Alex Collier. However, Laura's messages are the most accurate.

Normally civilizations officially contact each other. Positive with positive, negative with negative. There is only limited contact between positive and negative. It is different with us because we are not a typical negative civilization. We are on the border between positive and negative. The Draco civilization that conquered us tens of thousands of years ago breeds us just as we breed cows. Draco live in 4D, we live in 3D. They at 4D feed on negative energy that is emitted by people on Earth. Drako erase our memory of our previous life so that we do not go in a positive direction. Drako have no interest in contacting us officially, because then people would remember their origin and quickly become positive.

It is interesting in the messages of Laura Knight-Jadczyk that being good or bad is not subject to evolution in the sense that evil becomes good. Good or bad is something like an innate quality of the soul. It often takes millions of years for the soul to change from negative to positive and vice versa. The universe is in balance, half civilizations is bad and half is good. Beings living in bad 4D civilizations feed on the suffering emitted by beings in other negative 3D civilizations, including the burning of inhabitants of 3D on a stake alive. 4D like it since it emits a lot of fear energy, i.e. negative energy that they feed on. Bad 4D don't do it because they like to torment people, but only because otherwise they wouldn't survive without feeding off negative energy.

Mariusz, this is too complicated for me.

I will post my paper on the issue of the meaning of life next week (I hope).

I put on RG my preliminary text "On Life and Death" (in three parts); it deals with issues of the meaning of life and of the meaningful life, with religious and secular view of these issues, with death and immortality, and with the optimistic and pessimistic view of life.

Preprint On Life and Death (1) The question of meaning

For those who do not have time & will to read such things, I quote the last paragraph of the text, which tells nearly everything that really matters.

6.34 - Sages and common people have always asked what is most important for a good life, and what makes human life good. My lasting answer to this perennial question runs as follows: good girls, good poetry and good wine. When they say to me that this is not a serious discourse, I swap "girls" for "people", and then I really mean it.

Mario Radovan , if you really mean it, it is sincere, and what is sincere is unassailable; there is no such thing as a serious discourse, or a serious anything for that matter, so those who act seriously do exactly just that: they act (dramatis personae).

"... what is sincere is unassailable"

Not necessarily. A dictionary says: unassailable

adjective

not open to attack or assault, as by military force or argument:

unassailable fortifications; unassailable logic.

not subject to denial or dispute:

Shakespeare's genius gives his works an unassailable position in world literature.

Personal feelings can be unassailable, and a formal prove (logic) inside a given formal system, can be unassailable. Fortifications and Shakespeare are not.

i just met Jiddu Krishnamurti for the first time, and this is what he told me:

"Life has no meaning. If you give a meaning to life, it's not life. ... Don't quote me. ... I am not criticizing you, this is all facts. ... Don't agree with me. ... Have you understood something? ... Of course. Then what? Don't go into great explanations. We're after a very simple statement. ... Please, ask this question of yourself: Why life, which is an extraordinary thing, great complexity, great depth, and great beauty, why that life has become so shoddy."

youtube.com/watch?v=fQT7fgzuT78

Ah, life & death again! Let me quote the greatest sage from my forest.

"The peasants from my village knew life well, and they used to say that life is a joke which is not to be taken seriously. They did not have illusions that life served any particular purpose or was leading to anything. Life is to be lived in the best way this can be done, but without much expectations."