Nothing Is Free

[Satya]

Read carefully: not making a choice doesn't mean consequences disappear; it means a different set of possibilities and consequences may follow.

And when something is sacrificed, does it cease to exist, or does it simply cease to be part of the life we chose? The job you left still exists. The opportunity you declined may still exist. What has changed is your relationship with those possibilities, not necessarily their existence.

A memory remains because something happened, but memory is not the thing itself.

The choice changes what we pursue and what remains available to us. It doesn't erase the distinction between what was given up, what was gained, and what followed.

 

[cheetra]

when something is sacrificed, does it cease to exist, or does it simply cease to be part of the life we chose? The job you left still exists. The opportunity you declined may still exist. What has changed is your relationship with those possibilities, not necessarily their existence.

Say you have an apple, you gave it to someone needy, who will definitely eat it.
Does the apple exist now?

One cannot step into the same river twice.

 

[Satya]

Say you have an apple, you gave it to someone needy, who will definitely eat it.
Does the apple exist now?

One cannot step into the same river twice.

Yes, the apple may cease to exist as an apple once it is eaten. But how does that prove your argument about choice, sacrifice, and consequences?

You're using the disappearance of a consumed object to argue that whatever is given up ceases to exist. Yet if the needy person eats the apple, its disappearance for one person becomes nourishment for another. What disappeared, what changed, and what resulted are three different questions.

And if the river is never the same twice, doesn't that also mean the person who enters it is changed by the experience? Why focus only on what disappears while ignoring what changes and what follows?

My question is simple: if the thing sacrificed ceases to exist, does that mean its consequences cease to exist too? If not, why are you treating the end of one thing as the end of the entire process?

 

[cheetra]

Seems you have a strong belief about this. Thence I wont give anymore argument on this.
It was nice seeing someone has a belief
of their own. I truly respect that.

 

[Satya]

Seems you have a strong belief about this. Thence I wont give anymore argument on this.
It was nice seeing someone has a belief
of their own. I truly respect that.

I am not asking you to believe me. I am simply asking you to notice one difference: what we think about something and what that thing actually is may not be the same.

For example, a map represents a city, but the map is not the city itself. Similarly, a thought represents reality, but the thought is not necessarily the whole of reality.

The point is not that my belief is right and yours is wrong. It is that both of us should be able to distinguish what we think from what actually exists.

Reality doesn't become a belief just because we have a belief about it. And a belief doesn't become reality just because we strongly believe it.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I respect your perspective, even if we see things differently.

 

[MrDreamy]

huuuhhhh long discussion it seems.

Practically .. always there are two sides to any act. Giver and taker. Giver may have any feelings - some cases ego that i helped someone, being valued by others, drained or even sometimes exhausted. Taker may have different feelings too - satisfied, entitled, or needy, obliged.
But at the end if someone is giving its expected that they seek returns in any form. Takers though feel the obligation, most of the time not able to or ready to return it back as expected by giver.

Whatsoever ... we all have our own belief and its good to stick to it. Its always better agree to disagree to keep conversations easy and domestic.

Good thoughts by both @Satya and @cheetra