How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?

[Dontaskme]

You yourself dontaskme were the one who wrote people are born the way they are, only some people are capable of somethings, e.g., a brain surgeon, enlightened, etc.

What are you saying now, your answers seem contradictory from what you said previously BUT one word answers do not really give to much away.

NO, I didn't say people are born the way they are. Simply because no one has ever been born, there is simply life happening to no one.
If a man becomes an enlightened being or a brain surgeon it's because it has happened to him - Happenings
happen, but they do not happen to a ''someone'' or ''something''. Man only thinks it happens to him, but there is no entity in life that thinks. When you live you do not think. When you think you do not live.

Maybe you are not really sure of what it is that you are trying to say?

Real can neither be spoken nor written. Only the illusory is spoken and written.

[Dontaskme]

dontaskme, how many people do you really expect to know exactly what you mean when you write things like "Written words appearing on a computer screen are an optical illusion of light?

I know a ton load of people who understand this idea.

Mainstream education are only about building obedient robotic servants to serve the system. Only a robot would enjoy it's own programmed enslavement. Not all of us are robots.

Do you also suggest the computer screen is some sort of illusion also?

Yes, the computer is an illusion within illusory life.


What I suggest you do ken is to stop shooting the messenger and look into what's being read here ...if your that interested ..why not do your own research into the ideas being presented using the internet via google...there you will find plenty of information to back up my claims.

[ken]

Ken, having a "view," which you do say you have, entails belief.

Of course I say I have a view. Every person gains 'a perspective', a view, of Life from what the body has previously experienced and is also experiencing in the present of NOW. These views or perspectives are always being gained. At every waking moment they are being formed and changed, and by the way much more so when a person is truly open. Anyway, these gained perspectives actually influence how a person will then view, look at, and 'see', understand, the 'world' around it, Life. For example, imagine a child who, by no fault of their own, lives in a world that has always told that they must believe (in) something. That person grows up into an adult, and through the five sense, that child/adult has never experienced anything contrary to 'they must believe (in) something', so that person actually now believes that all we human beings need to have and maintain beliefs. Then one day that person is told that actually all new born babies come into life without any beliefs at all and that they function perfectly normal, i.e., they are able to learn from the world around them without having any beliefs whatsoever, in fact they can actually learn some things far easier, quicker, and simpler than an adult who has and maintains beliefs can. Then imagine this person actually thinks about that. After thinking about this this person then tries to justify the belief that they have held for sometime and want to continue having and maintaining, though that is through no fault of their own making again, but they now say, “Having a “view” entails belief”. Now imagine if this person, who is still trying to hold onto their belief that people need to have beliefs, is asked, “How, exactly, does a person having a “view” necessitate that they must also have to be having a belief as well? When the truth is ALL human beings naturally look at and see the “world” around them. This looking and seeing happens through the five senses and obviously what was seen naturally just becomes a view. These views obviously always change depending how we are now looking, i.e., from a truly open viewpoint or from already gained views. But just because some of us have a view that, I think, does not necessitate that the view, itself, has to be believed.

Now imagine if you were that person, how would you respond to that question, "How, exactly, does a person having a view entail belief"?

I am NOT saying that having a view does not entail belief. I am just trying to get a better perspective from your point of view.

Obviously what has been viewed forms a basis for how a person then sees things. For example if a person has through the five senses already gained a view that I, and therefore, we MUST believe (in) something, then that WILL effect how they will then look at absolutely every thing. How we look at any or ALL things obviously then influences how we 'see', understand.

The more a view is believed to be true or not true will obviously close off more of a person's ability to look ahead or from now on, which accordingly will then effect how much they are able to 'see', learn, understand, and reason. The less a person believes a view to be true or not true, then the more they are able to see. And obviously if this is true, then if a person has a completely open view and thus coming from a completely open viewpoint, which is obviously what they have if they are neither believing nor disbelieving (in) anything, then they will very easily, simply, and quickly see the Truth of ALL things that they are interested in and as such which are truly meaningful to them.

A person who was already truly open can see what just took place. What happens when people stop holding onto beliefs is they actually open up, which then allows them to see the Truth, of all things, very quickly, simply and easily.

You might be thinking now that “this” is what I believe and thus is a belief I have. If anyone is thinking anything like that, then the Truth is “this” is ONLY what I see. It is just a view I gained, because of my previous experiences, and until proven either way is completely OPEN for 'looking at', viewing, again.

I already gave you an example of what looks like a pretty strong belief that you have.

I have tried looking for that example but unsuccessfully, so I am unable to reply to it now. But if you were to mention it again, then we can all see if what “looks” like a pretty strong belief was in fact a belief at all, or if there was something stopping you from looking at it completely openly, and thus see if you were able to see the Truth that it was in fact not a belief at all. The rest is up to you now.

That, by itself, invalidates the thrust of everything you say about you not having any beliefs or disbeliefs.

What one person sees, or thinks they see, does NOT validate nor invalidate anything at all. The Truth will come to light when everyone looks from the truly open Mind and thus is able to see clearly and ALL are in agreement. Again we all will have to wait and see if what you see IS actually what you say it looks like AND IS the Truth. Just maybe what you see is being distorted by, let us have a guess, your strongly held and maintained 'belief'.

However, you have too much of yourself invested in your belief in your lack of belief and disbelief to to let go easily.

On first glance your sentence here appears to be suggesting that if a person actually does have a belief, then that in of itself prevents that person from letting go and being able to see the Truth. But I must be wrong because having, holding and maintaining beliefs is the very thing you yourself are trying to fight for. You have been insisting that we ALL must have and maintain beliefs. So now I am not sure what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong here. You say and believe that ALL people MUST have beliefs because they are unable to function nor are they able to contribute to society without beliefs BUT they should NOT HAVE to much invested in their beliefs and disbeliefs because those things will actually stop them from letting go easily. So what is it going to be?

Maybe I am not understanding you fully here. What do you mean by “to let go easily”?

Are you saying that if a person has a belief then that will stop them to let go of the belief easily because the Truth may be that that belief is not actually true, right, and/nor correct?

Beliefs come in gradations and is not necessarily an assumption of knowledge. That would be a barrier to growth.

I never said beliefs are an assumption of knowledge. I wonder why you would think that?

We all have beliefs: openness (not-knowing) is not a lack of belief -- belief provides us with the structure we need in order to function creatively in the world -- but the ability to accommodate new experience and information without prejudice.

Are you absolutely sure that we all have beliefs. Name some of the beliefs ken has, besides the belief in Self that was already told and explained to you earlier. In fact also name ALL the beliefs you say you had as a new born baby.

Obviously not-knowing something is not a lack of belief. If a person does not know something, then that just means they do not know it. EVERY person does not know some thing. In fact EVERY person does not know a lot of things. I might even be able to argue that EVERY person knows and does not know some things equally but I have never thought about that before and will just leave it for now. But I think we could all agree that there is NO one person who knows every thing.

'Openness', just gives a person the ability to learn, understand, and reason anything. Openness allows us all to not be affected by our preconditioning, in order so that we can become wiser. To me openness allows humans true creative spirit to thrive. If people believed we could not do things nor we could not create things, then we would not be the most and only technologically advanced animal. To me beliefs actually prevent and can completely stop imagination coming into fruition. I see in order for every new imagination to then be invented and then be created to the point of it becoming reality comes from openness. I do not see how we need structure in order to function creatively. I see some people believe we need structure in life but this, again is no fault of their own, is because they were trained to think and thus believe in and of a certain way. If a child is continually told, through the five senses, that we need structure, that was in order to enforce authority over others for them to follow. People can not be leaders without follows. Some people want to be leaders. Leaders can not exist without some form of “structure” over others. Human beings do not need structure in their lives, but some people believe they do.

This is how I see what happens, a person/people NEED to believe in their ability to create something. For example human beings would not and COULD NOT have flown to and walked on the moon if they believed it would not and could not happen. ONLY AFTER people started believing that it was possible was when it then became possible. People can not create what they believe is impossible to create. The power of belief is pretty amazing here. Only after people start believing that they can do something is when they start beginning to see how they can make it happen. After they see that they can make it happen then they will go about building and creating it, and then they attempt it and if successful they obviously achieve it. So without the belief in ones own personal self, or for human kind as a whole, in Ones Own Self then no human made thing becomes a reality. No human made thing would be if people did not have a belief in themselves. This applies from the dreaming of the wheel to it coming a reality to the dreaming of flying to the moon and actually landing on the moon coming a reality, that is if human beings did actually fly to and land on the moon. I do not know if they did or not. I was not there first hand so I do not have any real evidence either way. Without first hand evidence then why would I have a belief (in) something, other that what I have just explained about believing in Self and Its ability?

This brings me to my next point of how I see what happens, if a person believes that humans landed on the moon or believes that humans did not land on the moon, then are they are actually NOT able to learn, find, uncover nor discover, and thus NOT ABLE to see the Truth? These types of beliefs are exactly what I say people do NOT NEED to have. I, for one, do NOT HAVE these types of beliefs. They only prevent and distort the actual ability to see the real and only Truth.

'Intelligence', is the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything whatsoever. Only human beings have this ability and this ability is why we have created all we have. No other thing besides human beings themselves have created all the truly amazing things we have. This ability is what separates us from all other animals and any other known species in the universe. However, the stronger a belief is, in anything other besides Our ability, then the more this ability is blocked, while the weaker a belief is the less the less this belief will prevent our true ability from occurring. No beliefs whatsoever on the other hand allow this ability to thrive and flourish fully.

For example, from just being truly open, (and a couple of other things), I discovered that a truly peaceful world was not just possible but actually an extremely easy thing to create. I, unintentionally, came across a formula that shows how this could be come a reality. So, I KNOW how everyone can live in peace and harmony together, eternally. I may KNOW this but I certainly DO NOT believe it will come true. If I did believe, then I would not be open to discovering out how to actually form the words to be able to show this, and just importantly, to show how easy all this is.

Therefore, I do NOT believe in the formula or the process or anything else because any or even ALL of my views could be completely wrong. So I will stay open to that fact, that is until I am proven wrong and shown where and why I am wrong OR when everyone is actually living together in peace and harmony. I, however, could not be wrong in the sense that there is nothing that i say is right. I am open to changing any view I have so what was once a wrong is always able to be changed to a right view. The ability to always change until the right wording is formulated for EVERYONE is what will allow the formula and process to work successfully.

Although, I do NOT believe nor disbelieve in what I see will happen and take place, I do ACTUALLY believe in the Self, in that I WILL find a way to show YOU how a truly eternal peaceful world can and will happen. If I did not have the belief in the Self, that It can do and achieve anything that It truly wants to do and achieve, then I would not be able to show how a truly peaceful is not just a possibility but will soon be reality. If ALL people are working together as One, then that One can make anything happen.

Apologies for drifting off topic with all this other dribble, but hopefully you can see how I differentiate between the one and only belief I think we human beings need to have in order to progressively grow, from the beliefs that I think that we do not just need but are actually a deterrence and could well become our downfall. I say downfall because just look at what has happened when just some people maintain very strongly held religious beliefs and others maintain a very strongly held belief that “We NEED money to live”. This belief just enforces greed, which separates us whilst very strongly held religious beliefs also does the same. Separation has taken us off course, which has led us to where we are now. NO other thing has created what we have for ourselves now. We have created this greedy, separatist "world", whereas, unity will lead us back into and take us back on course leading us all towards peace.

Beliefs or non beliefs AND Self-talk are two very strong and powerful drivers that I think most human beings are just not fully aware of yet.

Whilst just writing this I realized that instead of saying, “I neither believe nor disbelieve...”, I should have be writing, “I do not like to nor want to neither believe nor disbelieve...” I say "I should be saying" it this way because I sometimes catch My self out when I re-read and notice that I have actually written in a way that IS, although unintentionally, a belief. Sometimes I am trying so hard to show that what I only think is right but I come across as though I believe it to be right. I have found that self-talk is something that is best noticed, watched, and monitored continually.

By the way I have already replies to a few more posts, but was unable to sent them yet, and I think i know deeper where you are coming from reflex and dontaskme also, but i will still send them all as i wrote them. Further on you will see that I THINK i know what you are trying to say. If, however, you can see better where I am coming from here, then I am sure total agreement could be reached. Your persistence has is showing me better where you are coming from and i have noticed you have also seen further and deeper into what I am just trying to explain. If and when we can get to the bottom where both of the "right" and "wrong" parts of our views is separated out and we can agree on the right parts, then truth is uncovered and found.

[ken]

Thank you for sharing your beliefs, Lacewing. (Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?) As always, your sanctimonious comments are the epitome of empty-headedness.

I do not see any irony here at all. I did not notice any beliefs in what lancewing wrote. But then I might not be looking at this from a completely open viewpoint. Can you show us where the actual beliefs are?

I'm all for "openness." Openness is critical to personal growth. But beliefs are the rungs on the ladder of personal growth and indeed the very foundation civilization is built on. All of history is one of old beliefs being discarded and replaced by new and (hopefully, but not always) better beliefs, but not no beliefs.

Beliefs may well have been the very foundation civilization is built on. But, I have never said “civilization” was not built on beliefs. The civilization that beliefs have created is very easy for ALL of us to see. All I have said was beliefs can be a hindrance and are in fact not needed in the way I have been describing them. If, as you say, openness is critical to personal growth and this is true, then the importance of openness would best be not underestimated.

Let us just take a quick look at what this belief built “civilization”, which human beings themselves, have actually created here on earth. If beliefs are the rungs on the ladder that has caused this “world”, and beliefs it could be argued could be the major cause of this war-torn, pollution-riddled world, then imagine what could be created without beliefs, and instead what would have been created with a true openness to learn and understand what is and would be best for every one and another, ALL of us.

It's always easier to demonize beliefs than to formulate superior ones.

In your own words if beliefs are being discarded and replaced by new, and only sometimes, better ones, then why have the belief in the first place. If something is not absolutely true, right and correct in the beginning, then why believe (in) it?

I would have thought a truly intelligent person would not believe (in) something if they knew all along a superior "belief" would and/or does already exist. Name one belief that you know is not absolutely true, right and correct for us now and let us see if we can formulate a “superior” one.

Provide any belief that you or people have now and I will try to show that by just formulating a superior truth this will on its own accord and by its own self doing will “demonize” beliefs in of them very selves.

If by having and maintaining beliefs is the correct way to go, then that would NOT in any way, let alone ALWAYS, be easier to demonize beliefs than to formulate superior ones. The opposite would actually be true. That what is already absolutely true, right, and correct could not be "demonized".

[ken]

Hmm... and yet I have a very successful life that I live consciously and with gratitude every day. Wonder how that's possible?

Your unconscious beliefs.

What, exactly, are the alleged unconscious beliefs?

I have not yet noticed any unconscious beliefs, so obviously I must not be looking deeply enough here.

I am not saying there is none there. I am just "blinded" by something that I am unable to see them now.

Lacewing, I know EXACTLY what you and Ken are talking about. Been there, done that. It was just a phase I went through. I eventually put it behind me as a childish fantasy.

Did you actually stop neither believing and disbelieving also?

If so, then why did you start having and maintaining beliefs and disbelief again?

And you really don't see the irony in what you're saying?

To be able to see from the unconscious, especially the unconscious from within another person is a great talent to posses, and i mean that sincerely, if you could point out that unconscious belief that you can see, which i can not, then that would help me greatly here.

The 'Unconscious' is a topic that i am also searching better words for and and a better way for how to use them correctly when describing the Unconscious.

[Dontaskme]

Name some of the beliefs ken has, besides the belief in Self

Who is the Ken with the belief of Self but a physical vehicle ..aka a perceived object. Nothing perceived can perceive or believe.

Any idea that there is a perceiver believer inside the perceived believed is just an idea.

All beliefs are about the relationship of imaginary things and are thereby false.

[ken]

My question is (as others have asked too): Why is it so important for some "believers" to demonstrate that everyone must be a believer in some form or another? Who the hell cares? How would that justify/validate any particular beliefs? If certain beliefs serve you, great! If a person doesn't hold or maintain certain beliefs, great! Why do some believers think that the whole world has to believe like they do? If not exactly what they believe... then at least believe in SOMETHING? It seems so desperate.

the good example of a young child being able to function without beliefs or disbeliefs.

A child is not immune from belief. It starts at the birth of the child, the child is given a name by the parent.

How, exactly, is a baby at birth not immune from belief? What belief does a new born human baby have? If a new born baby is given a name, by any person, how does that then mean the child itself has a belief already?

The child's only recognition of itself as an entity is possible only through the help of the knowledge it has been given by the parent.

I agree here to a certain extent, but if we are to look at this more closely you would have to then admit that we are not actually self-aware beings. In that we are only aware of “our/the” identity that others have given and continue give and put on us. That is why I agree here only to a certain extent.

Also and is this recognition of ourselves as an entity only possible through the help of the knowledge it has been given by the parent done with and by those illusory words you always are talking about, right? If it is, then are we ourselves, the human body and person, or are we just the illusion of others, or are we just the illusion of our own selves, or....?

But I do agree to a huge extent that a person only knows who they are through and from others. That is of course until they can answer the question “Who am 'I'?” successfully and thus KNOW 'Who 'I' am'.

The parent says to the child..''tell me your name'' and that's where identity starts, prior to which there was total silence of no thingness...

What appears contrary now, to me anyway, to what you said a few sentences ago is you are now saying that, prior to that moment a parent says to a child, “tell me your name”, there was total silence of no thingness, would this not suggest that there was no beliefs also? How can a new born baby have beliefs but also have a total silence of no thingness at the same time? Or, do you think ALL parents say “tell me your name” at the very instance of birth to their babies?

I was about to apologize for the constant picking up of the literal things you say. But in all honesty I am just very simple (take that anyway you like) and I view and see things in a very simple way and from a very simplistic viewpoint. Especially in a philosophy forum, if some thing is written, but not really meant, then I will certainly question it.

So, if that was not what you really meant, then what is it that you truly do mean and/or did meant?

'Phil-o-sophy', once meant love-of-wisdom. Wisdom is not gained by saying things that are not truly meant. Saying things out of their true or intended meaning can lead to confusion, instead of understanding, and, it is understanding that makes us all wiser. Saying things in a way that reveals their true meaning and in such a way that they can not be taken out of context will lead to further and better understanding.

constant use of memory to maintain that identity is how we function in the world, we live and function as a memory since that is the only place where the entity lives.

Sure the little separate self entity lives there. But the real and true united Self entity certainly does not live there.

If a child didn't believe in it's identity given to it by the parent in the form of a name it would have no way of being of any value to the society in which it functions.

Are you truly saying here that if a child did not believe in the name that 'It' was given, as an identity, then 'It' would have no way, whatsoever, of being of ANY value to the society in which 'It' functions?

I, for one anyway, see EVERY child being of equal value as EVERY other child in any society no matter if a child has been given any identifying name or not.

I am bemused and confused again now of your continual writings about words being illusory and not real and whatever else you say, but now also the amount of importance you give to identifying words. Especially in regards to what value a child has if any in relation to some words. One day you might be able to clear this up for me better???

There is no entity living in the constant flow of the eternal present. An entity is a belief.The entity that you believe yourself to be is nothing more than a memory or thought. What ever we experience is thought induced, thought does not live, thought belongs to memory.

I see a LOT of Truth in this in relation to what I call the little separate selves. But from previous experiences I also see that I am not going to get any clarification from you even if I asked for it with very simple questions, but I will not let my presumptions override openness. I also want to express a view on what i call APE, Assumptions based on Previous Experiences, i.e., when people are thinking, and thus behaving, in ways that are based on previous experiences then they are acting like pre-intelligent beings, APE. So, I better do what I think is not the best thing to do and try again, you said, "The entity that you believe yourself to be is nothing more that a memory or thought", which I agree with totally, but then you say, "thought does not live", therefore if 'the entity' does not live, then why say 'the entity'. This would be like talking about 'the' unicorn, using the word 'the' implies that there is one. So, very simply, "Why do you say 'the' entity?"

You say that 'an' entity is a belief, so does that mean 'a belief' does not live at all or does not live in the eternal-presence of NOW?

Also, if there is no entity, then why use words like 'we', 'us', 'i', 'we, etc., etc., in even the same sentences as you talk about there being no entities living in the present?

The human mind has evolved to receive sound as words and not silence.

By definition are 'sounds', not silence anyway? I thought silence would no sounds, and so, sounds would not silence, but then I could be completely wrong???

And, if some sounds are used in different ways, then I thought they could become words?

By the way, “What, exactly, is this human mind you “talk” about?”

So our daily life is thinking, and this thinking is illusory, whereas silence is real. That which is without thought lives.. the thought I am my name, or I am my teeth, my arms, my hair, my smile and so on.... further reinforced by the belief is what's creating an entity where there is none...the observer can only ever be the observed of what's known and seen. Meaning there is no entity looking at life, there is only what's looked upon....thus it is the object that creates the belief in an observer... and the object is created by the thought/knowledge/belief all of which are empty to the core....in truth you have no way of knowing what you are looking at or what's looking...

I KNOW if together we broke this down and looked deep enough into every thing you wrote and say then we could make this make, not just some sort of sense for some people but, complete sense for everyone. But is dontaskme going to keep on believing and thus persisting that thinking, words, etc., is not real and only “illusory” and that words could not be put together into an orderly form that will actually show how to find, see and know Truth? If this belief is what you are going to keep, then is there really any use in asking if you would like to work together with me?

Is "your" belief more important to you then working with others for the better good of ALL people?

[ken]

You tell me. Judgments, suspicions, statements of any kind, do not happen in a vacuum; they all require a conceptual frame of reference -- beliefs. So, Lacewing, the more you protest, the more you declare your certainty in your unspoken and unacknowledged beliefs.

I agree.

I disagree, for now, in that;
If I said I was doing 'some' thing, and I actually was doing that thing, but you believe I was not doing “that” thing, then just because I persist in saying I was doing 'that' thing, which I was actually doing, then that does not mean anything in particular about beliefs. Besides to point out that “your” belief is distorting and/or stopping you from seeing the Truth.

Another example is if a person says they neither believe nor disbelieve anything, and if they are actually neither believing nor disbelieving anything, but another person believes that they must be believing something, then just because the more a person declares with certainty that they are neither believing nor disbelieving anything, which if they are doing, does not mean they are believing anything whatsoever. All they are doing is expressing the Truth, of what they are actually doing. And, just because another person believes otherwise is, in of itself, of no real importance whatsoever here. If a person is actually doing something, and another person can not prove that they are not doing it, then no amount of believing will bring the Truth to light. If a person IS doing, or not doing, something, then that is the Truth. If a person says they are neither doing or not doing something, then just challenge them on that until the Truth comes to light. Just sitting there in your own beliefs and thinking/saying things like, “you can not do that” does not get you or us anywhere. You are literally stuck in “your” beliefs.
Another example of this is if I say I know how to create something, but a person believes I do not know how to, then no amount of them just sitting there believing this will show the Truth to them. If I say I know something, then either I am telling the truth or I am not. Only through the thorough and complete challenging of me will the Truth come out.

By the way I am also waiting for someone to show on here what they believe is a belief that I have/had, and only then, with the right questioning and if we are all truly open and honest, then the Truth will be seen.

For example I will challenge reflex on what they wrote so that I can understand better where reflex is coming from, which will allow the Truth to come to light also. Reflex in previous posts is acknowledging they are seeing, understanding, more of where lancewing and I are coming from, and I will also admit I am seeing more of where reflex and dontaskme is coming from in this post but I need to challenge reflex's statement; “Lacewing, the more you protest, the more you declare your certainty in your unspoken and unacknowledged beliefs.” I need reflex to show, at least, exactly what the unspoken and unacknowledged beliefs are, but hopefully reflex will also provide, where those unspoken and unacknowledged beliefs came from, how they came to exist, how this then influences what a person says and does, etc., etc. before i show what i have come to see within reflex's words. I have already formulated a statement that, at the very deepest level of understanding, I think will provide and thus show the Truth that reflex and dontaskme are getting at here.

I could be wrong but we will never know until we are all truly open and honest with each other.

[ken]

Ahhh ok, now I am understanding more here. Some people are like "golden childs", right? ....Wrong!

Are these ones born with enlightenment or are they born to become enlightened? .....No!

Man is conscious of the aliveness (action, word or thought) of the moment with certainty, only after it happens and never before it happens. Man can never premeditate the aliveness of the moment with certainty.

The difference between the 'you' and the 'I' is 'you' wait to see what happens, whereas, 'I' create what will be.

The amount of words needed to explain that fully so that it is completely understood will depend on how many beliefs 'a person' is made up of and how strongly 'they' do not want to 'let go'.

[attofishpi]

"How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?"

I found out God is a c^nt. It drives me to alcohol.

[ken]

In a sense, Ken and Lacewing are right, but here's the problem: pure awareness, awareness without any content at all, is non-existence. To exist is to define, to establish boundaries, i.e., to formulate beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. On the other hand, and this is where they get it right, any instance of learning must diverge from our reliance on intellectual data, let go of assumptions, associations, emotional considerations, and “knowing.” This back-and-forth is what can be described as an evolving dialectic.

Ken and Lacewing seem to be advocating complete disengagement or non-existence. Now, that may be consistent with some Eastern philosophies, but it is hardly "spiritual." We live in a participatory universe, and the definition of "spirit" is the vital principle or animating force within living things. To act is to define, and to define is to establish ephemeral beliefs.

This is where we are getting closer to the Truth. We are both prepared to look from the “other's” perspective.

I, for one, am not advocating non-existence. That would just be non-sensical to be advocating not to do something by and through the very act of doing it. To be advocating anything, or for that matter, to be doing anything at all there would have to be existence. So, to be advocating for non-existence through existence is non-sensical.

I am not concerned of, as well as I am not sure of, any eastern or western or any philosophies for that matter. I am not concerned with “second-hand” knowledge. I only like to see from what knowledge people have in the NOW. This can only happen by engaging with the existing ones at present. I am only concerned with wanting to stay completely open so as to allow the Truth to come to light. Through two-way peaceful and open discussions Truth is uncovered, found and realized. I like your definition of 'spirit', in a sense, and agree with it here for now and could see this working. But I just need to clarify who/what are you saying is the 'we' in “We live in a participatory universe,...”?

If you are saying that 'we' are the human bodies who live in a participatory universe, then that is fine. But to me 'we', human beings, live/exist within the human brain, for lack of a better place. We have actually come into existence because of and through the physical body, which acts and re-acts with the physical universe. 'We' exist as 'thoughts', a 'spirit' if you like, which is an animating force within living human bodies. Thoughts are like a “spirit” in that they are an existing, unique, non-physical thing living within a unique, physical human body. This existing spirit, little s, engages with the physical universe from and through the physical human body. This spirit exists because of the human body. This spirit was acted upon/caused/created from the physical universe through the five senses of the human body and also re-acts back with physical universe through the actions of the physical human body. So, I am NOT advocating what you thought I seemed to be doing. I say this little invisible non-physical spirit, the person, within the living human body does exist and does engage with the participatory universe.

However, it is this, what I call, 'little' spirit that can and does stop the flow of Truth coming through.

When 'we', the people, start only looking and seeing the universe from what we believe is correct, true etc., then this stops us from seeing Truth. Whereas, deeper within these multitude of uniquely different spirit selves is the One True, big S, Spirit Self. The united One. ONLY from this Spirit is where Truth lies (will be explained another day). This Spirit also exists and engages with the participatory universe. This 'Spirit', is the Mind, which is truly open, whereas, the little spirit, is in the brain. The brain, or more truthfully the thoughts/beliefs with-in the brain, can and does close off/shut out The Openness from the truly open Mind. The 'Mind/Spirit', is however not an animating "force" though, This 'Spirit', is an animating 'freedom' existing within ALL living physical things. This freedom comes in the way of free-will, whereas, the little self/spirit will try and force what it thinks is right/its truth out onto others, the big Self/Spirit just stays open and allows Truth to come and shine through It. The open Mind actually is the way and shines the light for Truth to be seen.

You say, "... and to define is to establish ephemeral beliefs", but this is not necessarily the case. I could organise a group discussion and beforehand we decide on the words that we are going to use in the discussion, we also agree upon the definition of the words that are going to be used and all this is accepted and agreed upon for this discussion. There is NO need to establish nor have a belief, ephemeral or not, in or of anything at that moment, in fact the best thing to do for this discussion would be to neither have any beliefs nor disbelief in or of anything, for the given time.

[ken]

Are saying, then, that you DO, after all, qualify your assertion that belief is unnecessary? How the hell is that any different than what I've been saying? It's a question of emphasis: define/believe, yes, but not so rigidly as to suffocate, but also not so ephemeral as to be meaningless.

If we ALL are agreeing on the definition of something, then that is great, we are ALL in agreement, that surely is certainly not meaningless. In fact it leads to finding meaning. But to then put belief into that what we are ALL in agreement on would be a stupid thing to do, e.g., flat earth, sun earth circling each other, etc. Even if ALL and EVERY person is in agreement on some thing, then I have already advocated here in another post that i think the best thing to do would be to still not believe (in) it but still remain completely open, so that if further or newer Truth comes along then It could and would be recognized and seen for what It is.

[ken]

You yourself dontaskme were the one who wrote people are born the way they are, only some people are capable of somethings, e.g., a brain surgeon, enlightened, etc.

What are you saying now, your answers seem contradictory from what you said previously BUT one word answers do not really give to much away.

NO, I didn't say people are born the way they are.

What? Was it or was it not 'you', who wrote;

"Similarly I can read all the medical text books under the sun over and over again until I'm blue in the face.. but that's not going to make me a qualified brain surgeon. I either am a naturally born brain surgeon or I'm not. It either happens to me or it doesn't, it's the same with enlightenment, it either happens to a person or it doesn't.

All i have done is ask very simple clarifying questions, but your responses are getting more and more confusing.

I have also just suggested that maybe your writings are becoming more and more contradictory.

I will let others be the judge here about contradictions or not.

In fact you have previously stated, again very contradictory that;

"Sorry for being so harsh, but I find you really irritating.. in fact I'm just going to ignore you from now on."

That did not last too long hey. Saying you are going to do something and then not doing exactly what you said you were going to do is a contradiction in of itself, is it not?

Simply because no one has ever been born, there is simply life happening to no one.

dontaskme do you find anything in what i am about to, in your words, "illusory" write is in any way whatsoever just a tiny bit contradictory?

"I am either a naturally born ....{what ever}"
"I didn't say people are born the way they are"
"No one has ever been born"

Even your next quote does not help in clearing things up nor in understanding dontaskme better

If a man becomes an enlightened being or a brain surgeon it's because it has happened to him - Happenings
happen, but they do not happen to a ''someone'' or ''something''. Man only thinks it happens to him, but there is no entity in life that thinks.

As I have said previously there is a lot of Truth in what you write, sometimes, but the very fact that you yourself say that you can not know It is very apparent. Also, the way you write is in no way helping you to express that what you are so obviously very desperate to express.

When you live you do not think. When you think you do not live.

So, it could be argued from that that the only time 'you', a person, do/es not live is when the human body is awake and moving around. Because that is the times when thinking is permanently taking place.

Again, what, exactly, is the 'you' to you?

There are numerous other contradictions in your writing to go through them all fully right now.

Maybe you are not really sure of what it is that you are trying to say?

Real can neither be spoken nor written. Only the illusory is spoken and written.

If 'real' can neither be spoken nor written, then what can 'real' be?

In fact here is a maybe simpler question for you to answer, What actually IS 'real'? (You have yet to answer a simple question unambiguously maybe you will be able to answer this ambiguous question simply?)

But then again according to your own reasoned logic nothing real can be explained nor understood in spoken nor written words, correct?

[ken]

dontaskme, how many people do you really expect to know exactly what you mean when you write things like "Written words appearing on a computer screen are an optical illusion of light?

I know a ton load of people who understand this idea.

I hope you can forgive me for being a skeptic but how many people are there in a "ton load"?

Mainstream education are only about building obedient robotic servants to serve the system. Only a robot would enjoy it's own programmed enslavement. Not all of us are robots.

I could not agree with you more here.

Do you also suggest the computer screen is some sort of illusion also?

Yes, the computer is an illusion within illusory life.

Ok, thanks for the very open and honest straight forward answer. It is refreshing. I can at least to start to see where you are coming from.

Now how, exactly, are you defining 'illusion here'?

Is every thing not real, or is every thing just not how it appears, or .....?

What I suggest you do ken is to stop shooting the messenger and look into what's being read here ...if your that interested ..why not do your own research into the ideas being presented using the internet via google...there you will find plenty of information to back up my claims.

I am not shooting the messenger. I am just asking the messenger some clarifying questions.

About all i can gain out of "your" claims, so far, is contradiction, e.g., Life, itself, is an illusion, which sort of contradicts and refutes its on statement, we are all born the way we are but we are not really born at all, spoken nor written words can explain things, etc., etc., etc.,

You do know that you are actually using written words to explain that you can not use written words to explain things?

Your use of the word 'messenger' here works, for me. What appears to me here is that you really are just passing on the spoken and written words, of others, which you have just heard and seen, without ever really knowing what it is that you are talking about. A messenger after all does not need to know what it is they are actually passing along. They just 'need' to do it. Your continual urgency to be heard shows "your" need. Or is it a case of the 'need to do it' is controlling you? Could that be a predestined, programmed enslavement that is actually controlling 'you'?

I have already acknowledged that you have some of THE Answers, it is just a pity that you so far are not able to explain how others could actually attain these answers also. I still think it would be great if we worked together to help others to attain what you have already had a glimpse of.

Just maybe 'I' have already looked, 'I' have read, and 'I' have seen, and so now 'I' am just asking questions knowing that if you answer them openly and honestly you will then see more also.

[Dontaskme]

You say that 'an' entity is a belief, so does that mean 'a belief' does not live at all or does not live in the eternal-presence of NOW?

There is no thing living in the eternal present...aka infinity...how could there be..what would that thing be, and where would it have come from, and how or who or what would have made that thing?

Aliveness is ...as experienced by the silent witness aka no thing...No thing ever has an experience, an experience is not a thing - Aliveness is not made up of separate things having separate experiences, there is just ''experiencing'' ..it is all things at once, experiencing itself infinitely forever..it is one with the knowing of all things, and this is it, this doesn't have to believe it is it, for it is this already silently one with itself.

In this, or life or what ever you want to call it, thoughts mysteriously arise from no thing and no where which then attach themselves to more thoughts forming narratives of a mysterious entity living in time and space. Thoughts are not alive. Aliveness does not think. Any thing that thinks .. is not alive. The cells of a living organism are constantly dying and renewing themselves, the stomach is digesting food. The stomach digesting food and the cells dying and renewing do not have to think about how to do what they do.

Also, if there is no entity, then why use words like 'we', 'us', 'i', 'we, etc., etc., in even the same sentences as you talk about there being no entities living in the present?

See the post below.

By the way, “What, exactly, is this human mind you “talk” about?”

Memory.


It is memory which makes up the world. Without memory, man would not experience anything. But how real could memory or anything that man believes to be happening in life be?
Words from memory is sound waves that mysteriously appear as words, as only human breath comes out of the mouth while speaking, which is made up of nitrogen and other minor gases which are made up of atoms that is energy which is light, and light appears as sound waves, and not words. Sound is light at a lower speed. Just as light waves transform into sound waves, and words and meanings, light waves transform as sound waves and thoughts in the mind.
The mind therefore is sound in life and the body or everything else for that matter is light as they are made up of atoms, which is basically light.
Therefore the mind never reports what has really happened. The mind i.e. memory does not report ALL movements of the body but only one that is within its memory, at a given moment after it has happened, e.g. “walking“. Therefore walking is not only the past but never has happened the way the mind i.e., memory reports it. Walking happens to man undoubtedly, but in an illusory manner.
Illusion does not mean walking does not exist. Walking exists but not in the way mind or memory says it exists. How it exists, need to be understood by man. Life is a singular flow of light and sound. Memory first happened to man in form of an image which is light. Later on in evolution the image transformed into sound building words and meanings like for example “walking“ in illusory time in the mind.
What really happens in life is not an action that could be known by memory, as life is a singular flow of light and sound as a totality. The bits and pieces the mind reports in form of memory are obviously illusory transformation of sound. Man therefore is not the doer, because even an action is illusory. Illusory action - illusory doer. Illusory doer to mean non-doer.