Good Friday

[Harbal]

I believe that my beliefs are fair and just and truth. I'm simply discussing my beliefs with others, not saying that's what they SHOULD believe.

No you're not discussing them, you are churning out post after post of mindless drivel knowing full well that no one understands any of it. There is no discussion.

How can I justify my JUST belief

If you can't justify your belief then it suggests it isn't all that JUST.

if there's a resonance there, that's what goodness seeks, it seeks the love of itself only, because it loves spending time with itself, just like lovers do.

You see, you're doing it now, utter twaddle.

Most people do not understand the true meaning of the word LOVE...It's not something you get from someone else, it is what you already ARE. You give it to yourself, or you reject it, it's up to you, but one thing you cannot do, you can't ignore it. Love is the only truth.

Love, like any other word, is a label we use as a reference. If, when we use the word "love", we are referring to a particular emotion we feel for someone, then that is it's true meaning in that instance. Love is merely a name we give to a feeling, saying "love is truth" doesn't mean anything.

If life was so cruel, evil or bad or awful, why not just kill yourself? ...why do you live on? ..

Who's life is so bad?

although it is not I the person that knows the truth, I am truth, the person doesn't know, the person is known by truth, else I would be...S

I don't believe this means any more to you than it does to anyone else, you just say whatever comes into your head and think it must mean something.
What good is it to you? You can't live a life based on this rubbish, there's nothing there to base it on. You cannot free yourself from what we call the physical world, regardless of what your intuition may be telling you. You are human and can only experience the world as a human. It doesn't matter what the Universe consists of, or doesn't consist of, we are equipped to perceive it in a certain way and can only function within it in accordance with that perception. What you are trying to present as enlightenment bears more resemblance to insanity.

[Dontaskme]

I don't believe this means any more to you than it does to anyone else, you just say whatever comes into your head and think it must mean something.
What good is it to you? You can't live a life based on this rubbish, there's nothing there to base it on. You cannot free yourself from what we call the physical world, regardless of what your intuition may be telling you. You are human and can only experience the world as a human. It doesn't matter what the Universe consists of, or doesn't consist of, we are equipped to perceive it in a certain way and can only function within it in accordance with that perception. What you are trying to present as enlightenment bears more resemblance to insanity.

Okay, fine, that's your belief. See me as insane, you see what you see,but it's not what I see. Don't deny me my own personal experiences, unless you've actually been their having those same experiences as well.

I live my life based on truth, what feels good and just and right for me as a physical manifestation self evident rational and conscience mind.

I have never denied the physical world? ..if I have show me the quote?

[Dontaskme]

''If you can't justify your belief then it suggests it isn't all that JUST.''

White Wigged Men do not make a JUST JUST

Try getting a tree to justify itself, it's perfection without having to justify that, it's evidence of a Just law.

[Harbal]

Try getting a tree to justify itself,

I will the next time a tree tries to convince me of something I find unbelievable.

it's perfection without having to justify that, it's evidence of a Just law.

In what way is a tree perfect?

[Dontaskme]

In what way is a tree perfect?

It's a perfect example as evidenced in it's appearance of a creator mind.

One that's just, because trees don't answer back, they are JUST BEING

[Harbal]

In what way is a tree perfect?

It's a perfect example as evidenced in it's appearance of a creator mind.

No it isn't. A tree is not evidence of a "creator mind", whatever that is. If it was evidence then it would be generally accepted, which it isn't.

[Dontaskme]

In what way is a tree perfect?

It's a perfect example as evidenced in it's appearance of a creator mind.

No it isn't. A tree is not evidence of a "creator mind", whatever that is. If it was evidence then it would be generally accepted, which it isn't.

Okay fine.

So explain then, how do you know the tree is there? assuming there are trees, which I'm pretty certain there are.

[thedoc]

So explain then, how do you know the tree is there? assuming there are trees, which I'm pretty certain there are.

Now you're contradicting yourself, first you say there us nothing there, now you are saying that a tree exists and you are sure of it.
I don't think you know what you are saying.

[Harbal]

So explain then, how do you know the tree is there? assuming there are trees, which I'm pretty certain there are.

I imagine I'm supposed to say something like: I can see it and, if I'm close enough, I can feel it.
Your turn.

[Dontaskme]

So explain then, how do you know the tree is there? assuming there are trees, which I'm pretty certain there are.

I imagine I'm supposed to say something like: I can see it and, if I'm close enough, I can feel it.
Your turn.

Okay, so who or what is this I that sees/feels the trees presence?

The tree is seen, but can the seer of the tree be seen?

That which cannot be seen is the seeing /creating the seen tree?

Where does the I come from?

Does that make sense?

There has to be something there that's creating the tree?

And there my friend is the ''creator mind''. In plain view as evidence in the tree...the one that you deny.

A tree is not evidence of a "creator mind", whatever that is. If it was evidence then it would be generally accepted, which it isn't.

[Dontaskme]

So explain then, how do you know the tree is there? assuming there are trees, which I'm pretty certain there are.

Now you're contradicting yourself, first you say there us nothing there, now you are saying that a tree exists and you are sure of it.
I don't think you know what you are saying.

The SELF cannot contradict itself ....the contradiction arises when the SELF is claimed by no one other than itself.

[Harbal]

Okay, so who or what is this I that sees/feels the trees presence?

It is an entity capable of thought (see Descartes). It is also capable of forming impressions which are manifested within what it calls it's conscious mind. This mind is able to form impressions because of the data it receives from it's environment, brought to it via the entities senses and processed by the entities brain. The impression in the mind and the source of the data comprising the impression are not the same thing. The impression is just a representation of its cause.

The tree is seen, but can the seer of the tree be seen?

The entity is aware of other entities similar to itself and assumes these entities experience things in a similar way to itself. The entity has reason to believe it can be seen by these other entities. The entity does not believe it can be seen by the tree (at least this entity doesn't believe it can).

That which cannot be seen is the seeing /creating the seen tree?

In this case, the entity is the seeing and can be seen. What we call the tree can only be known to the entity by the representation of it in the entities mind, and in this respect it could be said that the tree is a creation of the entities mind but the entity feels it is entitled to assume there is something in the environment which corresponds to the impression in it's mind that it calls a tree.

Where does the I come from?

That I cannot tell you.

[thedoc]

When in the company of fools, keep your own counsel. Bye.

[uwot]

Okay, so who or what is this I that sees/feels the trees presence?

You wanna do this for real?
It doesn't actually follow from any given perception that there is any particular perceiver. All that is logically sound is that there is the perception.

The tree is seen, but can the seer of the tree be seen?

That would be a different perception. In order to link that to the first, requires a third perception which is the beginning of identity. Hang on to it, logically it could finish at any time.

That which cannot be seen is the seeing /creating the seen tree?

It doesn't follow that the perceiver is generating the perception. You need to fill in the gaps with an argument. Any clod can pluck clauses out of thin air.

Where does the I come from?

I take it from what I have read of yours, that there is no I.

Does that make sense?

Well, if a few allowances are made.

There has to be something there that's creating the tree?

Doesn't follow. All that follows from a perception of a tree, is that there is a perception of a tree. Go back to the Old Kent Road. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200.

And there my friend is the ''creator mind''. In plain view as evidence in the tree...the one that you deny.

Not so fast, Dontaskme, you have a bit of work to do on this.

[Dontaskme]

Okay, so who or what is this I that sees/feels the trees presence?

It is an entity capable of thought (see Descartes). It is also capable of forming impressions which are manifested within what it calls it's conscious mind. This mind is able to form impressions because of the data it receives from it's environment, brought to it via the entities senses and processed by the entities brain. The impression in the mind and the source of the data comprising the impression are not the same thing. The impression is just a representation of its cause.

The impression causer being what exatcly?

The entity is aware of other entities similar to itself and assumes these entities experience things in a similar way to itself. The entity has reason to believe it can be seen by these other entities. The entity does not believe it can be seen by the tree (at least this entity doesn't believe it can).

Can the tree be separate from what's looking at it? to say it exists when you are not looking at it.. is an assumption that the tree is separate from you, but it is not....

The other entities are assumptions only, there is no way you can prove that they can see. Seeing can't be proved, it's already what's seeing...it's self evident.

That which cannot be seen is the seeing /creating the seen tree?

In this case, the entity is the seeing and can be seen. What we call the tree can only be known to the entity by the representation of it in the entities mind, and in this respect it could be said that the tree is a creation of the entities mind but the entity feels it is entitled to assume there is something in the environment which corresponds to the impression in it's mind that it calls a tree.

The tree cannot exist without a mind to vision it.

Where does the I come from?

That I cannot tell you.

Then how can you tell me I see?

You said I see the tree?

I imagine I'm supposed to say something like: I can see it and, if I'm close enough, I can feel it.