Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Logik]

So is there such a phenomenon as stillness?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry

[roydop]

So is there such a phenomenon as stillness?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry

And?

What's your conclusion?

[Logik]

So is there such a phenomenon as stillness?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry

And?

What's your conclusion?

What am I supposed to conclude?

If there is a phenomenon whose behaviour can be described as T-symmetrical function then that is (mathematically) stillness.

These things come close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal

[roydop]

All that math stuff is metaphor.

There is "something" that does not change, here, now.

But it is not mental or physical. The quality of awareness (not the awareness of phenomena, but the awareness itself) is always the same.

[AlexW]

There is only ONE Mind, which is within ALL human beings.

This (always OPEN) Mind KNOWS ALL things.

The human brain, however, twists and distorts this KNOWING with its own THINKING.

Agree with "There is only ONE Mind" (I prefer calling it consciousness as, to me, mind seems very much connected to thought and less to the other senses).
But mind/consciousness is not "within" anything, it IS everything.
Also, it is only the "ONE Mind"/consciousness that KNOWS - human brains don't know anything.
The "twisting and distorting" is ultimately happening in the one mind/consciousness which mistakenly identifies itself with the limited (e.g. the idea of the person) - as you said "There is only ONE Mind" and thus everything, even the distorting, happens within this one mind (thus its not the fault of a person at all, a person doesn't do its own thinking - it is, itself, thought up)

[Dontaskme]

On and on and on... is exaclty Samsara.

There's nothing wrong with more experience (keep in mind Taoism 101: you can't experience a "high" without experiencing an equivalent "low").

There is also nothing wrong with an end to experience (abidance in/as pure, Absolute Being).

There is no such thing as a still mind...a still mind is like a still wind...on and on and on can't stop it, nothing to stop it.

Nothing to stop the flow of life flowering, dam in it up is futile. Resistence is futile too.

.

So is there such a phenomenon as stillness?

All concepts exist as an idea...KNOWN

But who and what you are is beyond that even...UNKNOWN


Stillness is only known in relationship to movement...both conceptual ideas interfacing with each other. Appearances.
There’s nothing here but appearances interacting with each other.


The nothingness in which appearances appear disappear reappear....is this unknown knowing.

[roydop]

There is no such thing as a still mind...a still mind is like a still wind...on and on and on can't stop it, nothing to stop it.

Nothing to stop the flow of life flowering, dam in it up is futile. Resistence is futile too.

.

So is there such a phenomenon as stillness?

All concepts exist as an idea...KNOWN

But who and what you are is beyond that even...UNKNOWN


Stillness is only known in relationship to movement...both conceptual ideas interfacing with each other. Appearances.
There’s nothing here but appearances interacting with each other.


The nothingness in which appearances appear disappear reappear....is this unknown knowing.

Stillness is not an appearance. A thing or an experience is movement that is taking place on the backdrop of stillness, like a movie playing on a screen. The movie appears and disappears on the screen but the screen is unchanging.

The world arises and passes but Self/Absolute is.

Mutually dependent phenomena is a ponzi scheme that always collapses back to source/stillness. The two manifestations (mind and matter) rise from the Absolute, which is not dependent upon the two manifestations.

[Dontaskme]

The nothingness in which appearances appear disappear reappear....is this unknown knowing.

Stillness is not an appearance. A thing or an experience is movement that is taking place on the backdrop of stillness

Your just using different concepts to describe the same unchanging substratum.

It's different that's all.

Nothing can know the unchanging substratum because Nothing is it. Only appearances are KNOWN
(knowns) are ideas in not-knowing empty not-a-thing - nothingness aka awareness. (The Absolute)



Stillness will imply movement. Unchanging will imply change. This is knowledge, and all knowledge INFORMS the illusory nature of a KNOWN KNOWER.

If you say you KNOW....you don't.

Knowing is ONE .. No other one knows this.

.

It's pointless to get into a semantic discussion with another nondualist.


.

[roydop]

It's pointless to get into a semantic discussion with another nondualist

✌

[Dontaskme]

It's pointless to get into a semantic discussion with another nondualist

✌

Even using the word Nothing implies Something.

Hence the Neti Neti metaphor, not this, not that, both, yet neither.

[roydop]

It's pointless to get into a semantic discussion with another nondualist

✌

Even using the word Nothing implies Something.

Hence the Neti Neti metaphor, not this, not that, both, yet neither.

Our understanding of "nothing" is incorrect. I'm writing a "thesis" on 0, 1 / "nothing", "something" and how this relationship is actually inverted within the human psyche.

[Dontaskme]

✌

Even using the word Nothing implies Something.

Hence the Neti Neti metaphor, not this, not that, both, yet neither.

Our understanding of "nothing" is incorrect. I'm writing a "thesis" on 0, 1 / "nothing", "something" and how this relationship is actually inverted within the human psyche.

The understanding of Nothingness..From this one here..is crystal clear.

[Age]

I suppose so.

But a, "I suppose so", comes across, to me anyway, as a very strong resistance to thee Truth.

I'm acknowledging that anything is possible -- but a single path just doesn't seem likely to me.

I have KNOWN this for quite some time now. But what does not SEEM likely to you could in FACT be thee Truth.

Whatever you think the Truth is, is your trip.

Thee Truth, to me, IS there could be but just one single path, (no matter how unlikely this seems to you).

Anyway, now that you ADMIT that there could be ONE SINGLE PATH to get somewhere, then we can finally start MOVE FORWARD, (along that path?).

Saying there could be something, doesn't mean that there is.[/quote]

AND I have NEVER said there is one single path. You have just kept ASSUMING that there was NOT one single one, and kept asserting this, ( that is until now, hopefully).

But then might it be that there is NOT a single path to get somewhere -- if that is a possibility?

OF COURSE. That is what I have been saying all along.

I think you might be misunderstanding? I'm saying the opposite could be true: if anything is possible, then it's also possible that there is NOT a single path.

AND I have ALWAYS AGREED with this. You, however, have ALWAYS ASSUMED, otherwise.

That's in response to you saying, if anything is possible, there could be a single path. I'm just showing it goes both ways by that logic.

From the very outset I have NEVER said that there is a single path. I have just been stating that because of the ASSUMPTIONS you have, you see/think that I have been saying there is a single path, which has led you astray to keep misinterpreting my writings. Just like you are doing here now.

You have NEVER clarified with my on what my views are exactly. You have just always ASSUMED some thing. Therefore I have been writing in a way, which has led you more astray, which was so easy to do, because of what you thought you knew.

When you obsess over words as you do, any meaning beyond those words becomes muddied.

Do I "obsess over words" or is that your perception?

Both?

I would say, from a certain perspective, that your answer here IS True.

Now, COULD your perception be WRONG, or partly wrong?

I'm really not interested in going through all of your gyrations with you.

Could this be partly because I asked you a series of clarifying questions about the abuse "you" do to "others", and this does NOT want to be LOOKED AT at all?

I don't think so. I'm not taking it as seriously as that. How can I abuse others here? Don't we all have filters to protect ourselves?

When you say "here", what do you mean?

If I recall correctly I have NEVER used the 'here' word in relation to the abuse that you do.

It's tedious and boring.

If that is what you find when discussing, or playing, with me, then I suggest just STOP doing it.

I do ignore your posts most of the time. It's just not where I want to spend my energy.

Unless of course you want to point out that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PATH, then you will spend some energy.

Also, I think you have a mental disorder. (Which, by the way, if you do and you know it...you should be upfront about it so that people know what else they're dealing with.)

I was upfront with it previously. In fact I was up front with it with the very first post I made in this forum. If I recall correctly "you" have even commented on this before. But I must be mistaken.

Did I comment on it with you as "Age" or were you under another name?

I do not remember.

I HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER.

Then why don't you question YOURSELF more?

LOL Does asking a person with a mental disorder why they do NOT question them self more, really seem that sensible and/or sane to you?

Why don't you ask clarifying questions of yourself?

Who says I do NOT do this?

That would be really interesting.

Would you really like me to say some thing here. Ask a clarifying question, and then answer that question? Would that really be interesting?

It might actually be the ANSWER that I have been searching for.

What ANSWER is that?

The of HOW can I communicate better WHERE I will be FULLY heard, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

I think we'd learn more from that, than from you misinterpreting other people so much of the time.

If you are going to ACCUSE me 'misinterpreting', then how about providing some examples, so that have SOME THING that we can LOOK AT them, and then I have at least SOME THING to which I can reply to.

You do have a huge tendency to ACCUSE me of things, but NEVER actually providing any EVIDENCE for the ACCUSATION.

Also, what about the, 'so much of the time', 'misinterpreting' that you do regarding me. FOR EXAMPLE, taking what I write as though I am proposing that there is ONLY one single path? The Truth is I have NEVER even remotely suggested such a thing. You just ASSUME I am. This is because of your past abusive childhood, which you experienced.

Do you think your view and how you feel are representative of ultimate truth that applies to all?

No.

If no, then WHY express WHAT you think and HOW you feel?

Why not? It's fun and it might be useful to someone.

What is "fun" to "you" might NOT be to "another". It might actually be harmful and damage to some one.

Well, people are free to ignore my posts if they think I'm harmful. It is not my intent to be harmful -- it is my intent to be honest and straight-forward, while having fun. You saying that what I do MIGHT be one thing or another, is not conclusive of anything.

OF COURSE IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing I write, unlike yourself, IS OPEN.

I PURPOSELY use the word 'MIGHT' to SHOW that what I am saying is NOT CONCLUSIVE.

I have ALSO continually stated that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing I write could be WRONG.

When I write, I WANT TO REMAIN COMPLETELY OPEN, what do you think this means?

To me, it CERTAINLY does NOT mean that I have a FINAL, CONCLUSIVE VIEW of things. Remaining completely OPEN means keeping a completely OPEN VIEW of ALL things.

But because adult human beings make ASSUMPTIONS and have BELIEFS, then they ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I MUST do the same also. This is exactly HOW the BELIEF-system works. It tricks a person into seeing things in a way that is NOT thee real Truth of things. This is because A BELIEF, by its very nature, can NOT be wrong, that is; to its own self.

Because you see/think a certain way, based on your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, so then you SEE that in "others" also.

The things YOU SAY might be delusional and might limit humankind's evolvement.

OF COURSE they MIGHT. And if you see that they do, then please inform me of WHEN I do this, and more importantly WHY you see this.

First, Provide the EXAMPLE/EVIDENCE of WHEN I do this.
Second, Just EXPLAIN WHY it occurs this way to you.

This way the Truth can come to light and become clearer and brighter for EVERY one.

"you" might actually be passing on very abusive views to "others", who will then keep doing the harm and damage that "you" yourself are doing now.

So, you're making stuff up here...

IF that is what you BELIEVE, then that MUST BE what is taking place here, correct?

and there's no reason to address that unless you have specifics, which you are always asking other people to provide.

Yes that is what I do do.

Continually expressing very closed views, like There is NOT a single path, when this is NOT the Truth, instills in and/or influences "others" to have these very harmful and damaging WRONG views as well, and as such is abusive by nature.

Over the years, I've received communication from people who appreciated and enjoyed my perspective and posts.

Just like I have, SOME times.

So there's going to be some people who like it and some people who don't.

When you say "it" do you mean 'your posts?

If yes, then do you mean ALL of your perspectives and posts or only SOME of them?

I think you would find it VERY RARE, especially in a philosophy forum, for a person to like ALL of what "another" says/writes.

If you THINK your views are NOT representative of the real Truth, then instead of propagating those view to "others", would it NOT be better to LOOK FOR what is the actual real Truth, BEFORE you start spreading non-truths?

You're missing an important point. I don't think there is a "real Truth". So there is no reason for me to worry about whether my views are representative of something that I don't even believe in.[/quote]

Okay that is fair enough. But I just wonder how you can decipher what you BELIEVE is "bullshit" from what you BELIEVE is "true"?

Besides judging "another's" views on your own, how would you know what is "bullshit"?

Also, is it possible that there is an ultimate 'real Truth' for ALL?

By the way have you noticed how "you" say that "another" talks from one perspective, but then when they are questioned/challenged on that, and they want to disregard that and dismiss it, that then they change to talk from another perspective?

Yes.

If yes, then have you also noticed that from one perspective you say that this is all fun and play, but when you are questioned/challenged and you want to disregard that and dismiss it, then you also change perspective and say that this is just tedious and boring?

I'm not changing channels or perspectives -- it's a matter of SOME things being fun and worthwhile, while others are NOT.

Yes very true.

What appears to be fun and play to you is TRYING TO put "others" down, and/or disregard what they are saying, usually from a misinterpretation you have made, and, what appears to be tedious and boring to you is WHEN you are questioned and challenged in regards to what you say and write.

You may NOT be "changing channels or perspectives". You just appear to have different channels or perspectives on certain things.

I have different channels and perspectives than you do. I very much ENJOY and LOVE being challenged and questioned, I find this very playful and fun. Whereas, I DISLIKE and HATE TRYING TO put "others" down and/or just disregarding what they say. I find this very boring and tedious. What I also find very boring and tedious is when some thing is said, but just is NOT, or can NOT be, clarified and/or elaborated upon.

I'm choosing how far to go into the gyrations that any one person is presenting.

I do NOT know of a human being who does NOT choose to do this.

I do put effort into communicating with people, as I have just done with you now.

Do you really find it an "effort" in communicating with people?

I certainly do NOT find communicating with people an effort. But I do find it a very long, drawn out, and slow process learning how to communicate BETTER with people. But this is because I am very slow and simple. My mental disorder probably does NOT help me either.

But if you ask me 50 more fucking questions based on your misconceptions and ideas that I don't share, I have a right to say "that's enough for now". Yes?

You can do say any thing you like.

BUT, if you KNOW what my misconceptions ARE and what the ideas ARE, which you do NOT share, then you MUST KNOW what the RIGHT conceptions ARE and WHAT the ideas are that you DO share. So, instead of just saying I have misconceptions and ideas that you do not share, then WHY NOT just say what the right conceptions ARE, and, what the idea/s IS/ARE that you do share?

Also, if you just do NOT want to, or can NOT, answer the questions I ask, then so be it. But if you BELIEVE those questions are asked from misconceptions and/or ideas that you do NOT share, then WHY NOT just CORRECT the situation?

You have misconceptions about me, and express ideas, which I do NOT share, as though I do share them, so I continue on until they are CORRECTED. Like for example, the idea that 'there is a single path' is NOT an idea I share. It is just a misconception you have about me.

Also when I SEE ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, which ARE/COULD BE WRONG, I continue on exposing them. Like for example, when there is an ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that There is NOT a single path to get somewhere I will ask clarifying questions so that thee real Truth IS exposed.

Bringing thee Truth, through clarifying questions, instead of just immediately exposing them, I find fun and playful.

[Age]

Simply “EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.” within the context that we have been discussing, that would be great, thanks.

Okay.

There is only ONE Mind, which is within ALL human beings.

This (always OPEN) Mind KNOWS ALL things.

The human brain, however, twists and distorts this KNOWING with its own THINKING.

Very true, well said.

Now, is a human brain a thing that knows, or is a human brain a known thing that cannot know?

A human brain THINKS. Whereas the one and only Mind KNOWS.

A human brain grasps knowledge/information (I have worked out which word works better in this context yet, however) from the five senses. That information/knowledge is stored as 'thoughts'. These thoughts, which are individually unique to each individual human body, literally, THINK they know what is right and wrong, true and false, correct and incorrect. But as we are all well aware 'thinking' some this right is NOT the same as 'KNOWING' some thing IS RIGHT.

KNOWING, for sure and absolutely, comes from the one and only (Truly OPEN) Mind.

The brain can only KNOW some thing, for sure, is when the True, Right, and Correct information/knowledge has been fed to it, through any or all of the five senses. Because the human brain CAN store information/knowledge, which from a perspective is KNOWING, then the brain in a sense CAN know. But, the ONLY way to clarify, clear up, OR KNOW if some thing, which has been fed into the brain is ABSOLUTELY True, Right and/or Correct knowledge/information is to KNOW that absolutely EVERY thing is in agreement with that knowledge/information. This is WHERE and WHEN the Truly OPEN Mind steps in (and takes over).

EVERY thing is KNOWN to thee one and only Mind, including the human brain. The human brain, and HOW it works, is known to thee Mind. When ALL are in agreement, then this WILL BE 'proven' KNOWN to be True, Right, AND Correct.

The human brain, in a sense, can NOT know, as it is only a "processor" as such, as it can only 'give out' what has been 'put into' it. The human brain can NOT 'know' because it really can only 'think'. Although the human brain may 'think, it knows' what is true, et cetera, only through AGREEMENT can 'what IS 'really True' be KNOWN.

[Age]

There is only ONE Mind, which is within ALL human beings.

This (always OPEN) Mind KNOWS ALL things.

The human brain, however, twists and distorts this KNOWING with its own THINKING.

Agree with "There is only ONE Mind" (I prefer calling it consciousness as, to me, mind seems very much connected to thought and less to the other senses).

This associating the ONE Mind with 'thoughts' is a perfect example of just how the human brain can twist and distort things, by, and into, what it BELIEVES is true. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation of WHY the Mind was/is associated with, and is seen as, thinking/thoughts/the brain, et cetera, but this is long way down the track of UNDERSTANDING, Itself.

But mind/consciousness is not "within" anything, it IS everything.

If that is what is thought, then that is okay. But if 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'everything' are each the exact same thing, then WHY three different words?

What is the purpose of having different words if there is only ONE definition for the three? If words are redundant, then just take them out of the vocabulary.

To me, the three words have three distinctly different definitions.

Also, it is only the "ONE Mind"/consciousness that KNOWS - human brains don't know anything.

Okay.

But WHERE is this "KNOWING" coming from?

Is it coming from one human brain? Or, from somewhere else?

If the Mind IS everything, then EVERY thing would KNOW that human brains do NOT know anything. And, does EVERY thing agree with, and KNOW, this?

The "twisting and distorting" is ultimately happening in the one mind/consciousness which mistakenly identifies itself with the limited (e.g. the idea of the person) - as you said "There is only ONE Mind" and thus everything, even the distorting, happens within this one mind (thus its not the fault of a person at all, a person doesn't do its own thinking - it is, itself, thought up)

Is it being suggested here the one and only Mind mistakes things?

If yes, then HOW would the difference between what IS True and Right be distinguished from the twisted and distorted views of what is true and right?

What is written here in the quote could itself be twisted and distorted, correct? Or is this just NOT possible?