Oh, stop it.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:45 pmThere is no why, there's just what's happening, right now, including this....Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:44 pm
Uh, huh.
Why bother writing then?
If words mean their opposite, why not just go out and be kind to someone.
Why lecture?
A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Stopping will only stop when stopping is meant to happen, and not one second before.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:11 pmOh, stop it.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:45 pmThere is no why, there's just what's happening, right now, including this....Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:44 pm
Uh, huh.
Why bother writing then?
If words mean their opposite, why not just go out and be kind to someone.
Why lecture?
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Ah, so there is meaning.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:22 pmStopping will only stop when stopping is meant to happen, and not one second before.
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Meaning is a known concept, yes.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:25 pmAh, so there is meaning.
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Yeah, the tooth fairy is a known concept. I've heard of that. I don't explain the way things are, however, using that known concept.
You don't seem to mean what you say.
It's rude
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
It's a philosophy, my philosophy, that's all. Perceive my philosophy as you wish, it won't change the way I philosophise, according to my own unique understanding.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:48 pmYeah, the tooth fairy is a known concept. I've heard of that. I don't explain the way things are, however, using that known concept.
You don't seem to mean what you say.
It's rude
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Being impervious to influence isn't always a good thing.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:57 pmIt's a philosophy, my philosophy, that's all. Perceive my philosophy as you wish, it won't change the way I philosophise, according to my own unique understanding.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:48 pmYeah, the tooth fairy is a known concept. I've heard of that. I don't explain the way things are, however, using that known concept.
You don't seem to mean what you say.
It's rude
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
I'm simply discussing my philosophy according to my own understanding as to the nature of reality, which I happen to know is non-dual.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:59 pm Being impervious to influence isn't always a good thing.
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Gosh, it sure sounds like someone has access to reality and knows some truths about it.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:03 pmI'm simply discussing my philosophy according to my own understanding as to the nature of reality, which I happen to know is non-dual.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:59 pm Being impervious to influence isn't always a good thing.
Here's a little 'koan' for you:
How is non-dualism communicated about?
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Where there is duality, we can communicate with each other. In that state we are all separate. But when the non-dual knowledge dawns, when everything is realised as the universal self, who would speak to whom and how and what to speak? Everything is one in that grand experience. How can the Knower be known? In Self, there is no distinction between the subject and the object, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experienced. All dualities merge into One Self.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:05 pm Gosh, it sure sounds like someone has access to reality and knows some truths about it.
Here's a little 'koan' for you:
How is non-dualism communicated about?
This is a communiacation From Self to Self.
You cannot experience yourself as an object of knowing. That object has become part of knowing itself. It has become one with the Knower. The Knower alone is. There is no such thing then as 'knowing'.
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Everything is known by the knower, but who is to know the knower? If the knower is to be known, there must be a second knower to that knower, and the second knower can be known by a third knower, the third by a fourth, the fourth by a fifth, and so on without any end. So you cannot know the knower. How can the knower be known? The knower has already been designated as the 'Knower' and you cannot now call it the 'known'. Therefore there is no such thing as knowing of Knowing, or knowing of Knower. It's all one. Which is what nonduality is.
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
Yeah, ok. That sounds very familiar, but perhaps it's just a deja vu experience. In any case, this is all on topic in your thread. And that's where it belongs, in your thread on non-dualism. In other threads where humans are wondering and positing about reality and their lives presenting the thoughts of what is only a tiny facet of a living self as if it was the totality of reality is off topic and sometimes inhuman in the negative sense.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:30 pmWhere there is duality, we can communicate with each other. In that state we are all separate. But when the non-dual knowledge dawns, when everything is realised as the universal self, who would speak to whom and how and what to speak? Everything is one in that grand experience. How can the Knower be known? In Self, there is no distinction between the subject and the object, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experienced. All dualities merge into One Self.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:05 pm Gosh, it sure sounds like someone has access to reality and knows some truths about it.
Here's a little 'koan' for you:
How is non-dualism communicated about?
This is a communiacation From Self to Self.
You cannot experience yourself as an object of knowing. That object has become part of knowing itself. It has become one with the Knower. The Knower alone is. There is no such thing then as 'knowing'.
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
There is only communication.
Without anyone communicating.
It is existence that seeks its own Transcendence.
The realization that there is no one, if not pure communication, can cause dismay.
The soul understands that it is nothing and has the crossroads in front of it:
* Getting lost in nihilism, as in this case.
* Or face nothingness in the name of one's faith in the Truth.
Basically it is a question of love.
If love is lacking, nihilism is inevitable
-
- Posts: 6801
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
I'm gonna be blunt. I think it's not a great thing to do to one's self and not in dialogue to say things one is actually not living. If you and DAM actually believed these things, you wouldn't be online producing so many words. And words. And words.bobmax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:09 pmThere is only communication.
Without anyone communicating.
It is existence that seeks its own Transcendence.
The realization that there is no one, if not pure communication, can cause dismay.
The soul understands that it is nothing and has the crossroads in front of it:
* Getting lost in nihilism, as in this case.
* Or face nothingness in the name of one's faith in the Truth.
Basically it is a question of love.
If love is lacking, nihilism is inevitable
You be at the botanical gardens or in the woods or doing something in the flow of life.
And, yeah, sure, one can write in the flow of life...blah, blah.
But...nah, you wouldn't be here doing this. And the people who have achieved these states, they aren't online posting about and wordy wordy wording at other people who have and haven't.
So, the purpose of coming online and expressing beliefs that one is trying to believe but doesn't quite yet is something else.
And I think it would be kind to find out what is really going on. I don't mean, hey, tell me what is really going on. But for you and DAM to know why you are expressing things that you don't really believe, perhaps yet.
I know. We should just accept things at face value. I should pretend that DAM believes what she says and just says things when they are meant to be said in some non-dualist flow'. But she's shown too much of herself, the human, FULL person recently, God bless her for that, for that myth of this non-self emptiness posting hallucination to be taken seriously.
HUMANS are so, so, so much more than the tiny portions of the self presented in these abstract non-dualist and generally very repetative kinda new agey non-expressive communications.
You're trading in such a wonderful complex organism for, like your pinkies.
You are saying this is the only real part. My pinkie. And you talk a pinkie metaphysics. When a whole human is also separate and meaningful and troubled and struggling and sharing and expressing and feeling....
not some abstraction that can only repeat itself endlessly while seeming or really pretending to be profound.
I mean, I know life if fucking hard....
but it's a loss to just identify with one tiny facet of amazing life that you are.
A fly is born nondual. Bacteria are. Stones are. You want to cut yourself down into the microorganism facet of you be non-dual. Did pain drive you there? A need to be superior? A way out? Face that reason you want out...
but there is no way I will pretend that DAM for example is stronger when she talks like this. She was so much stronger when she expressed the specific human pain of dealing with RoyDop the asshole.
She was vast. And ocean. Talking like she is now and not just in this thread...
it could be produced by some programmers in a few hours, as a turing device, or phone answering message, in a few hours.
Even just the pancreas are vastly more complicated, real and interesting.
Re: A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
It is inevitable not to have certainties.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:19 pm So, the purpose of coming online and expressing beliefs that one is trying to believe but doesn't quite yet is something else.
There is always a risk in stating something, even the most obvious.
What matters is how the belief is formed.
And a lot of evidence converges in the same direction.
But ultimately it's up to you to state what you believe.
There are those who seek and perhaps glimpse something.
And there are those who believe that there is nothing to find. So what do you communicate to do?