Infanticide

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Greta wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:58 pm
Nick_A wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:28 amI discuss ideas while you discuss people.
Trouble is, the "ideas" you "discuss" (preach) are usually just abstracted attacks on (ideas) aka people.

You are simply incapable of accepting different kinds of (ideas) aka people so you lash out constantly under the guise of "discussing ideas".(which is all they can be) No, your so-called philosophy is simply about hatred of certain types of (ideas) aka people, usually seemingly the (ideas) aka women who had the temerity to reject you.
:idea:

Bye the way ideas cannot reject you...they come and go in you, and they will quite spontaneously leave you alone only when you stop giving them attention...energy flows where attention goes..follow your own energy what's true for you, and reject the rest, fighting with your shadow self is not a wise thing to do.

and what is wrong with hating on an idea? ..is that a crime?

I hate the idea of mashed potatoes and custard...nothing wrong with that.

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6822
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Atla »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:26 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:29 pm The absolute is not an "I". The absolute is beyond conceptualization.
So what is making this truth statement right now?

Please explain what is making the statement that there is an absolute that is beyond conceptualisation...since you have decided to take it upon yourself to pick out the faults in this subject.

Explain what you are saying?
I personally made the statement, who else. I don't have to add to every damn statement that everything is actually happening within the absolute.

And actually we can tell what others are thinking quite accurately sometimes, you have to be very delusional and narcissistic to think that you are this special snowflake that no one could possibly understand.

Enlightenment doesn't mean that there is no self to realize, only narcissistic, delusional idiots say that. That the self isn't separate doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can'T be realized in some ways.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Atla wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:46 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:26 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:29 pm The absolute is not an "I". The absolute is beyond conceptualization.
So what is making this truth statement right now?

Please explain what is making the statement that there is an absolute that is beyond conceptualisation...since you have decided to take it upon yourself to pick out the faults in this subject.

Explain what you are saying?
I personally made the statement, who else. I don't have to add to every damn statement that everything is actually happening within the absolute.
That's because you are the Absolute. There is only the Absolute. You cannot know you are the Absolute because you are IT ..THE KNOWER IS A FICTIONAL STORY ARISING IN IT.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:46 pmAnd actually we can tell what others are thinking quite accurately sometimes, you have to be very delusional and narcissistic to think that you are this special snowflake that no one could possibly understand.

Enlightenment doesn't mean that there is no self to realize, only narcissistic, delusional idiots say that. That the self isn't separate doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can'T be realized in some ways.
Okay, if you say so.

So be it.

But's your belief is not my belief.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Atla wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:46 pm
Enlightenment doesn't mean that there is no self to realize, only narcissistic, delusional idiots say that. That the self isn't separate doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can'T be realized in some ways.

I know mate, it really does take one to know one.

Please stop while your ahead of yourself.

It really seems to me that you have had a taste of nondualism, but it is plainly obvious that you have not grasped the concept fully and totally yet.

Many people have studied nondualism for years and years and years and still don't get it..your just another statistic. I can see that a mile off.
Atla
Posts: 6822
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Atla »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:51 pm That's because you are the Absolute. There is only the Absolute. You cannot know you are the Absolute because you are IT ..THE KNOWER IS A FICTIONAL STORY ARISING IN IT.
There is no story arising, there is only the absolute. See, you don't understand what you preach. You are halfbaked.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Atla wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:59 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:51 pm That's because you are the Absolute. There is only the Absolute. You cannot know you are the Absolute because you are IT ..THE KNOWER IS A FICTIONAL STORY ARISING IN IT.
There is no story arising, there is only the absolute. See, you don't understand what you preach. You are halfbaked.
There is no such idea as a half-baked idea. It's either fully cooked or it isn't.

There's no such thing as a non-dual state..THAT which is dual cannot NOT be dual.

Same as there is no such thing as a half empty glass, half empty or half full, it's all semantics ..which I'm through with...say what you want from now on, I'm not interested in your pathetic semantic game playing...your just another wind up merchant...they're a dime a dozen...they're everywhere, the world is full of idiots.

.
Atla
Posts: 6822
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Atla »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:15 pm There is no such idea as a half-baked idea. It's either fully cooked or it isn't.

There's no such thing as a non-dual state..THAT which is dual cannot NOT be dual.

Same as there is no such thing as a half empty glass, half empty or half full, it's all semantics ..which I'm through with...say what you want from now on, I'm not interested in your pathetic semantic game playing...your just another wind up merchant...they're a dime a dozen...they're everywhere, the world is full of idiots.

.
YOU accuse me of semantic game playing.. hehe thank you, now I won't be able to stop laughing for like an hour or so :)
Cheers
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

DaM

This is the basic axiom of A Course in Miracles. I consider it demonic
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.

Herein lies the peace of God.
As I understand it ACIM is the peace of escapism into imagination as opposed to the peace resulting from conscious verification. As a result I see it as demonic. I've experienced how strong the temptation for escapism is in me. It is even more when we have genuine conscious experiences. The lower parts of our collective soul seek to interpret them into self justifying imagination. All the great traditions initiating with a conscious source endure this corruption. It is lawful and cannot be helped

From the Gospel of Thomas:
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
If true it means we exist as a mechanical reactive self, that which can consciously know it, and a quality of consciousness which can "see" the knower. Do you appreciate this scale of being to be imagination or is it reality our dependence on imagination denies us?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Greta wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:43 am

Neither of you are here to exchange information but to preach your little doctrines.
Nonduality is the final truth..IMHO...that's what I'm here to discuss. I will defend it to the death...just as you defend your beliefs to the death.

It's not my problem if you don't like what I choose to discuss. I don't dislike what you choose to discuss because I've already got my own ideas about what is truth, real and unreal. And I'm here to discuss them, just like you are here to discuss your findings..THAT ARE OF YOUR HUMBLE OPINION.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Atla wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:23 pm
YOU accuse me of semantic game playing.. hehe thank you, now I won't be able to stop laughing for like an hour or so :)
Cheers
Okay..then can we both agree to agree to laugh together at our silly game playing?

Or would you rather cast me out of the game for good?
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:29 pm DaM

This is the basic axiom of A Course in Miracles. I consider it demonic
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.

Herein lies the peace of God.
As I understand it ACIM is the peace of escapism into imagination as opposed to the peace resulting from conscious verification. As a result I see it as demonic. I've experienced how strong the temptation for escapism is in me. It is even more when we have genuine conscious experiences. The lower parts of our collective soul seek to interpret them into self justifying imagination. All the great traditions initiating with a conscious source endure this corruption. It is lawful and cannot be helped

From the Gospel of Thomas:
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
If true it means we exist as a mechanical reactive self, that which can consciously know it, and a quality of consciousness which can "see" the knower. Do you appreciate this scale of being to be imagination or is it reality our dependence on imagination denies us?
Dear Nick...please know that I cannot know the final truth from another persons perspective..this latest post of yours is of course from another persons view point...namely, Byron Katies.

I have difficulty in understanding how another awakened being is seeing their own truth reality...I can only see my own, from my own direct experience...so I can't really make a comment about this, although I can resonate with their view points... But I will read through your post as many times as it takes to try and comprehend what's being said....and I will get back to you...okay?

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:29 pm DaM

This is the basic axiom of A Course in Miracles. I consider it demonic
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.

Herein lies the peace of God.
As I understand it ACIM is the peace of escapism into imagination as opposed to the peace resulting from conscious verification.
Okay.. lets start with this bit first....the way I interpret the above Nick is thus...as consciousness we can consciously know God, not imagine God... God is consciously KNOWN...which in my opinion is what being conscious is ALL ABOUT...so by being it, aka consciousness, we can simply know God by just being God, and that anything else other than that beingness is just a thought..aka an imagined idea about what beingness is, not what it ACTUALLY IS....and no one can escape their beingness, it's what we are, we can't escape what we are, we can't enter what we are and we can't leave what we are...is this what you are pointing out? .I'm not quite sure how the above quote from ACIM is seen as demonic though...this is only because we have different ideas about what concepts actually mean...

As I interpret the above quote is this...Nothing real can be threatened meaning...beingness cannot die because beingness was never born....and anything that does appear to have been born or can die is not of that real realm...therefore, it's unreal...and in that lies the peace of God...RIP....that's the only way I can interpret that Nick..so how is that you see it this way....''As I understand it ACIM is the peace of escapism into imagination''



I'll come to the other part of your post in due course.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Infanticide

Post by Dontaskme »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:29 pm
As I understand it ACIM is the peace of escapism into imagination as opposed to the peace resulting from conscious verification. As a result I see it as demonic. I've experienced how strong the temptation for escapism is in me. It is even more when we have genuine conscious experiences. The lower parts of our collective soul seek to interpret them into self justifying imagination. All the great traditions initiating with a conscious source endure this corruption. It is lawful and cannot be helped
So what do you mean by escapism Nick? ...Who is escaping, and from what are they escaping from, and to where are they escaping to? ..sorry I have to ask you these questions, but I'm only trying to see what you are seeing.

Bye the way Nick, I really do enjoying talking about this subject, so it's great to get another perspective on this.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:29 pmFrom the Gospel of Thomas:
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
If true it means we exist as a mechanical reactive self, that which can consciously know it, and a quality of consciousness which can "see" the knower. Do you appreciate this scale of being to be imagination or is it reality our dependence on imagination denies us?
I believe we can consciously know it (the kingdom)...it's not imagined Nick...imagination is the ego self that believes it is the knower aka the mechanical reactive self....the real knower knows itself as and through the ego mechanical reactive self, although the real knower is not the ego mechanical reactive self per-se...The real actor can only be known via the re-action....once the re-action kicks in..it is only through that experience can the real knower be seen..aka known...in that through the sensation of being... one can then inquire as to who knows this sensation of being, is it the 'me' who knows.. or is the 'me' being known prior to the 'me' that thinks it knows....is that fair to say...or is that off the mark...speak to me ...what is your experience?


The thing is Nick...the person is not doing anything, they only think they are..the person is being done, and thank God for that I say.

I think this dialog should be visible for all to see Nick..I'm past caring about being ridiculed...lets rock and roll.

.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Greta »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:46 am
Greta wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:09 pmA typically manipulative statement. You know the forums have different rules. By the way, unpaid moderators are not paid to put up with insults from the self-entitled.
So according to the forum rules..I am breaking the rules by being insulting. Wow, I guess if the rule to ban insulting posters were an actual real rule then I guess that would be the end of forum posting as we know it. If I'm breaking rules and protocol then why am I still allowed to post?
Hello? Earth to DAM? The OTHER forum that Nick was banned from does not permit insults. He has been banned from other forums with those rules, not just the one that I moderate. This forum has more lassez faire approach - diversity in forums is good, just as it is with people - so members are allowed to be insulting if they wish.
Dontaskme wrote:
Greta wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:09 pmYou might also note that whenever someone engages Nick on ideas he always ignores them if there is a chance for a flame war. I commented on the thread topic but that was, as always, ignored by N because he loves a good fight more than anything.
Nope, that's all in your mind. It's not real.
:lol: says Queen Fantasist.

The most recent - and last time - I bothered engaging with you I was determined to say focused and disciplined. You kept trying to avoid me testing your ideas - you just wanted them to stand unchallenged. Then, as I dismantled your flimsy argument piece by piece you started telling me to go away in increasingly hysterical tones as though my disagreement was harassment. At that point I gave up interacting with you - until you joined Nick to gang up on me.

As for your denial, it's laughable, especially from one who claims that nothing is real.

The fact is that Nick ALWAYS criticises. Can you find a single post by him at any time that did not criticise a persons, persons or groups of people, usually "secularists"? That is what he does and he should be called on it.
Greta wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:09 pm
Dontaskme wrote:Best that you mind your own business. After all, none of this actually exists by your reckoning, does it? It's all just an illusion, a product of our imaginations, right? So why are you getting in a flap about defending Ncik? Why not let the two illusions on this illusory forum say illusory things without sticking your non-existent nose into the imaginary situation?
Because that's what's apparently happening...got a problem with that? ..seems you like problems to stick real hard don't you, but then you could try using aTeflon mind, that's very good for unsticking stickyness.

Having you finished preaching to the choir of epipthany now?
Why bother preaching to you? Like Nick, you are entirely closed - a preacher who is only interested in "instructing", not learning or exchange of information.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

Hi Dontaskme

First let me begin by admitting that I don’t know who Byron Katies is. Oh well, one can’t know everything. :)
Okay.. lets start with this bit first....the way I interpret the above Nick is thus...as consciousness we can consciously know God, not imagine God... God is consciously KNOWN...which in my opinion is what being conscious is ALL ABOUT...so by being it, aka consciousness, we can simply know God by just being God, and that anything else other than that beingness is just a thought..aka an imagined idea about what beingness is, not what it ACTUALLY IS....and no one can escape their beingness, it's what we are, we can't escape what we are, we can't enter what we are and we can't leave what we are...is this what you are pointing out? .I'm not quite sure how the above quote from ACIM is seen as demonic though...this is only because we have different ideas about what concepts actually mean...
My conception of God is ineffable pure consciousness outside the limitations of time and space as Plotinus describes the ONE. It is the source of the universe existing within God as levels of reality, one existing within the other or a hierarchy of intentions. From this point of view creatures Man on earth does not “know” the Source. We see and feel its effects by what Plotinus calls dunamis. Creatures cannot be God but we can escape what we are. All of these speculations would be unnecessary if it weren’t for the question of life after the physical death. Is the potential for Man’s conscious evolution a reality? Man’s being evolved on earth to its physical potential. Is conscious evolution possible? Can Man’s physical evolution continue into conscious evolution? Without self knowledge, conscious evolution is impossible since we don’t know what we are and the world doesn’t want it.

So where you are concerned with “beingness,” Relative qualities of being as described in the Great Chain of Being are essential for me to make sense of universal purpose

When we deny our universal purpose to consciously experience reality and instead assert that we are God, it is demonic. Satan did the same claiming he was God.

Where the ONE Is, the cyclical process of existence takes place. The process of existence taking place within the ONE, within NOW is both real and necessary.
"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams." ~ Simone Weil
-- Gravity and Grace
People like Simone are seekers of truth willing to sacrifice dreams to experience this pearl of great price. I am still unwilling to carry my cross. This is why I admire Simone. She was more of a Man in the real sense of the word than I am.
As I interpret the above quote is this...Nothing real can be threatened meaning...beingness cannot die because beingness was never born....and anything that does appear to have been born or can die is not of that real realm...therefore, it's unreal...and in that lies the peace of God...RIP....that's the only way I can interpret that Nick..so how is that you see it this way....''As I understand it ACIM is the peace of escapism into imagination''
The one universal constant is change. The universe is experiencing constant change. So what is real? It is the process which sustains the universe. We are conditioned to define reality by results. But actually reality is experienced consciously as a process. That is why this question of infanticide is misunderstood. We accept or oppose results (a newborn) while being completely oblivious of honoring the process of existence.

ACIM wants to create its own reality – its own “I Am” by imagination and denial. It leads to the destruction of the being potential for a given quality of relative consciousness acquired through self knowledge.

Gotta run. Will be back later.
Post Reply