DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:30 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:58 am
Nah, you are wrong on this.
It is the existential crisis that enable human a sense of self, the ego.
Nope, you are wrong. The SELF is prior to knowledge of self. First you have to be to know anything.
Knowledge of self is illusory, the actual nature of self is not.
There are many perspectives to what is 'self'. One set of perspectives are the following;
  • 1. The DNA self - the proto-self

    2. The Empirical Self - I, you, they.

    3. The Eternal independent self with eternal life.
DNA or proto-self
The DNA or proto-self which is an unconscious self is the self that emerges when the sperm interacts with the egg to form the proto self - the basic human being, firstly physical and then consciousness and mental faculties. This DNA or proto-self is alive until the person is certified dead.

This would be your above mentioned 'The SELF is prior to knowledge of self'.
This is the self that is still alive when one is in a coma where the proto-self is fully detached from the empirical self.
The detachment of the empirical self varies from the proto-self varies in degrees in different states, e.g. dreams, being drunk, depersonalized due to drugs, mental disorder, brain damage, drugged, etc.

In your case it would appear it is something like a depersonalization disorder of some degree.

The Empirical Self
The empirical self is the conscious self emerging from being self-conscious or self-aware which emerged in late childhood 2-3 years and continue to evolve with the sense of the "I-ness' i.e. the ego throughout one's adult's life.

The conscious self is strongly entrenched neurally in the human brain to ensure a strong sense of self which overshadow the proto-self. This where if the neural circuits of the ego or sense of the "I" is too strong it leads to high egotism, narcissism, selfishness and the likes.

Normally the conscious self is supported by strong neural circuits most the time to be conscious but it is DNA deactivated in sleep where the empirical self is shut off.
But there are situations where the conscious empirical self is shut off partially in various degrees thus it is aware of the partial detachment in state as mentioned above, e.g. dreams, being drunk, depersonalized due to drugs, mental disorder, brain damage, drugged, etc.

In your case, your empirical self is partially deactivated or weakened for you to be aware of the proto-self. In your case of depersonalization disorder you consciously are putting too much focus on the proto-self without the ability to balance your priorities.

If you insist this proto-self is independent of the human conditions, then you are believing in an illusion. (A)

As I had stated to modulate the stronghold of the "I" is a good thing but one must have balance between the empirical self and being conscious of the proto-self.

The Eternal independent self with eternal life.
While you emphasize toward the extreme of the proto-self, there are those in the other extreme who focus and take the empirical self, i.e. pushing the "I" to the extreme in insisting their "I" is independent of the conscious empirical self as the soul and have the ability to survive after physical death in heaven with eternal life.

Those who believe in the eternal self imply it is independent of the human condition, thus leading to an illusion. (B)

Knowledge of the self is not illusory.
In the above case, I provided knowledge of the various perspective of the self with justifications, thus that is not illusory.
What is illusory with the self is when one insist there is knowledge of the self without justifications, note point (A) and (B) above.

I said again, one must have balance, i.e. the Middle-Way as in Buddhism in accepting the idea of self and no-self in a balanced complementary approach like the Yin-Yang model.
Note again, 'balance' your view is not a balanced one, thus delusional.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:41 am

There must be balance between the conscious and sub conscious in order for a human being to function properly
But they are not entirely separate from each other but are instead simply different points on the same spectrum

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:06 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:26 pm
COULD your premises here be WRONG for any other reason? Or, ONLY because I am ignorant?

As I pointed out earlier, EVERY time some one disagrees with you it is because 'they' are ignorant.

Also, do you any explanation of HOW and WHY your first premise is the exact same as YOUR "ultimate" premise, and HOW your first and ultimate premise is supported by your minor premise - 'God is an impossibility to be real'?

Your whole argument and theory sounds very confused, complex, and convoluted.

Are you able to simplify your "argument" at all?
I believe I have presented my full argument logically somewhere in sequential order in a narrative form.
I did not intent to do so above, thus mixed up.

Your point re my 'first premise' and 'ultimate premise' as if they must be specific is too confusing.
What is critical the whatever argument I presented the first premise must follow through to the whatever conclusion.

Here is a rough narrative of my argument 'why god is an impossibility to be real' within the overriding premise, of striving perpetual peace.
  • 1. Humans exist - self evident
    2. DNA wise ALL humans has the potential of an existential crisis [proof TBA]
    3. DNA wise ALL humans the the potential to be good (3a) and evil (3b).
    ...in our present state, the potential for evil is greater than that of good.
    4. From 2, the existential crisis drive humans to religions [theistic and non theistic] [Proof TBA]
    5. The scriptures of theistic religion contain loads of evil and violent elements [Proof TBA]
    6. These evil and violent elements trigger evil tendency (3b) of some believers to commit evil and violent act that threaten perpetual peace.
    7. The good in humans (3a) strive for perpetual peace.
    8. To attain perpetual peace, we need to eliminate one of its threat, i.e. theistic religions [5].
    9. The central core of theistic religion is a belief in God as real.
    10. If God is an impossibility, it cannot be real thus no grounds for (5).
    11. God is an impossibility to be real [Proof provided].
    12. God is defanged, thus facilitating 8 i.e. perpetual peace
The basis of perpetual peace is very complex and the element of theism as a threat is merely one of perhaps hundreds or thousand+, but theism is a very significant factor with a weightage of say, 40%.

The above is merely a rough narrative and I understand each point itself is an argument which I need to prove and justify which can be complex in themselves.

Assuming I have the proofs for all the points 1-12, where did I go wrong in the above logical narrative from 1 to 12.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Age » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:45 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:06 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:20 am
I write in a way so that things appear to be the case, but on closer inspection and with hindsight what I have REALLY been saying becomes clear. I write this way, to SHOW with examples from "others", WHY it is better to ALWAYS REMAIN OPEN and ask clarifying questions, INSTEAD of ASSUMING and BELIEVING things first.
What it actually shows, instead, is your limitations and skewed awareness. You can try to explain it in a way that makes you seem in control and wise and correct, but that's your charade, and people point this out to you all the time. That's probably what helped you "learn" to concoct the bizarre explanation (above). In one moment you say that you're here to learn how to communicate better -- and then in another moment you claim that you do it all on purpose. Covering your tracks and disguising your weaknesses is really what you're intent on "learning" here, right? How to fortify and defend your particular notions that people tend to see through.

You probably will not admit that your ego is involved, and that you really don't know anything -- because that would invalidate what you say and the position you continually speak from, as if what you "know" is somehow more significant than what "others know".

You say people misunderstand you when they continually point out things here that everyone else does too. So, all of us here are these unaware beings who can't decipher your clever teaching techniques. :lol: :lol: Perhaps you are the one who is not listening, and recognizing the patterns and ploys and delusion in yourself.
Yes, you may be 100% True, Right and Correct here.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Age » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:50 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:30 am
Age wrote:

SEE to me I have NO problems as there are NO actually unsolved problems in Life as I KNOW a solution to ALL of Lifes so called and perceived problems . You human beings can and do make up problems whenever you like but there are NONE here

The beauty of this is that not one of you believe that this is even possible . So from your then responses I have and thus can provided actual evidence of HOW the Mind and the brain works
The reason why some problems cannot be solved is because the knowledge required to do so is still unknown .
Will you provide any examples?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:30 am
Other problems may be solved
without any new knowledge but they will still exist because there is no will on the part of some human beings to actually want to solve them
Again, will you provide any examples?

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Age » Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:26 pm
COULD your premises here be WRONG for any other reason? Or, ONLY because I am ignorant?

As I pointed out earlier, EVERY time some one disagrees with you it is because 'they' are ignorant.

Also, do you any explanation of HOW and WHY your first premise is the exact same as YOUR "ultimate" premise, and HOW your first and ultimate premise is supported by your minor premise - 'God is an impossibility to be real'?

Your whole argument and theory sounds very confused, complex, and convoluted.

Are you able to simplify your "argument" at all?
I believe I have presented my full argument logically somewhere in sequential order in a narrative form.
I did not intent to do so above, thus mixed up.

Your point re my 'first premise' and 'ultimate premise' as if they must be specific is too confusing.
What is critical the whatever argument I presented the first premise must follow through to the whatever conclusion.

Here is a rough narrative of my argument 'why god is an impossibility to be real' within the overriding premise, of striving perpetual peace.
  • 1. Humans exist - self evident
    2. DNA wise ALL humans has the potential of an existential crisis [proof TBA]
    3. DNA wise ALL humans the the potential to be good (3a) and evil (3b).
    ...in our present state, the potential for evil is greater than that of good.
    4. From 2, the existential crisis drive humans to religions [theistic and non theistic] [Proof TBA]
    5. The scriptures of theistic religion contain loads of evil and violent elements [Proof TBA]
    6. These evil and violent elements trigger evil tendency (3b) of some believers to commit evil and violent act that threaten perpetual peace.
    7. The good in humans (3a) strive for perpetual peace.
    8. To attain perpetual peace, we need to eliminate one of its threat, i.e. theistic religions [5].
    9. The central core of theistic religion is a belief in God as real.
    10. If God is an impossibility, it cannot be real thus no grounds for (5).
    11. God is an impossibility to be real [Proof provided].
    12. God is defanged, thus facilitating 8 i.e. perpetual peace
The basis of perpetual peace is very complex and the element of theism as a threat is merely one of perhaps hundreds or thousand+, but theism is a very significant factor with a weightage of say, 40%.

The above is merely a rough narrative and I understand each point itself is an argument which I need to prove and justify which can be complex in themselves.

Assuming I have the proofs for all the points 1-12, where did I go wrong in the above logical narrative from 1 to 12.
From 2

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:06 am

The reason why some problems can not be solved is because the knowledge required to do so is still unknown like within medicine for example
Other problems may be resolved without any new knowledge but they will still exist because there is no will on the part of some human beings
to actually want to solve them like with sociopaths for example

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 am

Age wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:06 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:26 pm
COULD your premises here be WRONG for any other reason? Or, ONLY because I am ignorant?

As I pointed out earlier, EVERY time some one disagrees with you it is because 'they' are ignorant.

Also, do you any explanation of HOW and WHY your first premise is the exact same as YOUR "ultimate" premise, and HOW your first and ultimate premise is supported by your minor premise - 'God is an impossibility to be real'?

Your whole argument and theory sounds very confused, complex, and convoluted.

Are you able to simplify your "argument" at all?
I believe I have presented my full argument logically somewhere in sequential order in a narrative form.
I did not intent to do so above, thus mixed up.

Your point re my 'first premise' and 'ultimate premise' as if they must be specific is too confusing.
What is critical the whatever argument I presented the first premise must follow through to the whatever conclusion.

Here is a rough narrative of my argument 'why god is an impossibility to be real' within the overriding premise, of striving perpetual peace.
  • 1. Humans exist - self evident
    2. DNA wise ALL humans has the potential of an existential crisis [proof TBA]
    3. DNA wise ALL humans the the potential to be good (3a) and evil (3b).
    ...in our present state, the potential for evil is greater than that of good.
    4. From 2, the existential crisis drive humans to religions [theistic and non theistic] [Proof TBA]
    5. The scriptures of theistic religion contain loads of evil and violent elements [Proof TBA]
    6. These evil and violent elements trigger evil tendency (3b) of some believers to commit evil and violent act that threaten perpetual peace.
    7. The good in humans (3a) strive for perpetual peace.
    8. To attain perpetual peace, we need to eliminate one of its threat, i.e. theistic religions [5].
    9. The central core of theistic religion is a belief in God as real.
    10. If God is an impossibility, it cannot be real thus no grounds for (5).
    11. God is an impossibility to be real [Proof provided].
    12. God is defanged, thus facilitating 8 i.e. perpetual peace
The basis of perpetual peace is very complex and the element of theism as a threat is merely one of perhaps hundreds or thousand+, but theism is a very significant factor with a weightage of say, 40%.

The above is merely a rough narrative and I understand each point itself is an argument which I need to prove and justify which can be complex in themselves.

Assuming I have the proofs for all the points 1-12, where did I go wrong in the above logical narrative from 1 to 12.
From 2
I stated, assuming if I have proofs for all the points, is there anything wrong with the logical narrative in terms of structure, not specific contents.

Note re point 2, I qualified proofs are to be advised or provided.
I don't intend to go into the details because of your ignorance [gathered from what you have posted] of the relevant elements there would be too many holes for you to fill.

You can take them as leads to further knowledge.
I suggest you dig deep into what is the existential crisis or existential dilemma arising from a cognitive dissonance. You will need to be very familiar with neuroscience, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology and related matters.
What is good and evil will also be complex.
Besides you need to understand the core principles of all the mainstream theistic religion. It will take years for one to grasp the core of the Quran.
There are many other aspects of knowledge you need to update.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:49 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:06 am
The reason why some problems can not be solved is because the knowledge required to do so is still unknown like within medicine for example
Other problems may be resolved without any new knowledge but they will still exist because there is no will on the part of some human beings
to actually want to solve them like with sociopaths for example
I am optimistic many [not all] of the complex and complicated problems related to the brain and mind will be resolved in the near future.

I am very optimistic based on the increasing trend of the exponential burst and expansion of knowledge [especially neurosciences] and technology.

Mapping the human genome was once thought impossible or need to wait another 100 years but humanity has already done it.

The next mountain to conquer is mapping the human brain and at present we have already started with much success, albeit still a long way to go. But there is a possibility we could do it in a shorter time than projected, like what we did for the human genome.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Look at the rate of exponential progress and advancement in IT and other technologies within the last 50 years or even the last 10 years.

One point is we ourselves must keep in touch with the latest discovery of knowledge and technology to generate the confidence.

One fact is a certain, there will always be a rare percentile of humans who are programmed with a strong sense of research and discovery of new knowledge some with a genetically dulled sense of fear thus ignorantly putting themselves risk of their life.

jayjacobus
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:00 am

The high born are under impressed with their lives and the low born are confused that they were low born. So maybe there is no answer.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:08 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:04 am
DAM... I'm sincerely focused on clarity and truth. This isn't complicated, I promise. Please just give it a chance.
That's fine, to be focused on clarity and truth. And that is all DAM speaks here, only clarity and truth, the way she sees it. I've walked the walk and awakened to it. I write about it here at the forum, but no one reading here has to believe what is my clarity and truth.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm

Do you see? Instead of answering my questions, you suddenly ask me some random question (which actually had more to do with what you'd said, than anything I'd said). This is why I began asking why you were asking me that?
I've always answered all your questions. I'm not sure you understand my answers, and that maybe why you then ask for clarification and meaning to the answers I've given you by asking more questions about the answers I've already given you to your original questions. Sometimes it does appear that I answer one of your questions by asking you a question in relation to the question you've asked me, yes I am aware I do that. But for me, it helps to understand what is being pointed to. But for you, it seems to confuse you, so be it.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
As I pointed out, you (again) left off the context for the question, which was: IF YOU UNDERSTAND (as you've said in your own words): a) no thing is being born; b) you conceive yourself; and c) the illusion is very often desired, then how do you set THAT understanding aside in order to say: ( that others made the choice for you to be born,)
I really don't know what the underlined statement has anything to do with the last statement in brackets, so this is why I am confused about what you are saying to me. I simple said to you that no one chooses to be born, and that the choice of every new life is made by others.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:23 am
All I do know, is that I try to make communication as simple as possible, and yet it seems like you just want to turn everything into a long winded argumentative battle of minds.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
I'm really not complicating anything -- I'm pointing to the statements you've made, and I'm asking if you have awareness of the extreme positions that you take at times, and how they conflict?
As far as I am aware, I don't take extreme positions, what ever that means, I have no idea, I simple talk in a nondual context which to me is the irrefutable truth. You know this about me by now, that I like to discuss the nondual truth.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
And, if you can see that, I’m wondering if you consider stepping back for a broader view to observe and question why you do that -- or are you content to thrash from pole to pole (as the mood strikes you) without observing it from a broader view?
But I have no idea what you mean by that statement. The whole statement does not mean anything to me, I don't understand it, nor am I aware of how the delivery of my view points is affecting you.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
I think there's more BALANCE and CLARITY from a broader view.
Maybe there is, but I just post the view as I see it from my own unique direct experience, and that's all I'm doing - yet in no way do I expect anyone to understand it, I can only talk from the position that I understand, what makes sense to me.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:23 am
My sole intention is to communicate a knowledge that is irrefutable.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
Could that be why you ignore questions that might refute what you say? :D
But I don't ignore questions. Yes, it may appear that sometimes I get confused when after I've answered some questions, I then get bombarded with more questions asking for clarification to the answers I've already given you, but then you want to know what those answers meant. It's like you want me to say the same thing just in a different way, but I don't always have the time to keep doing that. As far as I am aware, I am only sharing the irrefutable truth with others. Although it seems and I've said this before about you, is that you appear to want to challenge what I am saying, thinking the irrefutable truth I talk about can be refuted, and that's what confuses me, to be honest.
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
It just seems that ignoring the context and shifting the focus could be an unconscious way to avoid observing/considering the reality of your statements and state of mind, yes? This isn't hard... it's just thoughtfully seeking truth.
But personally, I'm not a seeker of truth, I'm just living it. I used to be a seeker, but I'm no longer seeking, I don't need to seek anymore. I'm simply sharing the nondual reality that is the only irrefutable truth. I have no weird state of mind as you seem to imply. My mind has dissolved into the truth and clarity that is simplistic being in the immediate flow of life without trying to change it, but to just let it be the way is it.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:18 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:48 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality

The illusory nature of reality if it that is what it is is so convincing that it is not seen as an illusion
I dont think reality is illusory only something incomplete for we perceive very little of what exists
No, reality is not an illusion, only the knowledge of reality is an illusion ..I have said this to you umpteen times, and still you repeat the ''I don't think reality is illusory'' mantra.

.

jayjacobus
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:27 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:18 am

No, reality is not an illusion …… and still you repeat .. ''I don't think reality is illusory''.
So, you are both saying reality is not an illusion.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:30 am


Knowledge of the self is not illusory.
Yes it is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:30 am
In the above case, I provided knowledge of the various perspective of the self with justifications, thus that is not illusory.
Yes it is, the knowledge of self/reality is illusory...no matter how many fancy brush strokes of paint you add to the screen of consciousness, no matter how much you dress it up with your endless descriptive ideas...the knowledge only serves to inform the emptiness of the knowledge itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:30 am
I said again, one must have balance, i.e. the Middle-Way as in Buddhism in accepting the idea of self and no-self in a balanced complementary approach like the Yin-Yang model.
Remember, Buddhism is just another belief structure expressed by the human mind of belief, it's another story telling phenomena that is unique to the human mind. And like all stories, they have the effect of a child like trance upon the believing brain, so of course anything can be made to be true and real. Tell a child anything and it will believe it. it's like once a concept sticks, that concept stays with the believing brain until it's death. The adult is still the child in a trance like state of make-belief. The Make-belief of what a concept means does not change no matter how old one is. the believing child is still present in the adult, the adult is still a believing child.
As for Life living itself all alone, it is in perfect balance at all time. The only delusion here, is the human being believing it has an unbalanced mind.
There is no such thing in existence as an unbalanced mind, except as a fictional idea believed to be real. A belief is an assumed idea there is a believing self within a brain...there is no such self. People who are convinced they are delusional or have mental imbalances are living their own self created delusion and belief that is not actually there, in life there is nothing wrong with any thing. Everything is exactly how it is, ever this mysterious unknown silent presence - and not how this silent presence is believed to be via knowledge. Knowledge of what is unknowable is a false inference, a tale told by a fool signifying nothing, the mind loves a good story - that the story is only a fiction upon nothing is the delusion.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:30 am
Note again, 'balance' your view is not a balanced one, thus delusional.
To take a View is to be knowledgeable, it is to take a position, which is an impostion on no position, which is to imagine an illusory image to be there upon what is actually imageless, it's the play of consciousness in which the mind is creating mental concepts of what it not actually there, but only believed to be there via the concept known in the only knowing there is which is consciousness. No thing is conscious, there is only consciousness. The moon exists even when it's not being looked at only because the moon is a known concept of consciousness. That which is known cannot become unknown. So the reason the moon still exists when it's not being looked at is because no thing / no one is looking at it, it's just a known concept of consciousness which is empty looking, in essence no one has ever seen a an actual moon, no more that the seer of a nightly dream is seeing actual real things in the dream...blah de blah de blah.. In essence nothing is deluding itself...except in your dreams, dream on..

If you VA insist on believing I am delusional then so be it, you will no doubt keep repeating that mantra until you are blue in the face, no worries, say what you have to say if it makes you feel better, but what you say to me is water off a ducks back. I'm fully self-realised, nothing you say to me will have any value or meaning. I make my own meaning thank you very much.

.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Sculptor » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:28 am

The closest we can come to this question meaning anything is the inevitable conclusion that - it would have been much better had dontaskme never been born.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests