Someone, everyone, please take this seriously.

[roydop]

"roydop", you claim that, "Science itself has shown that there was a state prior to the arising of the physical Universe", so will you provide a link to where "science" has shown this?

Also, will you provide a link to where "science" has shown or proved that the physical Universe even actually arose?

If no, then why not?

I'm done with trying to convince people of what is obvious. Either you get it or you don't.

If you don't want to see something it will not be seen, no matter how obvious.

[Age]

"roydop", you claim that, "Science itself has shown that there was a state prior to the arising of the physical Universe", so will you provide a link to where "science" has shown this?

Also, will you provide a link to where "science" has shown or proved that the physical Universe even actually arose?

If no, then why not?

I'm done with trying to convince people of what is obvious. Either you get it or you don't.

If you don't want to see something it will not be seen, no matter how obvious.

What you have 'seen' and are 'talking about' is ALREADY KNOWN. But like with most new understanding, there is a time and a place to express it. Some things might take centuries to be understood by "others".

Now, if you want to be understood, then you just have to first learn how to communicate better.

To be honest in that video I have absolutely NO idea at all what you are even wanting to express. Although I ALREADY KNOW FULLY what 'It' is that you were trying to talk about.

Could you write down in a few sentences and in a way that is clear and precise, what was the purpose of that video?

What is the actual message you want to express. And, what for?

Also, above I just asked you three very straightforward questions, for clarity, and you completely and utterly DISMISSED what I asked for.

I do NOT care if you are done with trying to CONVINCE people of what is obvious. If what you claim is Truly OBVIOUS, then, OBVIOUSLY, you would NOT need to CONVINCE ANY one of 'it'.

What you say some get and some do not, I could say the exact same thing about you. That is; you STILL do NOT get what is REALLY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. And, I could also say, if you do not want to see what is actually REALLY OBVIOUS, then 'It' will not be seen, by you, no matter how obvious 'It' REALLY IS, to us. But saying this gets us NOWHERE, correct?

Look, you made the claim that "science" has shown that there was a state prior to the arising of the physical Universe. So,

1. What was 'that state', EXACTLY? And,

2. Where can we find a link to where "science" has supposedly shown such a thing?

I suggest if you are not prepared to back up and support your claims, then do NOT express them in the first place.

[roydop]

"roydop", you claim that, "Science itself has shown that there was a state prior to the arising of the physical Universe", so will you provide a link to where "science" has shown this?

Also, will you provide a link to where "science" has shown or proved that the physical Universe even actually arose?

If no, then why not?

I'm done with trying to convince people of what is obvious. Either you get it or you don't.

If you don't want to see something it will not be seen, no matter how obvious.

What you have 'seen' and are 'talking about' is ALREADY KNOWN. But like with most new understanding, there is a time and a place to express it. Some things might take centuries to be understood by "others".

Now, if you want to be understood, then you just have to first learn how to communicate better.

To be honest in that video I have absolutely NO idea at all what you are even wanting to express. Although I ALREADY KNOW FULLY what 'It' is that you were trying to talk about.

Could you write down in a few sentences and in a way that is clear and precise, what was the purpose of that video?

What is the actual message you want to express. And, what for?

Also, above I just asked you three very straightforward questions, for clarity, and you completely and utterly DISMISSED what I asked for.

I do NOT care if you are done with trying to CONVINCE people of what is obvious. If what you claim is Truly OBVIOUS, then, OBVIOUSLY, you would NOT need to CONVINCE ANY one of 'it'.

What you say some get and some do not, I could say the exact same thing about you. That is; you STILL do NOT get what is REALLY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. And, I could also say, if you do not want to see what is actually REALLY OBVIOUS, then 'It' will not be seen, by you, no matter how obvious 'It' REALLY IS, to us. But saying this gets us NOWHERE, correct?

Look, you made the claim that "science" has shown that there was a state prior to the arising of the physical Universe. So,

1. What was 'that state', EXACTLY? And,

2. Where can we find a link to where "science" has supposedly shown such a thing?

I suggest if you are not prepared to back up and support your claims, then do NOT express them in the first place.

You and others here spend much energy into nitpicking at my theory for inconsistencies/incorrectness while ignoring the trainwreck of paradox and self-reference of the current system that I am clearly presenting

It is a consciousness that is brainwashed/programmed by Maya/thought, that is unable to accept that the entire accepted system is incorrect.

The "anything", "something", "everything", "nothing" model is glaringly incorrect and my Fundamental Model of Reality fixes the whole mess

It's obvious to one who has the ability to abide in/as effortless thought free Awareness, because they have had the direct experience of the "0" and have found it to not be a lack at all, but have realized it TO BE THE REALITY/frame of reference for all experience

[Harbal]

You and others here spend much energy into nitpicking at my theory

That's the risk you take when you cast pearls before swine.

[Dontaskme]

You and others here spend much energy into nitpicking at my theory

That's the risk you take when you cast pearls before swine.

England's pearls are going EXTINCT: Freshwater mussels and the gems they produce are dying out due to pollution.

Casting pearls will have it's sell by date too.

[Harbal]

England's pearls are going EXTINCT:

Not as long as you are still around, my Dear.

[roydop]

So why doesn't someone here explain to me the logic and reasoning (how it "makes sense") of the current "anything", "something", "everything", "nothing" model? Break it down so it's all crystal clear, please.

None of it stands up to even the most cursory investigation.

Again (and again and again) the part in the video where I am inquiring into the meaning of the "thing" and the "nothing" is so convoluted and self-referential as to be unintelligible. This is not a part of my model! If there is a part that one is not "getting", it is this part.

On the other hand, the triune systems that make up The Fundamental Process are intuitively and intellectually consistent (they make sense). All roy did was to adapt the strictly dualistic and adversarial/antagonistic "thing"/"nothing" model into a triune system so that is in alignment with The Fundamental Model of Reality.

It's completely obvious to a consciousness that is able to see beyond its programming.

And the way to see past the programming is to engage in the Spiritual practice of meditation (delving into thought free Awareness). YES it is difficult and YES it is necessary.

And it has been roys experience that the result of such a dedicated practice is an increase in peace, happiness, contentment, and a decrease in anxiety, stress, worry, ALL suffering.

That's all, folks

[Dontaskme]

England's pearls are going EXTINCT:

Not as long as you are still around, my Dear.

[henry quirk]

*You and others here spend much energy into nitpicking at my theory

That's the risk you take when you cast pearls before swine.

*Just what the hell did you think was gonna happen, Roy? Did you think folks would just get floor'd by your videos and convert? For every DAM who rolls over there's ten who won't or can't. The folks here aren't your garden-variety idiots. We're a very special breed of moron. You'll have to do a damn-sight better with the indoctrinations if you wanna move us to join your flock.

[Dontaskme]

Good DAMsels & DAMes roll over. Especially when they get fed up of being banged up.

[roydop]

*You and others here spend much energy into nitpicking at my theory

That's the risk you take when you cast pearls before swine.

*Just what the hell did you think was gonna happen, Roy? Did you think folks would just get floor'd by your videos and convert? For every DAM who rolls over there's ten who won't or can't. The folks here aren't your garden-variety idiots. We're a very special breed of moron. You'll have to do a damn-sight better with the indoctrinations if you wanna move us to join your flock.

So why doesn't someone here explain to me the logic and reasoning (how it "makes sense") of the current "anything", "something", "everything", "nothing" model? Break it down so it's all crystal clear, please.

None of it stands up to even the most cursory investigation.

Again (and again and again) the part in the video where I am inquiring into the meaning of the "thing" and the "nothing" is so convoluted and self-referential as to be unintelligible. This is not a part of my model! If there is a part that one is not "getting", it is this part.

On the other hand, the triune systems that make up The Fundamental Process are intuitively and intellectually consistent (they make sense). All roy did was to adapt the strictly dualistic and adversarial/antagonistic "thing"/"nothing" model into a triune system so that is in alignment with The Fundamental Model of Reality.

It's completely obvious to a consciousness that is able to see beyond its programming.

And the way to see past the programming is to engage in the Spiritual practice of meditation (delving into thought free Awareness). YES it is difficult and YES it is necessary.

And it has been roys experience that the result of such a dedicated practice is an increase in peace, happiness, contentment, and a decrease in anxiety, stress, worry, ALL suffering.

That's all, folks

[roydop]

Also, it has nothing to do with "getting people into my flock", it has to do with Truth and the cessation of suffering. I am presenting the direct path to the conclusion of all suffering. It's up to the individual as to whether they embark on that path. It matters not to me the quantity of folk who get the teaching and engage in the practice, as I know that the vast majority of humanity is far too programmed/deluded to even be capable of seeing what is being presented.

Those few who have, however, report a fundamental change within their psyche and life experience.

[henry quirk]

So why doesn't someone here explain to me the logic and reasoning (how it "makes sense") of the current "anything", "something", "everything", "nothing" model? Break it down so it's all crystal clear, please.

Cuz that's not how it works.

You started a thread to promote sumthin'. Burden is on you to defend it. We naysayers have no obligation to defend what you see as the failed status quo.

It's like the nimrods over in the compatibilism thread who drone on and on about how meat machines (folks who aren't free wills, or who lack free will) can and ought to reform philo/social/legal structures without explainin' how meat machines can choose anything (no free will = no choice). Point that out and they demand you explain how free will works. Again, that's not how any of this works. The asserter has the burden, not the dissenter.

[roydop]

I don't care whether you understand it.

It matters not to me.

You choose not to engage in the practice that proves the theory and that is just fine.

Your life will unfold accordingly.

[henry quirk]

I don't care whether you understand it.

And yet you keep comin' back to the thread, to lambast and assert.

Seems to me: there's sumthin' here you care about.