time to take the finger off the ignition switch

[sthitapragya]

Babies will not necessarily become critically ill if left alone or die in just a day. But again that may depend on what age you are talking about here. I will not ask sth to clarify this because if sth did attempt to answer this question but not attempt the the other two questions then that would just be another attempt by sth to side step the whole and main issue here.

In case you have completely forgotten to answer, purposely reject to answer the two questions, did not read them, or are purposely trying to circumvent AGAIN the issue here, or maybe for some other reason you will NOT answer the two questions, then here they are again. Let see if you will answer them this time:

If new born babies do not have beliefs nor make assumptions, then how do they keep living?

At what age does a body have to be when it starts believing from within, or otherwise it will stop surviving?

I underlined the two questions so that it makes them easy for sth to notice.

Because you believe and insist that we ALL MUST HAVE and HAVE TO have beliefs and assumptions otherwise we will die if we do not, then that also means that I too must have to assume and believe things also. Therefore, if you do not answer these two questions this time, to prove what you believe is absolutely true, right and correct, then I also supposedly MUST HAVE TO assume and believe the reason why sth does not answer the questions this time. The reason why sth will NOT answer these two questions is so obvious anyway, to Me already.

Although your questions have nothing to do with your beliefs, I will attempt to answer your questions.

sth is right here in that those questions have nothing to do with what is thought to be right, but those quesstions have everything to do with the belief that a person can not exist without beliefs has. And, where again did that belief come from? That belief certainly did NOT come from Me.

Babies are kept alive by the constant watch of their parents. Left alone, they will die, in a day or a week or a month.

See that is more correct. More and new true, right and correct knowledge is found from the open Mind. Just some people need this pointed out to them more than others. If sth had been looking from the open Mind in the beginning, then the Truth here could have been spotted and seen earlier. In fact I would not have had to point out the Truth to sth if sth was not looking and writing from beliefs and assumptions.

By the way this is not about how babies are kept alive and for how long without what is necessary. This is about at what age does a human being start having beliefs and assumptions so then I will learn at what a human beings will stop existing when they do not have and maintain beliefs and assumptions, as is what is believed here.

sth BELIEVES that every human being has to HAVE assumptions and beliefs otherwise they will stop existing.

I THINK it is possible to exist without having assumptions and beliefs. This follows on with and fits in with everything else that I want to say in regards to how it is possible to learn how everyone could be living together in peace and harmony.

If sth is absolutely right, meaning that that unchangeable belief that we ALL will stop existing if we stop believing is absolutely correct, then what is the point of learning and knowing this here? What is it exactly that is trying to be expressed by sharing that knowledge? What will happen when that ultra informative knowledge is known, and then believed in?

As soon as they are able to understand cause and effect and start doing things independently, belief creeps in. It is unavoidable.

If it is true, then what is being believed here is right. And, if and when belief creeps in, is that when people can not keep existing if they stop having beliefs? Is that what is true?

When a child will become independent varies from child to child but essentially the more they become independent, the more refined their ability to make assumptions gets, the more independent they become.

This issue was never about when a child becomes independent. This issue is about when a child/adult will stop existing because they are not yet forming and holding onto those beliefs and assumptions.

By the way what is the age range that varies from child to child? What is the earliest and the latest age range?

So, is this what sth is affirming: the more independent one becomes, the more refined their ability to make assumptions gets, the more independent they become. Besides the fact that i think that does not logically follow, are you also saying that those assumptions mentioned here are the same as those assumptions that may or may not be true, or false, right?

And if this is the assumption that sth is making now there really is no one who knows if it is true or false because sth makes assumptions on the basis that those assumptions could be true but they could also be false. Is that right and/or could be wrong also, right?

It is a relationship between understanding cause and effect, knowledge, ability to make assumptions using the knowledge and independence.

Ok thanks. That is much clearer now. NOT.

All this however has nothing to do with your theory, which is built on beliefs. You believe that there is one mind within all people. You have no proof of that.

Do I believe that? Is sth absolutely positively sure of these four beliefs? Are these beliefs absolutely true or are only some or all of those beliefs, which are just assumptions that either may or may not be right, correct or incorrect? Or, are they assumptions which may or may not in fact be true OR false?

You believe I and 'I' are different.

Again sth assumptions are (or could be) absolutely and totally wrong here.

I know what the answer IS because I know the thoughts within this brain and/or body.

You have no proof of that.

Do you have proof that a human body will stop existing when there is no beliefs?

No proof of what exactly? If sth does not know what the difference is between I and 'I', which there would be no way of knowing because that has never been explained previously, then how in any way possibly known could sth know that I have no proof of "that", whatever that is.

You whole theory is based on this belief.

On what belief again? And what theory is being talked about here?

You refuse to consider the possibility that there is only I.

Why would sth even suggest that I refuse that possibility when that possibility has never been discussed here yet. So is this just another assumption that could be so totally wrong that this is getting unbelievable to other readers?

You refuse to consider the possibility that there is no mind independent of the brain even though all evidence suggests that there is no mind independent of the brain. These are beliefs of a closed mind.

By the very stupidity and nonsensical of these two statements together states for itself as proof of beliefs stopping people from learning more and anew.

Please explain how the beliefs of a closed mind stops a person from considering and seeing the that there is no mind independent of the brain?

sth wrote the statement for ALL to see that the beliefs of a closed mind stops a person from seeing and understanding that there is no mind, independent of the brain.

In case you have not noticed yet, which I find totally impossible not to see, if there is a closed mind, then how could there also be no mind, opened or closed, independent or dependent on the brain? If there is no mind, then there can not also be a closed mind.

Either there is a mind or there is no mind, which way would sth like it to be now?

Also would not the refusal to consider something different from a belief itself stop and prevent one from seeing and learning more and/or anew? If so, then I thought that was what I was arguing for. I thought sth began arguing for the exact opposite of this.

This whole thing is turning into questioning my beliefs. I have already accepted I have beliefs and that they might be wrong. Proving my beliefs wrong will not help you because You believe you have no beliefs. You also say that the mind and brain are independent of each other. You have no proof of this. Hence it is a belief. Now can you prove that the mind and brain are independent of each other?

[sthitapragya]

There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

You can switch this thought.
There is no doubt that human curiosity and enquiry led to the concept of God; it was just the wrong answer and too soon. We do not owe to science anything about the idea of God, as that was a dangerous and disabling backwater of "knowledge" which impeded progress for millennia.

The big questions do not come FROM the idea of God; God is just the wrong answer to what might even be the wrong type of questions. Given the idea that questions are not even valid we can say that the answer "GOD", is an the scientists are like to say "not even wrong".

Actually, I was thinking the same thing of late. I realized that scientific inquiry and belief in God have always been completely independent of each other. Makes my OP redundant but it's too late now to do anything about it.

[ken]

There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

You can switch this thought.
There is no doubt that human curiosity and enquiry led to the concept of God; it was just the wrong answer and too soon. We do not owe to science anything about the idea of God, as that was a dangerous and disabling backwater of "knowledge" which impeded progress for millennia.

The big questions do not come FROM the idea of God; God is just the wrong answer to what might even be the wrong type of questions. Given the idea that questions are not even valid we can say that the answer "GOD", is an the scientists are like to say "not even wrong".

Actually, I was thinking the same thing of late. I realized that scientific inquiry and belief in God have always been completely independent of each other. Makes my OP redundant but it's too late now to do anything about it.

I was hoping to get to this point, eventually, about the OP being ridiculous and once and for all "time to take the finger off the ignition switch off stupidity" but I was beaten to it.

[ken]

Although your questions have nothing to do with your beliefs, I will attempt to answer your questions.

sth is right here in that those questions have nothing to do with what is thought to be right, but those quesstions have everything to do with the belief that a person can not exist without beliefs has. And, where again did that belief come from? That belief certainly did NOT come from Me.

Babies are kept alive by the constant watch of their parents. Left alone, they will die, in a day or a week or a month.

See that is more correct. More and new true, right and correct knowledge is found from the open Mind. Just some people need this pointed out to them more than others. If sth had been looking from the open Mind in the beginning, then the Truth here could have been spotted and seen earlier. In fact I would not have had to point out the Truth to sth if sth was not looking and writing from beliefs and assumptions.

By the way this is not about how babies are kept alive and for how long without what is necessary. This is about at what age does a human being start having beliefs and assumptions so then I will learn at what a human beings will stop existing when they do not have and maintain beliefs and assumptions, as is what is believed here.

sth BELIEVES that every human being has to HAVE assumptions and beliefs otherwise they will stop existing.

I THINK it is possible to exist without having assumptions and beliefs. This follows on with and fits in with everything else that I want to say in regards to how it is possible to learn how everyone could be living together in peace and harmony.

If sth is absolutely right, meaning that that unchangeable belief that we ALL will stop existing if we stop believing is absolutely correct, then what is the point of learning and knowing this here? What is it exactly that is trying to be expressed by sharing that knowledge? What will happen when that ultra informative knowledge is known, and then believed in?

As soon as they are able to understand cause and effect and start doing things independently, belief creeps in. It is unavoidable.

If it is true, then what is being believed here is right. And, if and when belief creeps in, is that when people can not keep existing if they stop having beliefs? Is that what is true?

When a child will become independent varies from child to child but essentially the more they become independent, the more refined their ability to make assumptions gets, the more independent they become.

This issue was never about when a child becomes independent. This issue is about when a child/adult will stop existing because they are not yet forming and holding onto those beliefs and assumptions.

By the way what is the age range that varies from child to child? What is the earliest and the latest age range?

So, is this what sth is affirming: the more independent one becomes, the more refined their ability to make assumptions gets, the more independent they become. Besides the fact that i think that does not logically follow, are you also saying that those assumptions mentioned here are the same as those assumptions that may or may not be true, or false, right?

And if this is the assumption that sth is making now there really is no one who knows if it is true or false because sth makes assumptions on the basis that those assumptions could be true but they could also be false. Is that right and/or could be wrong also, right?

It is a relationship between understanding cause and effect, knowledge, ability to make assumptions using the knowledge and independence.

Ok thanks. That is much clearer now. NOT.

All this however has nothing to do with your theory, which is built on beliefs. You believe that there is one mind within all people. You have no proof of that.

Do I believe that? Is sth absolutely positively sure of these four beliefs? Are these beliefs absolutely true or are only some or all of those beliefs, which are just assumptions that either may or may not be right, correct or incorrect? Or, are they assumptions which may or may not in fact be true OR false?

You believe I and 'I' are different.

Again sth assumptions are (or could be) absolutely and totally wrong here.

I know what the answer IS because I know the thoughts within this brain and/or body.

You have no proof of that.

Do you have proof that a human body will stop existing when there is no beliefs?

No proof of what exactly? If sth does not know what the difference is between I and 'I', which there would be no way of knowing because that has never been explained previously, then how in any way possibly known could sth know that I have no proof of "that", whatever that is.

You whole theory is based on this belief.

On what belief again? And what theory is being talked about here?

You refuse to consider the possibility that there is only I.

Why would sth even suggest that I refuse that possibility when that possibility has never been discussed here yet. So is this just another assumption that could be so totally wrong that this is getting unbelievable to other readers?

You refuse to consider the possibility that there is no mind independent of the brain even though all evidence suggests that there is no mind independent of the brain. These are beliefs of a closed mind.

By the very stupidity and nonsensical of these two statements together states for itself as proof of beliefs stopping people from learning more and anew.

Please explain how the beliefs of a closed mind stops a person from considering and seeing the that there is no mind independent of the brain?

sth wrote the statement for ALL to see that the beliefs of a closed mind stops a person from seeing and understanding that there is no mind, independent of the brain.

In case you have not noticed yet, which I find totally impossible not to see, if there is a closed mind, then how could there also be no mind, opened or closed, independent or dependent on the brain? If there is no mind, then there can not also be a closed mind.

Either there is a mind or there is no mind, which way would sth like it to be now?

Also would not the refusal to consider something different from a belief itself stop and prevent one from seeing and learning more and/or anew? If so, then I thought that was what I was arguing for. I thought sth began arguing for the exact opposite of this.

This whole thing is turning into questioning my beliefs.

And, why should BELIEFS be somehow exempt from being questioned? Questioning with clarifying questions brings about clarity, obviously. I always expect and WANT My views and what I think is right to be questioned, clarified, and challenged. WHY does sth BELIEVE these BELIEFS being questioned is somehow not a normal part of LIFE in searching for clarity?

I have already accepted I have beliefs and that they might be wrong.

EXACTLY. sth believes wholeheartedly that EVERYONE MUST HAVE and maintain BELIEFS otherwise they could NOT exist, which, by the way EVERYONE, may just be completely and totally WRONG.

Proving my beliefs wrong will not help you because You believe you have no beliefs.

I am NOT proving those beliefs wrong, sth is doing this anyway, by everything that is written by sth. For example sth quote just now being just one example of this.

You also say that the mind and brain are independent of each other.

I do not recall saying that but I do not dispute that is something I may have said.

You have no proof of this.

HOW does sth know that I have no proof that the Mind and brain are independent of each other?

Hence it is a belief.

Any person can view anything, without having proof of it, without it necessarily being a belief, obviously.

Now can you prove that the mind and brain are independent of each other?

YES, I THINK I can.

[sthitapragya]

You can switch this thought.
There is no doubt that human curiosity and enquiry led to the concept of God; it was just the wrong answer and too soon. We do not owe to science anything about the idea of God, as that was a dangerous and disabling backwater of "knowledge" which impeded progress for millennia.

The big questions do not come FROM the idea of God; God is just the wrong answer to what might even be the wrong type of questions. Given the idea that questions are not even valid we can say that the answer "GOD", is an the scientists are like to say "not even wrong".

Actually, I was thinking the same thing of late. I realized that scientific inquiry and belief in God have always been completely independent of each other. Makes my OP redundant but it's too late now to do anything about it.

I was hoping to get to this point, eventually, about the OP being ridiculous and once and for all "time to take the finger off the ignition switch off stupidity" but I was beaten to it.

Actually then you didn't understand what Hobbes was saying. He agrees with me but he just took it to a different level and I agree with that which makes what I said redundant.

[sthitapragya]

example of this.

You also say that the mind and brain are independent of each other.

I do not recall saying that but I do not dispute that is something I may have said.

You have no proof of this.

HOW does sth know that I have no proof that the Mind and brain are independent of each other?

Because you have not given it. If you have it, give it.

[Nick_A]

What is one supposed to do with their finger once they've taken it off the ignition switch?

[sthitapragya]

What is one supposed to do with their finger once they've taken it off the ignition switch?

You know what you in particular can do with the finger. In fact everyone here can take an educated guess what you would do with it.

[Dontaskme]

HOW does sth know that I have no proof that the Mind and brain are independent of each other?


Any person can view anything, without having proof of it, without it necessarily being a belief, obviously.

Because you have not given it. If you have it, give it.

Reality which is this pure alive awareness presence here right now without doubt or error does not need a mind to exist.

One cannot prove one exists...because there is no other than this one here now. Existence is it's own proof. Existence is just another word for Awareness/Seeing ..which is able to see and know everything except itself. You are this Awareness / Seeing, you can neither believe or doubt you are this awareness seeing presence right now....just try not believing you are this presence right here now..., just try doubting you are not this presence right here now... you can't do it can you?...you cannot make this presence that you are disappear by not believing in it.....neither can you make this presence appear with the belief in it...it's already here with or without your belief or doubt.

This one does not require a belief in order to be. Beliefs appear in this ...One is always prior to any belief appearing within itself. Beliefs have no reality. Reality doesn't hold a belief to be what it is.

What part of this realisation do you not understand?

[Dontaskme]

Because you have not given it. If you have it, give it.

Give what?

It's already here.

No one has it. It has you.

It's like....Which is the chess set, the black or the white? Surely it must be a game of duality?

But, lets say it's the black pieces. So we only have black pieces, and the white's are therefore discarded.

Or we choose the white pieces, and the black's are discarded.

Either way the game crumbles.

The black and white world, there, if you focus and look for ''it'' vanishes.


Likewise with the self, memories, feelings, awareness, fingers, limbs etc. Which one is the self?

No, rather imagine an empty chessboard, an empty life, an empty heart. Rather, visualise your body melting into light, disappearing. That is the aspect of the absolute which is beyond words... beyond descriptions…. it's called the Buddha nature.

There are no ''atomic facts'' only compounds, and compounds are dependent, and therefore lack inherent being of ''Self''.

Rather we have labels, but even the labels are black and white.

[Harbal]

.

The black and white world, there, if you focus and look for ''it'' vanishes.
.

Why can you not be made to disappear so easily?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Because you have not given it. If you have it, give it.

Give what?

Giving is receiving.

It's already here.


Because it is nowhere.
No one has it. It has you.


None have it because we all do. It has you because you have it.
It's like....Which is the chess set, the black or the white? Surely it must be a game of duality?


Black is white, and white is black. Take care when you cross the zebra crossing.

But, lets say it's the black pieces. So we only have black pieces, and the white's are therefore discarded.



When you have only black pieces you have all the white ones.
.
Or we choose the white pieces, and the black's are discarded.

Either way the game crumbles.

It can only crumble if it is solid.

The black and white world, there, if you focus and look for ''it'' vanishes.
And when it vanishes it is in plain view
Likewise with the self, memories, feelings, awareness, fingers, limbs etc. Which one is the self?

The self is all and the all is the self
No, rather imagine an empty chessboard, an empty life, an empty heart. Rather, visualise your body melting into light, disappearing. That is the aspect of the absolute which is beyond words... beyond descriptions…. it's called the Buddha nature.

Maybe you'd find it easier playing Ludo?.

There are no ''atomic facts'' only compounds, and compounds are dependent, and therefore lack inherent being of ''Self''.

Rather we have labels, but even the labels are black and white.

What about dirty gray?

[sthitapragya]

.

The black and white world, there, if you focus and look for ''it'' vanishes.
.

Why can you not be made to disappear so easily?

He can. Just add him to your foes' list. It's so cool.

[Hobbes' Choice]

.

The black and white world, there, if you focus and look for ''it'' vanishes.
.

Why can you not be made to disappear so easily?

He can. Just add him to your foes' list. It's so cool.

Its' only cool because its so hot!

Adding him to your foes list is to admit that you love him.

Whatever he "can", he cannot.

[Harbal]

He can. Just add him to your foes' list. It's so cool.

Not good enough, I'd still know he was around, somewhere.