Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Logik]

You have never known death.

Pain comes and goes, but death never arrives.

I think I've stared death in the face a couple of times.

I won. So far.

[Dontaskme]

You have never known death.

Pain comes and goes, but death never arrives.

I think I've stared death in the face a couple of times.

I won. So far.

Yeah I know what you mean. I stare at the void all day it's all there is looking back at me.

You are the void. Neither dead nor alive.

Death and Birth are concepts, they are imagined.


.

[Logik]

Yeah I know what you mean. I stare at the void all day it's all there is looking back at me.

No. You don't. The void didn't give me the scar on my chest.

What looked back at me was another human. With a gun. That human decided it's worth while perforating me.

I returned the favor in kind.

[Dontaskme]

Yeah I know what you mean.

No. You don't. The void didn't give me the scar on my chest.

That's just knowledge.

Does the knower of knowledge know it is alive or dead....or does the knowledge of the knower inform the knower ?

.

[Logik]

That's just knowledge.

Does the knower of knowledge know it is alive or dead....or does the knowledge of the knower inform the knower ?

There were two knowers.

This knower is still alive.
The other knower expired.

[Dontaskme]

That's just knowledge.

Does the knower of knowledge know it is alive or dead....or does the knowledge of the knower inform the knower ?

There were two knowers.

This knower is still alive.
The other knower expired.

To know expire, the knower would have to be there in the expired to know that yes I know I have expired....no no no, not happening.

.

[Logik]

To know expire, the knower would have to be there in the expired to know that yes I know I have expired....no no no, not happening.

I guess he failed to master non-dualism.

[Dontaskme]

To know expire, the knower would have to be there in the expired to know that yes I know I have expired....no no no, not happening.

I guess he failed to master non-dualism.

He never even took an exam.

All concepts, imagined appearances of that which is without beginning nor end, birth or death, except in this conception (duality) which is all there is.

Nothing but concepts.

.

[Age]

I thought in a 'philosophy' forum of all places this would be a place to challenge the claims people make. Unfortunately though I find this rarely ever happens.

This is precisely what's happening!

Your claim that "you are here to learn how to communicate" is being challenged.

Just to be clear, I am here in this forum to learn how to communicate BETTER. NOT just to learn how to communicate.

How can LEARNING even be factually challenged?

Either I am learning some thing or I am not. End of story.

Because you are doing the exact opposite of what you've claimed.

HOW would you KNOW what I am learning, and/or NOT learning?

I am NOT in this forum to communicate any thing with any one here. I am in this forum to LEARN; HOW TO COMMUNICATE BETTER.

You are trying to force others to adopt your language/way of thinking/seeing the world e.g you are forcing others to learn to communicate with you, rather than you learning to communicate with them.

Is that what you see? Do you BELIEVE that this is true? Could there be any other possibilities of what I was actually doing?

By the way, if I have NOT yet expressed the VIEWS I may or may not one day share, then HOW could I be "forcing" any one to adopt these VIEWS now, when this is written?

By the way do you have examples of any actual thing, which you say/believe that I am "trying to force others to adopt"?

Or is this going to be just another example of alluding to "something" but never actually pointing it out nor saying what it actually is?

And even in your paragraph above, you are desperately trying to leverage "guilt" as an instrument of control over others.

Is this what you see? Do you BELIEVE that this is true? Could there be other possibilities of what I was actually doing?

Could I just be expressing what I see, without "desperately TRYING TO do any thing like you say here?

If what I express encourages my writings to be challenged more often, then so be it.

If any one allows them self to feel "guilty" and/or lose control, then that CERTAINLY was NOT my intention. I have NO real control over them anyway.

If I say that I find that challenging people's claims rarely ever happens here in this forum, then do NOT feel "guilty" about that, nor do NOT feel any lose of control either. But if that is how you feel "logik", then is that my fault?

You are perfectly happy to challenge everybody else's claims. But you fight tooth and nail to protect your own claims from being challenged.

Will you provide any examples of when this happened?

Do you want me to NOT "fight" to protect my own claims from being challenged?

Do you my claims to be challenged in any way, and then just NOT say any thing at all?

Or, what is it exactly "logik" that you would like me to do when my claims are being challenged?

Also, are you SURE that it is EVERY body else's claims that i am perfectly happy to challenge? Could the actual and real Truth be more like 'some' instead of "every"?

[Age]

I, however, neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE any thing

If you don't believe anything, then there's no requirement to not believe what you already don't believe is there?

It's true that one aka the ( I )doesn't need the belief they are, they simply are, no belief is needed. This simple fact of being is the divine oxymoron that is a no position position.

But as soon as that position of no position is taken up by the knowledge that someone else can have a belief then you've artificially superimposed a belief on your no belief position.

Have I?

Can you explain EXACTLY how I have, supposedly, done this?

From what I can SEE, I have NO belief at all, especially in regards to the VIEW that I have NO belief. I just LOOK AT and SEE (understand) things, from a certain perspective, and then some times express those VIEWS.

I have NO belief, either way.

WHERE exactly do you see this so called "belief", that you BELIEVE that I have now, supposedly, "artificially superimposed" onto one of my VIEWS?

You cannot know if another person has a belief while at the same time denying yourself of all belief...

Why NOT?

Is there some law written somewhere that says that I can NOT know if another person has a belief while at the same time I do NOT have belief? Or, is this some other way that this just could NOT possible occur? In fact, HOW do you KNOW that this is even correct?

I can KNOW you have a BELIEF. You do have BELIEFS, correct?

all you are doing is creating the idea of there existing a belief that others can have without realising that the seed of thought that others can have a belief is manifesting in you yourself, that you then planted in another...the seed of belief that someone else can have a belief came from you, you created the idea, not someone else...

Did I? When did I do this?

Was the "idea of belief" NOT created BEFORE I started expressing by writing here in this forum?

and then you project your own seed of thought which is just an assumption onto others saying it's theirs...denying it's yours..well done Age, that makes perfect sense doesn't it?

PERFECT sense to WHO?

So that idea about a belief belonging to someone has come from you, the you that denies it has a belief, and yet assumes others can have one...

But I do NOT assume that "others" can have BELIEFS. "Others", themselves, TELL me that they have BELIEFS. In fact some "others" have BELIEFS that are so strong that they BELIEVE that even I MUST HAVE BELIEFS also. Some people's BELIEFS are so strong that they INSIST that I MUST HAVE BELIEFS, otherwise I would die.

the assumption is a projection of your own belief that other people have a belief...that's your own assumption, it does not belong to another.

But, as I just explained, there is NO assumption on my part. I am just repeating what "others" TELL Me they have.

So in essence Age, you are not making any sense are you when you say you have no belief,

To WHO?

To Me it makes PERFECT sense that when I am NEITHER believing nor disbelieving any thing, then I have NO belief at all.

Does that NOT makes sense to "dontaskme"?

because it's you who is making up the idea in the first place, the idea of belief belongs to you... it's your own grown concept....that you then deny having...you remind me of someone trying to wash away blood using blood.

.

.

If me saying; I have NO beliefs, reminds you of a human being trying to wash away blood using blood, then I accept that that is what you remember.

I am just NOT sure WHY you would remember, and then say, such a thing. Would you like to elaborate and/or explain WHY you wanted us to KNOW what I remind you of?

[Age]

But WHY pretend?

WHY NOT just be one's Real and True Self ALWAYS.

The true self aka the dog will dump it's load of shit on the pavement in full view of all around, especially it's human owner.

WHY "especially" in front of its 'human owner'?

Are you trying to suggest that dogs PREFER to excrete their waste in front of their human owners, instead of in front of any one or any thing else?

Or are you alluding to the fact that if and when a dog is on a lead, then it can NOT really excrete their waste anywhere else, other than in front of its "human" owner?

By the way can dogs be "owned" by any thing else other than 'a human being'?

Now, as a human, would a human do the same thing and pull down it's trousers and dump it's load of shit on the pavement in front of every other person on that pavement?

Yes, some human beings would, and some DO.

Does a person feel self-conscious about doing such an activity ?

Some do, some do not.

or would they do it without feeling any sense of self consciousness?

Again some would feel such a thing, while some would not.

Are you at all aware that NOT every one is the same?

Or do they have to pretend they have self-consciousness?

.

If some do pretend, so what?

My question was; WHY pretend?

My question was NOT about; WOULD people pretend? But WHY do they pretend, TO BE SOME THING WHICH THEY ARE NOT?

OF COURSE some human beings pretend. My question is in relation to WHY do they pretend? For example, WHY do you "dontaskme" PRETEND to be some thing which you are NOT?

Answer that properly and correctly, then you will KNOW WHY ALL adult human beings pretend.

The answer really is VERY simple and easy.



By the way, the answer to YOUR question is; NO one HAS TO pretend that they have self-consciousness.

[Dontaskme]

I, however, neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE any thing

If you don't believe anything, then there's no requirement to not believe what you already don't believe is there?

It's true that one aka the ( I )doesn't need the belief they are, they simply are, no belief is needed. This simple fact of being is the divine oxymoron that is a no position position.

But as soon as that position of no position is taken up by the knowledge that someone else can have a belief then you've artificially superimposed a belief on your no belief position.

Have I?

Can you explain EXACTLY how I have, supposedly, done this?

From what I can SEE, I have NO belief at all, especially in regards to the VIEW that I have NO belief. I just LOOK AT and SEE (understand) things, from a certain perspective, and then some times express those VIEWS.

I have NO belief, either way.

WHERE exactly do you see this so called "belief", that you BELIEVE that I have now, supposedly, "artificially superimposed" onto one of my VIEWS?

I can't remember which post it was in now, but you made a reference to the concept ( belief) saying to someone else that that is your belief...so all I'm asking is can someone have a belief? even if you don't?

.

[Dontaskme]

No. You don't. The void didn't give me the scar on my chest.

What looked back at me was another human. With a gun. That human decided it's worth while perforating me.

I returned the favor in kind.

No, there was no human looking at you with a gun.

What was looking at you was the void that has no story about itself...and from out of that void came the story of a human looking at you with a gun, the story of being shot...so what? your mind told you that (knowledge) and that's what you get when you invent guns, you sow what you reap..not you personally, I'm talking about cause and effect. If we don't want a particular effect, then we shouldn't cause it...this is all the play of duality...the void your true nature just looks on in detachment...it's doesn't get involved with the story, it's that in which the story arises and falls.

People get shot all the time in video games, I don't see you making a fuss over that.



.

[Dontaskme]

You cannot know if another person has a belief while at the same time denying yourself of all belief...

Why NOT?

If you don't have a belief...then how can you know the word (belief) even exists? to be able to tell another that's their belief?
..the word (belief) here is being uttered by you is it not? so it's you that knows the word exists.. right?

I can KNOW you have a BELIEF. You do have BELIEFS, correct?

How can you know if I have a belief until I tell you I have?

Is that what you mean?

.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:
all you are doing is creating the idea of there existing a belief that others can have without realising that the seed of thought that others can have a belief is manifesting in you yourself, that you then planted in another...the seed of belief that someone else can have a belief came from you, you created the idea, not someone else...

Did I? When did I do this?

Was the "idea of belief" NOT created BEFORE I started expressing by writing here in this forum?

Isn't the ''idea of belief'' and the expressing of that idea instantaneous?

If the 'idea of belief' existed before it was expressed by I writing in this forum, where is the BEFORE I am talking about here??



.