Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Age]

Lacewing wrote:
As I said, some people are living fully in the current moment, which means there is NO outcome to obsess over--there is only NOW.

And is that the same "current moment" NOW that YOU are abusing and killing children IN, while you call it "living fully".

Do you feel fully alive KNOWING that you are abusing and killing children RIGHT NOW, while continuing to destroy the one and ONLY home that you have?

You can WANT to continue ON, exactly as you are NOW. But "others" prefer to LOOK TO seeing HOW they can change, themselves, for the better.

But like I say, you are FREE to choose to do whatever you want to do.

You can KEEP "living fully" and KEEP doing the harm and damage that you are doing RIGHT NOW to innocent human beings if you so WISH TO.

What's killing and abusing children got to do with being at peace within yourself right now living in the immediate moment,

How can one be Truly at peace within them self "right now living in the immediate moment" when it is that one who is doing the killing and abusing of children?

the only moment there is which is the only real reality?

Of course.

what's wrong with right now unless you think about it?

If you do NOT think about, then you will just keep going on and on and on killing and abusing children as you have been.

If you STOP, long enough, and "think" about "it", then you will SEE how you are killing and abusing children. Then, if you want to be Truly at peace with your self, then you will do what it takes to STOP the killing and abusing of children (each other).

When we are all at peace within ourselves then there will be peace everywhere surely?

Which IS EXACTLY what I have been saying from the outset here in this forum.

I have just been POINTING OUT that the ONLY one's who are doing WRONG, in the "world", are adult human beings. Unfortunately, though, they, individually, BELIEVE that they do NOT WRONG, and that it is "someone else" who does the WRONG.

No one can change the world, they can only change themself, only then will their outer world reflect their inner world.



.

You say "No one can change the world" but it is ONLY through change HOW the one and ONLY One IS ALWAYS changing the world.

Remember, when adults used to judge people as being witches, and then killing them and abusing them was all right, but then it WAS finally SEEN to be WRONG?

So to it WILL be finally SEEN to be WRONG for adults to be judging each other, like they do now, when this is written. Then the killing and abusing of each other, and especially the children, WILL also STOP, and then the living as One, and thus being at peace within ourselves as One (OurSelf), that is; Our One (True) Self, CAN and WILL begin, and then peace everywhere will exist, for sure.

one changing them "self" DOES actually "change the world", as they say.

Even you just said, when one's outer world reflects one's inner world, then that means when, and IF, one is being Truly Honest and doing their True BEST from within, then the outer "world" WILL reflect that True and Honest BEST way, which is AFTER ALL what WE ALL Truly want to live in, anyway.

[Age]

Age can explain Absolutely with a capital A ...EVERY thing down to the smallest detail.

Where are you getting the capital A from in usage with the absolute word here?

Also, instead of NOT believing this is true, why not just prove it is true.

Question and challenge me on absolutely EVERY thing I say.

Either I can do what I say OR I will be SHOWN to be WRONG, in which case I will LEARN more and/or anew, which is only of benefit for me.

The reason I write in such provocative ways, some times, is to promote a challenge and/or evoke some curiosity, and thus clarifying questioning.

I do NOT know how else to encourage these virtues in "others".

But then notice, he says other people can NOT ..isn't that a strange assumption?

But how is that any assumption at all? I have asked you, for example, to explain some things but you say you can NOT. So, there is NO assumption here. That is just the facts. Obviously NOT all people can explain ALL things.

YES..what you said to AlexW..you also repeated the exact same comment to me as well. That I can NOT explain things, rather my words are confusing.

So I replied by saying...give it a rest informing people they can NOT explain things...

Am I NOT allowed to point out what is actually happening HERE?

Do you NOT like it SHOWN that you can NOT explain some thing or that you do NOT know some thing?

I have found a LOT of human beings do NOT like these things KNOWN, by "others". This surprised me very much at first, that is until I fully understood WHY human beings are like this.

If my revealing this fact to "others" does NOT promote some sort of reaction in order to get either of you and/or others to challenge me, then I will have to LOOK FOR other ways.

Asking nicely has NOT worked. Writing obviously outrageous, although True, statements does NOT work. TRYING TO cause a reaction or over reaction does NOT work, so how else can I promote the challenging of One's Self from "others"?

So what? if they cannot explain things according to you...

It is NOT about being "according to me". It is about Honesty and Openness.

Any thing can be explained in any way. But if it can NOT be explained, then that is fine also.

Is there any rule anywhere within human beings that states that pointing out that some one can NOT explain some thing and making this KNOWN is NOT permissible?

If i do NOT know some thing, then I literally just say; "I do NOT know".

It really is just that simple and easy. And, absolutely NOTHING to be ashamed about also.

The only way a human being can KNOW some thing is through experience, and if a human being has NOT yet experienced some thing, then WHY would they even be ashamed of NOT knowing that thing?

Is the judging and ridiculing that you human beings do upon each other so strong that you actually become embarrassed and ashamed of not knowing the answer to some or other question/s?

Are they not allowed to NOT be able to explain things without being confusing?

As I have previously stated; If some thing is expressed as being ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, TRUE and/or CORRECT, then expect to be questioned and/or challenged in regards to that. If what is being expressed can NOT be explained without being confusing, then that just means that it can NOT be explained, without being confusing. Nothing more and nothing less.

I KNOW exactly how hard it is to explain things, especially when "others" BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE the contrary. I can NOT even express that I do NOT beliefs without that being "confusing" for, and/or DISBELIEVED by, some.

Except to say, it's probably, if not actually not at all confusing for the author else why would they be saying anything at all?...

I just gave an example of just one of countless things I VERY EASILY understand within this body, but when expressed become VERY confusing to some. I KNOW how hard it can be to explain just one simple and easy thing to one person, who ASSUMES and/or BELIEVES otherwise, let alone how HARD it is to explain to a whole generation of human beings who ASSUME and/or BELIEVE the absolute contrary, to what I will one day say and express.

in the same context, you yourself have said you know exactly how to explain things, but then claim that others are confusing.

Am I NOT allowed to express nor claim how "others" are coming across to me?

How "others" are coming across to me does NOT mean that they are WRONG in what they are saying. I am just expressing HOW THEY ARE COMING ACROSS, TO ME.

I also like to explain WHY what they are expressing would be confusing to "others".

Now, the thing is, I could say that about your explanations,

If that is HOW my explanations come across TO YOU, then great, SAY IT. I WANT TO HEAR IT. But I also WANT to hear WHERE exactly this confusion happens and WHY exactly the confusion comes across whatever way it does.

But hearing things like, "You make noise" and/or "Can't you recognize your own noise" is of NO help at all to me or "others" who are TRYING TO read and understand this.

I can say yours are confusing as well, even though they make sense to you...and that's why I said give it a rest.

But if ANY thing I say is confusing to you, then why NOT just say that. WHY say "give it a rest"? Who is that going to help? Tell me WHAT parts exactly are confusing to you, and, WHY exactly they are confusing to you. If you WERE to do that, then that COULD help both of us as I will certainly LEARN how to communicate better, and you MIGHT better understand Me, and exactly WHERE I AM COMING FROM.

It's quite a reasonable thing to say actually...but then obviously not according to you.

Especially NOT for the reasons I have just given.

Saying, "Give it a rest" can be interpreted as saying, "Just shut up i/we do NOT want to hear what you have to say". And then once the "other" has SHUT UP, that frees up more space and time for the first one to KEEP saying what they WANT TO express.

Now this is the really confusing part....Look, you've already announced that you CAN explain absolutely EVERY thing down to the smallest detail.

Yes correct I have.

So, ...why would you need to seek clarification, and for what exactly?

i seek clarification from "you" and "others" to SEE just how much you KNOW in regards to what you are talking about.

What most people KNOW comes from what they have studied and learned, which just comes from what is already written down or "out there". What people can explain, just SHOWS me what other or newer ways I be able to explain particular and certain things. The responses I get, and the way they ARE responded, also teaches me a great deal as well in regards to communicating better.

I do NOT seek clarification to necessarily learn what they want to express, if however there is some thing new to learn then that is even better, but I just seek clarification to learn HOW TO communicate better.

surely if you've got this nailed...then what is the purpose of communicating with others, why would thier opinion matter to you?

Did you forget? I am here in this forum to learn HOW to communicate better.

The PURPOSE of communicating with "others" is to learn how to communicate better with "them".

you've already admitted you can explain absolutely EVERY thing down to the last detail.

Yes I HAVE admitted that, and yes I CAN do that.

Would you like to challenge Me on any of this?

If not to SEE if there is any real Truth in this from your perspective but also so i can SEE if I can actually do it or not.

The actual and real Truth WILL BE revealing.

.

I am NOT sure what what this means nor what it is in reference to exactly.

Would you like to explain?

I do NOT know anything about what you have discussed in this exchange.

Although some of what I wrote was just asking you questions for clarification about what you, yourself, previously wrote you still do "NOT know anything" about what I wrote?

[Age]

But who is stopping?

Thee I does NOT want to stop.

WHY does "alexw" WANT TO stop?

There is so MUCH MORE to discuss, discover, and/or learn here, so WHY stop NOW?

We don't have to stop discussing - lets just stop talking like we are from some far away planet...

So an absolute True perspective of ALL things would be AN Ego also, correct?

See, this is where we have different views:

Yes I do see this. I have seen these different views for quite a while now.

I say: There is NO "absolute True perspective".

Is that coming from an 'absolutely True perspective' or from one of those "levels of confused perspectives"?

If it is the former, then does that contradict itself?
If it is the latter, then could that confused perspective be WRONG, or partly WRONG?
If it is neither, then WHERE is the expressed as an 'absolutely True statement', 'There is NO "absolute True perspective", coming from EXACTLY?

The statement appears to be coming from a perspective that BELIEVES that "it" or "It" KNOWS the True perspective of things.

Look... what do you know that is absolutely TRUE?

When, and IF, EVERY one is in agreement, then there is NO one disagreeing.

Therefore, IF, and only IF, EVERY one's perspective is the EXACT SAME, on any one matter/idea/perspective, then that would make up One perspective. IF that One perspective was in agreement with ALL, and accepted by ALL, forever more, then some might SEE that, irrefutable perspective, as being AN 'absolute True perspective'.

Disclaimer: this is a rhetoric question as the answer will follow shortly.
AND: Please read the whole text and don't pick it apart sentence by sentence - it is not necessary to answer to every single one - just one commont about what is being said would be fine - but... if you still feel the urge to pick it apart, thats also ok

Investigation leads to only ONE Truth: I AM

Sorry to do what you say is unnecessary but I feel it is, already, necessary to point out that; IF "investigation leads to only ONE Truth, that is; I AM, then is this NOT an 'absolute True perspective' in and of itself?

And when you say "rhetoric" do you BELIEVE that there is NO answer beyond what you already BELIEVE is thee answer, which you yourself ALREADY HAVE?

Also, Who EXACTLY is the 'I' in the question 'Who AM 'I'?'

And, to say, "I AM", to Me appears as though the person answering the 'Who am 'I'?' has either forgotten what the answer is, does NOT know what the answer is, or is still just waiting for the answer to either be revealed to them or discovered by them.

To Me when a person writes, "I AM" it looks like it would be better written as, "I AM ..."

"I am" is really and truly ALL you can say that cannot be faulted -

But that is NOT ALL I can say, which can NOT be faulted. I CAN explain EXACTLY Who AND What 'I am'. I can also explain EXACTLY who and what an individual i is as well.

If that explanation is accepted and/or agreed with, is another matter. Also, if an explanation can even be given, is BELIEVED or DISBELIEVED is another matter again.

whatever concept grows on top of "I am" can be questioned, can be viewed in different lights, can be believed and a few things are even found to be facts (which can also be refuted).

How could a 'fact' be refuted. A 'fact' by definition means that some thing is KNOWN or already PROVED to be True, correct?

Now you can wander around in this world of assumptions, views, perspectives, beliefs and facts, draw your own personal border between them, treat some ideas/concepts as assumptions, some as views, some as part of your perspective, some as beliefs and some as facts - its up to your individual upbringing/conditioning where the lines between these categories are drawn, but ultimately they are ALL the same

If they are ultimately ALL the same, then WHY the different names, with different definitions?

I agree that ALL of these things can be "ultimately" labelled under the one name, to save confusion, but we still NEED to LOOK AT the Truth, if that is what we are 'ultimately' seeking/searching for.

- they are made up, they are ideas - now you can call them a view or a belief or a fact, but this is a mental distinction that doesn't hold any water.

What has 'water' got to do with any thing here.

If you want to express as though you KNOW what the Truth IS, then those 'mental thoughts' NEED to be holding the Truth, NOT water.

All you TRULY know is "I AM"

If that is what 'you' BELIEVE, then that is okay with Me. But that is CERTAINLY NOT ALL I Truly KNOW.

What I Truly KNOW is much different than that.

And if that is ALL 'you' Truly KNOW, then so be it. I am okay with this also.

- this doesn't mean that you have to know what "I" is, or what "am" means, but there is this wordless knowledge that cannot be lost. It is present when the body is born (and even "before"), it is there after you learn the concept of "I am a person",

But the 'I' is NOT a person. The 'i' is the name given to an individual person. There is a BIG difference.

And IF "I am a person" is being taught, then those people NEED to get their "facts" RIGHT first. Otherwise children will continue growing up being abused, as they are now, when this is written.

it is there at death

But neither I nor i die. As can be proven.

AND it is even there when there is no objective experience (e.g. in deep sleep). It is not "in" time as it is not affected by objective experience (=conceptual thought), it is without individuality, eternally present - now.

Does individual/separate 'conceptual thought' come from JUST experience?

If that experience is SEEN from a subjective perspective or from an objective perspective is another matter though.

I agree that the I is without individuality (except contradictory It is ONLY One, and thus is really AN Individual), however, I agree that I AM eternally present NOW, HERE.

While experiencing "the world" the closest you can get to this impersonal Being is the witness (let me know if you don't know what that means).

I do NOT know what 'that' means, from the perspective of "alexw".

How does "alexw" describe what 'that' means?

Transcending the witness (something that can happen spontaneously) leads to non-dual consciousness, pure being, in this "state" there is no world, no object, no separation - it is pure AM, absolute Truth, but there is nothing so say about it (besides the non-conceptual knowledge of "I am").

If the person "alexw" BELIEVES that there is NOTHING to say about "it", (besides "I am"), then that is okay with Me.

But, as I have stated, I can EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.

[Age]

You are stating that you can see I have a belief here ... saying you can see that I have a belief without you believing I have a belief?

Is that what you are saying?

.

Not in that exact same terminology but Yes that is roughly what I am saying. I can SEE that there is a belief here. Whether that VIEW is right or wrong is another matter, which the answer could come to light through honest discourse.

People are genuinely being honest,

Does this count for ALL people, for ALL of the time, or, only for some of the people, some of the time? Or, for some thing else?

To gain a better, clearer, truer perspective of what one is really saying and meaning, then what I found is clarifying what the actual Truth IS helps.

they can only communicate what they personally know and understand from their own experience, even when they are throwing insults and what-nots at each other in a two way discussion, they are still being their true genuine self,

Are you absolutely SURE that that is the real and genuine True Self, that One IS (or could be)?

how could they be any different than how they in the moment present their view?

By being dishonest.

OBVIOUSLY no one could be different from the PRESENT, in THE PRESENT, but surely adult human beings on a whole, and individually, could STOP and change their present view, from when this is written, and present a much BETTER VIEW, of themselves, in the so called "future"?

Or do you BELIEVE that this is impossible?

To claim there is such a being as an honest person implies there can be a dishonest person...

If you say so.

so how would you know who is being honest or not

Through clarifying questioning, helps, AND, by remaining completely OPEN.

or whether they would be right or wrong about what they are presenting as a view point

Again, through clarifying questioning helps here, AND AGAIN, by remaining completely OPEN.

without there being a belief involved on your part to be able to SEE the difference?

Are you saying that one HAS TO HAVE a BELIEF to be able to SEE when "another" person is being dishonest and/or right?

If yes, then I find that VERY contradictory.

I would suggest that being OPEN to absolutely ALL things, allows one to SEE the difference between right and wrong, honest and dishonest, much quicker, simpler, and easier, rather than having a BELIEF, of ANY thing would.

But maybe you could SHOW me to be WRONG here.

Do you have any actual examples of HOW having or holding a BELIEF, of some thing in particular, will help people to SEE the difference between honest and dishonesty in "another" and/or the difference between right and wrong, in any thing?

To announce a particular view has the capacity to be right or wrong is another matter would require a belief also.

And WHAT 'BELIEF' do you propose that one would need EXACTLY, in order to be able to announce a particular view has the capacity to be right or wrong?

I do NOT have a BELIEF, but I can and WILL announce that ANY particular view has the CAPACITY to be right or wrong.

Is there some thing WRONG that I just did NOW or said? If yes, then WHAT BELIEF do you HAVE, AND, WHAT is the WRONG I just did or say?

So back to the question, how can you tell is someone is being honest or not without a belief involved?

Go back to the answer, above.

There is NO need to go "back to the question" now, considering I answered the question/s the first time.

See my last post to you which talks about projection, and that projection is a two way mirror...don't forget to address that one.

Are you EXPECTING some sort of particular outcome in my response to it?

And does my dementia come across that strongly?

Have I forgotten to address ANY of your posts yet?

If I have, then I apologize profusely.

Just point me to them, and I will then address them.

By the way did I address your last post to me? I have forgotten, ALREADY.

And also don't forget to address the my post to you about the human being taking a dump on the pavement in full view of other people.

.

If I recall correctly, I addressed that days ago. So do NOT worry I have NOT forgotten, HOPEFULLY.

[AlexW]

But, as I have stated, I can EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.

Then please do so!

[Dontaskme]

I have demonstrated many times that I am capable of having respectful conversations with people. When someone starts acting like an ass though, and is dishonest about what they say, and is denying what they do, I challenge why they are doing that, and if they are aware of doing that.

I'm not ALWAYS aware of being an ass, or being dishonest about what I'm saying, and then deying what I'm doing. I may come accross like that, but it's not intentional. I'm just being true myself at all times. If that means being an ass then that's what happens...if you prefer one aspect of me over another, then what can I do about that. I'm just here posting about the truth that is nondual reality. My personality may appear toxic to you, but I do have a very opposite side to me as well.

When you've called me a deaf, dumb, and blind idiot -- it's so absurd and childish, I know you're just freaking out in the moment.

Yes, I freak out sometimes, and I knew I was freaking out when I said this to you. I admit that. I find you a frustrating person to talk to that's all.

Yes, many times I have challenged the things you've said. You yourself have said a few times that it's all bullshit, and you've said something to the effect of being insane and knowing nothing. Those seemed like some of your most brilliant and honest statements. Then you slip back into claiming all that you do, spinning and ignoring, and taking it more seriously than you want to admit. Telling everyone "how it is" with a tone of authority/knowing that trumps their view.

I've also said no one has overall authority or control of anything / and that all views are as good and valid as anyones elses, and that we all know the truth is within ourselves. I have also repeatedly said that nondual knowledge is in no way trying to supercede conventional knowledge that is the normally accepted by trying to undermine it's authority...because all views are all inclusive, as in the light and the dark aspects of human nature.

My comment about "if it's a cry for help, I'm just answering" was about the intoxicated spin you might get into (that any of us can get into), and we need someone to throw cold water in our face. We might ACT like we don't need anyone, yet our "crazy" will ramp up to absurd levels as if we are testing to see if anyone will respond and stick with us.

Good lord, I've never had those weird thoughts ever, like I say, I'm just on this forum to express the nondual truth, I don't actually care if I get a response or not, I'm happy if I do, but I don't get in a lather if I don't. I've never denied we don't need anyone either, of course we need others, we need medical practitioners when we get injured, we need lawyers, and bankers, and shop assistants... but if you are implying I need someone to stroke my ego then the answer is NO..I have no need of that, I'm pretty much self fulfilled.

You do not set a good example of respectful discourse...so when you implore me to do so, it's laughable. You have lots of statements you throw back in people's faces... about looking in the mirror, or realizing that there's no one there, or it's another you, etc. It's rude and dismissive... and, as I've said, even dishonest... because you often do not honor/acknowledge what matters to other people, yet you'll honor/acknowledge those things when they happen to you. I've told you this before. There is a lot of ego involved, even if it is denied.

ok whatever you say, but like I say I usually respond to people in the same manner in which I'm being spoken to, that's why I use the mirror technique to show people that they are projecting their own bullshit...people argue with each other all the time on this forum...it's not just us... so it is what it is.
If I'm being dishonest in your opinion, then fine, but I can also be honest. I can be rude, and I can be respectful, I can be firey and I can be humble, It's just the nature of ego. Doesn't mean anything, I'm still willing to forgive and forget and move on.

Earlier this week I stepped forward to have a respectful conversation with you (at your request), and you unleashed your crazy on me. So there's no reason for me to take your request seriously again. It is not my desire to hurt you in any way. If I think you're plopping piles of crap around... I may point them out and ask why... which I think is very reasonable.

Like I said if there was any unleashing it was a mirror effect going on, I can't help but speak to people in the same manner they speak to me. So you need to look in your mirror sometimes and discern where things might be going wrong between our conversations.
If you don't want to take my requests for respectful conversations seriously again, then so be it, stop replying to me. It's no skin off my nose.
If you do change your mind and want to discuss anything with me or challenge what I'm saying then do feel welcome. I will respond. I'll always respond to people. Don't worry about hurting my feelings, I laugh everything off. I take it all, the rough with the smooth, doesn't bother me in the slightest.


.

[Dontaskme]

Although some of what I wrote was just asking you questions for clarification about what you, yourself, previously wrote you still do "NOT know anything" about what I wrote?

I was just dismmising that particular converstion that's all, I wasn't feeling too well that day, so couldn't be bothered to address any of it..so whether or not I knew anything about what you wrote was just me being dismissive in the moment for reasons I've just explained.
My apologies, there was no problem with anything that you'd wrote.

.

[Dontaskme]

DAM: People are genuinely being honest,

Does this count for ALL people, for ALL of the time, or, only for some of the people, some of the time? Or, for some thing else?

I think most people want to be honest people most of the time, unless they know they're being dishonest and will try to hide it by denying it from fear of shame.

To gain a better, clearer, truer perspective of what one is really saying and meaning, then what I found is clarifying what the actual Truth IS helps.

Yes I absolutely agree.

they can only communicate what they personally know and understand from their own experience, even when they are throwing insults and what-nots at each other in a two way discussion, they are still being their true genuine self,

Are you absolutely SURE that that is the real and genuine True Self, that One IS (or could be)?

I think so, in the context that the subject ( I ) is projecting the image of itself in the form of words and actions. I don't think in any event things could have been any different to how events originally appear.

how could they be any different than how they in the moment present their view?

By being dishonest.

OBVIOUSLY no one could be different from the PRESENT, in THE PRESENT, but surely adult human beings on a whole, and individually, could STOP and change their present view, from when this is written, and present a much BETTER VIEW, of themselves, in the so called "future"?

Or do you BELIEVE that this is impossible?

I believe it's possible to change ones ways ..but only when the flow of the present is temporally stopped via reflection of what way one wants to look at a certain situation..if they didn't like one way, they can change it to another way.
I understand what you have said in your reply..about presenting themselves a better view in the future.

so how would you know who is being honest or not

Through clarifying questioning, helps, AND, by remaining completely OPEN.

Yes, I agree, by having the other person clarify whether they are being honest or dishonest to you..but then that person has to be telling the truth, or you won't get the proper clairifcation you seek.

or whether they would be right or wrong about what they are presenting as a view point

Again, through clarifying questioning helps here, AND AGAIN, by remaining completely OPEN.

Yes, I agree, by being OPEN and not hiding anything, just being totally honest without fear of shame.

without there being a belief involved on your part to be able to SEE the difference?

Are you saying that one HAS TO HAVE a BELIEF to be able to SEE when "another" person is being dishonest and/or right?

If yes, then I find that VERY contradictory.

It's not contradictory because from your centre of being, you can't tell if someone is being dishonest or not, they may say they are being honest but are really lying about it. So a belief will have to enter the scenario, do I believe the persons claim or not?

I would suggest that being OPEN to absolutely ALL things, allows one to SEE the difference between right and wrong, honest and dishonest, much quicker, simpler, and easier, rather than having a BELIEF, of ANY thing would.

But maybe you could SHOW me to be WRONG here.

You're not wrong here, I agree with what you have said...but the belief would have to be there in the one wanting the clarification not the one clarifying...because only the one clarifying knows the truth...not the one receiving the clarification...the one receiving still needs a belief present to believe what the person is saying...they cannot know absolutely if they have been truthful.

Do you have any actual examples of HOW having or holding a BELIEF, of some thing in particular, will help people to SEE the difference between honest and dishonesty in "another" and/or the difference between right and wrong, in any thing?

As soon as any information is claimed. A belief must enter the arena, because only the subject can know truth from fiction as it objectifies that truth or fiction, if there is no belief present then there is no knowing if something is true or fiction. There's just simple not-knowing presence.

To announce a particular view has the capacity to be right or wrong is another matter would require a belief also.

And WHAT 'BELIEF' do you propose that one would need EXACTLY, in order to be able to announce a particular view has the capacity to be right or wrong?

To announce anything right or wrong would require a belief in what has been announced to be able to discern the difference. Or else renounce everything announced back to not-knowing by default.

I do NOT have a BELIEF, but I can and WILL announce that ANY particular view has the CAPACITY to be right or wrong.

The I doesn't need a belief to be what it is...but as soon as I announces a knowledge of itself then a belief enters the equation else how would I know I was announcing a particular point of view unless I believed I was ?

Is there some thing WRONG that I just did NOW or said? If yes, then WHAT BELIEF do you HAVE, AND, WHAT is the WRONG I just did or say?

The only thing wrong, missing part here is knowing to announce anything is to open the curtain of fictional story telling which needs a belief present else the story would have no grounding, validitity, the story would by defalt be meaningless and would be nothing more than a renonnounced announcment.

So back to the question, how can you tell is someone is being honest or not without a belief involved?

Go back to the answer, above.

There is NO need to go "back to the question" now, considering I answered the question/s the first time.

Okay, that's fine.

See my last post to you which talks about projection, and that projection is a two way mirror...don't forget to address that one.

Are you EXPECTING some sort of particular outcome in my response to it?

And does my dementia come across that strongly?

Have I forgotten to address ANY of your posts yet?

If I have, then I apologize profusely.

Just point me to them, and I will then address them.

By the way did I address your last post to me? I have forgotten, ALREADY.

No not expecting any particular response. And yes you always address all my posts and I thank you for that.
I was just reminding you to not forget to address my posts. I wasn't suggesting you would forget.

And also don't forget to address the my post to you about the human being taking a dump on the pavement in full view of other people.

If I recall correctly, I addressed that days ago. So do NOT worry I have NOT forgotten, HOPEFULLY.

Yes you did address that post about human beings taking a dump on the pavement, and I thank you for that too. I agreed with your response.

.

[Lacewing]

I'm just being true myself at all times.

Me too. I point out what I perceive. If it's correct, then I hope some value will come from it, even if another person gets mad about it. If it's incorrect, then I hope the person will be able to clarify to show that. It doesn't seem to me that it would be difficult to clarify, as long as there isn't an ego being protected.

When you've called me a deaf, dumb, and blind idiot -- it's so absurd and childish, I know you're just freaking out in the moment.

Yes, I freak out sometimes, and I knew I was freaking out when I said this to you. I admit that. I find you a frustrating person to talk to that's all.

I'm sorry you find me frustrating. I admit that I taunt you. The interaction seems so absurd sometimes, it's hilarious.
But again, I'm not trying to hurt you. I'm playing... and hoping for the best... truly. There are many facets to my interaction with others... if I see someone spinning, I might try to poke a stick in there to stop the spin... or if I see intoxication, I might try to throw some cold water... if I see dishonesty, I might throw it back in their face... if I see puffed up ego, I might try to poke holes in it... if I see brilliance and truth and courage and honesty, I honor it.

I always know that any of us are capable of any of this... brilliance or crap. That's why, even when people have acted like complete assholes, I'm pretty much always willing to talk with them again if they bring forth something better of themselves.

I'm here to connect and explore and play...while being as truthful as possible. At the same time, I have an efficient nature...and I don't like to roll around in anyone's stuff. I think there is a place of clarity in which all beings can meet -- that does not require agreement on some ultimate truth -- it's just greater clarity and communication beyond the egos and personal/specific stuff. (People become so addicted to their personal/specific stuff -- it distorts and clogs up everything.)

Isn't it possible to connect beyond the language and dances of specific platforms? Are there "truths" that don't rely on platforms?

I've also said no one has overall authority or control of anything / and that all views are as good and valid as anyones elses, and that we all know the truth is within ourselves. I have also repeatedly said that nondual knowledge is in no way trying to supercede conventional knowledge that is the normally accepted by trying to undermine it's authority...because all views are all inclusive, as in the light and the dark aspects of human nature.

Yes... it's awesome (I think) when you do that. When you act otherwise, I hassle you about it. It's natural (I think) when someone is trying to explain a certain platform, that it can easily take on a life of its own, eating up and spitting out everything else. Humans seem prone to creating "gods" and idols out of all sorts of things... and I wonder why that is? It separates and owns what is connected and sacred!

My comment about "if it's a cry for help, I'm just answering" was about the intoxicated spin you might get into (that any of us can get into), and we need someone to throw cold water in our face. We might ACT like we don't need anyone, yet our "crazy" will ramp up to absurd levels as if we are testing to see if anyone will respond and stick with us.

Good lord, I've never had those weird thoughts ever

Well you (or anyone) wouldn't necessarily recognize it. What causes a person to, say, manically respond to many topics all at once? Or to write topics that repeat the teachings of a platform over and over, word for word? Is it because they want to desperately engage with someone? Or is it because they're hypnotically reinforcing their beloved teachings for themselves? Or...? I just seem to notice manic and repetitive behavior.

I also notice when people use platforms as a cover for their egos and/or madness. It's a distortion that I feel compelled to call out. I'm sure this comes from growing up in the church. I know people mean well... and that they "know not what they do". Still, such manipulation and blindness seems destructive and dishonest, and I want to call it out. I'm just like anyone else who seeks greater truth amidst all the noise.

If I'm being dishonest in your opinion, then fine, but I can also be honest. I can be rude, and I can be respectful, I can be firey and I can be humble, It's just the nature of ego. Doesn't mean anything, I'm still willing to forgive and forget and move on.

I know. Me too.

Earlier this week I stepped forward to have a respectful conversation with you (at your request), and you unleashed your crazy on me.

Like I said if there was any unleashing it was a mirror effect going on

So...does the mirror only come into play when it exonerates your behavior? I thought I was talking with you perfectly fine, even if I was questioning/challenging you.

If you don't want to take my requests for respectful conversations seriously again, then so be it, stop replying to me.

Why can't I keep responding while not taking you seriously? If I only responded to people that I take seriously, there would rarely be anyone or anything to respond to.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings, I laugh everything off. I take it all, the rough with the smooth, doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Well, you've acknowledged differently before. I don't want to hurt your feelings... but I do think you act quite mad at times, which inspires me to point it out to you. That actually shows my respect, by demonstrating that I think you can perceive more broadly in any moment. I think any of us can. I question and talk to myself the same way. It's meant to be no-nonsense... not mean. (My grandma used to say "Cut the crap!" I loved her authenticity and reliability.)

If you're going to uphold a platform of some sort (along with yourself), and then act inconsistently in your representation of that, it seems to be begging to be challenged, don't you think? I'm just answering the call! I'm sorry it's annoying. I don't know how to cut through all the bullshit any differently sometimes. I know you're a good person, and I like the basic principles of your platform. I just don't like any kind of religions and all of the controlling dishonesty behind the curtain that egos use them for.

[Walker]

There’s the absolute condition of existence and then there’s the relative condition of existence.

Explicitly distinguishing between the two in the transmission of a communication aids in the clear reception of the communication.

Then there's no need for accusations and punishments.

When asked a question about the relative condition, replying in terms of the absolute condition can muddy the meaning if the receiver is on a staticky frequency of understanding.


Just my observation, no intent to criticize since my notions of copacetic are obviously local.

[Dontaskme]

There’s the absolute condition of existence and then there’s the relative condition of existence.

Explicitly distinguishing between the two in the transmission of a communication aids in the clear reception of the communication.

Then there's no need for accusations and punishments.

When asked a question about the relative condition, replying in terms of the absolute condition can muddy the meaning if the receiver is on a staticky frequency of understanding.


Just my observation, no intent to criticize since my notions of copacetic are obviously local.

Very well said and I absolutely agree with you Walker.

___________

Lacewing, I agree with all you've said in your latest reply to me.. lets just forgive and forget and move on. You can challenge me anytime - I will reply with respect any issue you want to raise with me. Just remember, there is nothing wrong with the word religion, it's just another belief structure, we don't have to believe it exists in the natural world, it's just an objective supposition upon nothingness, much a do about nothing appearing as something...religion is an ''idea'' known, but not actually having any substance or weight to it.

.

[Lacewing]

There’s the absolute condition of existence and then there’s the relative condition of existence.

Explicitly distinguishing between the two in the transmission of a communication aids in the clear reception of the communication.

Agreed.

Lacewing... lets just forgive and forget and move on. You can challenge me anytime

Sounds good.

Just remember, there is nothing wrong with the word religion, it's just another belief structure

Of course! And, here on the forum, we talk about human ideas and the effects of them. You do too at times. Dismissing it with the view of nonduality is like playing a trump card of dismissiveness...owning the conversation...shutting it down in its tracks. Yet, the irony is how MUCH some of those who espouse nonduality talk about nothing.

[Dontaskme]

Of course! And, here on the forum, we talk about human ideas and the effects of them. You do too at times. Dismissing it with the view of nonduality is like playing a trump card of dismissiveness...owning the conversation...shutting it down in its tracks. Yet, the irony is how MUCH some of those who espouse nonduality talk about nothing.

I know the forum is used to talk about human ideas. But what if talking about the idea there is no human except as idea crops up like now for instance ...would that be of interest to you lacewing?

Or would you want to dismiss that idea and shut me down telling me to shut the fuck up ... just kidding, I’m playing with ya...have a nice day.

[Lacewing]

I know the forum is used to talk about human ideas. But what if talking about the idea there is no human except as idea crops up like now for instance ...would that be of interest to you lacewing?

Yes, it is of interest. I simply find moderation and context-discernment most reasonable in communication -- and there are times when this seems ignored.

I also like to explore what the benefits are of any particular perspective. When asked this, a lot of people don't seem to have an answer... perhaps because they're thinking that their beliefs/perspective is just what is (some sort of ultimate truth/reality), and that it has nothing to do with choices and benefits. But I see all of these choices on an equal playing field, with benefits and downfalls (pros and cons) that appeal or are acceptable to the individual. So, without thinking that any particular perspective is crucial for everyone, I like to ask anyone (including myself), "What does your perspective offer you or do for you?" And "Are you and your life more bountiful and empowered as a result of your chosen perspective?"

[Belinda]

Lacewing wrote:

I also like to explore what the benefits are of any particular perspective.

So do I,with regard to metaphysical perspective and it's metaphysical perspective what DontAskMe is talking about when DAM praises the perspective of non duality.

Non duality is pragmatically similar to nihilism, and postmodernism. Its use is clearing one's mind of preconceptions before making decisions.