Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[roydop]

Then please do so!

OH GOD NO!!

What exactly is it that is feared and/or not want to be heard here?

"I" fear that "you" will go on and ON and ON AND on...

Only in the transcendence of thought will a conclusion be realized. Thought itself will only lead to more thought/maya.

There is a singular path to COMPLETION. That is abidance in/as thought free Awareness.

Done. Simple.

[Dontaskme]

The on and on and on part is what is desired ..else the i in SELF don't exist. On and on and on as opposed to off...is how i exist.

Nothing wrong with on and on and on.

I think on and on and on is self not getting enough of itself...it's called LOVE...Love of itself, for itself, from itself, and by itself.

Mental masturbation. Nothing wrong with that, we all love a good mind fuck.



Nothing to fear but your own shadow.

[Dontaskme]

Only in the transcendence of thought will a conclusion be realized.

However, thought induced conclusions are not who I AM

A conculsion is so final, so limiting, watch this space..you never know what's going to happen next. For I AM unlimited.

Conculsion might be the end of knowledge for i ... But for I ...there is no end to my I as I express my I in many infinite ways, nothing wrong with that, but jumping to conclusion is where I cannot be reached and is what i do...not what I do.

.

[roydop]

On and on and on... is exaclty Samsara.

There's nothing wrong with more experience (keep in mind Taoism 101: you can't experience a "high" without experiencing an equivalent "low").

There is also nothing wrong with an end to experience (abidance in/as pure, Absolute Being).

[roydop]

There is nothing limited in/as the Absolute. The Absolute is pure Life; Potential.

[Dontaskme]

On and on and on... is exaclty Samsara.

There's nothing wrong with more experience (keep in mind Taoism 101: you can't experience a "high" without experiencing an equivalent "low").

There is also nothing wrong with an end to experience (abidance in/as pure, Absolute Being).

There is no such thing as a still mind...a still mind is like a still wind...on and on and on can't stop it, nothing to stop it.

Nothing to stop the flow of life flowering, dam in it up is futile. Resistence is futile too.

.

[Dontaskme]

There is nothing limited in/as the Absolute. The Absolute is pure Life; Potential.

Then stop trying to DAM it up with fear...let it flow how it wants to.

"I" fear that "you" will go on and ON and ON AND on...

What's stopping it?

What's DAM in it up?

Age has taught me a lot..I too come here to learn new ways of expressing.

[Lacewing]

If there is a Universe of endless possibilities, then obviously there could be one single path to get somewhere.

I suppose so.

But a, "I suppose so", comes across, to me anyway, as a very strong resistance to thee Truth.

I'm acknowledging that anything is possible -- but a single path just doesn't seem likely to me. Whatever you think the Truth is, is your trip.

Anyway, now that you ADMIT that there could be ONE SINGLE PATH to get somewhere, then we can finally start MOVE FORWARD, (along that path?).

Saying there could be something, doesn't mean that there is.

But then might it be that there is NOT a single path to get somewhere -- if that is a possibility?

OF COURSE. That is what I have been saying all along.

I think you might be misunderstanding? I'm saying the opposite could be true: if anything is possible, then it's also possible that there is NOT a single path. That's in response to you saying, if anything is possible, there could be a single path. I'm just showing it goes both ways by that logic.

When you obsess over words as you do, any meaning beyond those words becomes muddied.

Do I "obsess over words" or is that your perception?

Both?

I'm really not interested in going through all of your gyrations with you.

Could this be partly because I asked you a series of clarifying questions about the abuse "you" do to "others", and this does NOT want to be LOOKED AT at all?

I don't think so. I'm not taking it as seriously as that. How can I abuse others here? Don't we all have filters to protect ourselves?

It's tedious and boring.

If that is what you find when discussing, or playing, with me, then I suggest just STOP doing it.

I do ignore your posts most of the time. It's just not where I want to spend my energy.

Also, I think you have a mental disorder. (Which, by the way, if you do and you know it...you should be upfront about it so that people know what else they're dealing with.)

I was upfront with it previously. In fact I was up front with it with the very first post I made in this forum. If I recall correctly "you" have even commented on this before. But I must be mistaken.

Did I comment on it with you as "Age" or were you under another name?

I HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER.

Then why don't you question YOURSELF more? Why don't you ask clarifying questions of yourself? That would be really interesting. I think we'd learn more from that, than from you misinterpreting other people so much of the time.

Do you think your view and how you feel are representative of ultimate truth that applies to all?

No.

If no, then WHY express WHAT you think and HOW you feel?

Why not? It's fun and it might be useful to someone.

What is "fun" to "you" might NOT be to "another". It might actually be harmful and damage to some one.

Well, people are free to ignore my posts if they think I'm harmful. It is not my intent to be harmful -- it is my intent to be honest and straight-forward, while having fun. You saying that what I do MIGHT be one thing or another, is not conclusive of anything. The things YOU SAY might be delusional and might limit humankind's evolvement.

"you" might actually be passing on very abusive views to "others", who will then keep doing the harm and damage that "you" yourself are doing now.

So, you're making stuff up here... and there's no reason to address that unless you have specifics, which you are always asking other people to provide.

Over the years, I've received communication from people who appreciated and enjoyed my perspective and posts. So there's going to be some people who like it and some people who don't.

If you THINK your views are NOT representative of the real Truth, then instead of propagating those view to "others", would it NOT be better to LOOK FOR what is the actual real Truth, BEFORE you start spreading non-truths?

You're missing an important point. I don't think there is a "real Truth". So there is no reason for me to worry about whether my views are representative of something that I don't even believe in.

By the way have you noticed how "you" say that "another" talks from one perspective, but then when they are questioned/challenged on that, and they want to disregard that and dismiss it, that then they change to talk from another perspective?

Yes.

If yes, then have you also noticed that from one perspective you say that this is all fun and play, but when you are questioned/challenged and you want to disregard that and dismiss it, then you also change perspective and say that this is just tedious and boring?

I'm not changing channels or perspectives -- it's a matter of SOME things being fun and worthwhile, while others are NOT. I'm choosing how far to go into the gyrations that any one person is presenting. I do put effort into communicating with people, as I have just done with you now. But if you ask me 50 more fucking questions based on your misconceptions and ideas that I don't share, I have a right to say "that's enough for now". Yes?

[Age]

But my intention is NOT to become better for "you", which are responding to me here in this forum.
My intention is NOT to become a better communicator in this forum at all. But, as I have continually pointed out, I am only here, in this forum, to LEARN 'how to communicate better'. If you ASSUMED that this means my intention was to communicate better in this forum, then I am sorry to inform you that your ASSUMPTION is once again WRONG.

When, and if, I ever use this LEARNING I will decide.
And, as has already been explained, my intention was NEVER to use that learning within this forum.

In fact producing deterioration in communication skills can be, and has been, of great assistance in my LEARNING.

Observe the lengths you are going to, just to rationalize your bullshit.

Anyone can just say "Observer the lengths you are going to, just to rationalize your bullshit". But that is just YOUR perception, without examples for US to LOOK AT, then really, for all we know, all you are saying is just your own rationalized distorted view/s.

If you are unable to apply that which you have "learned" and observe your own improvement over time (that which humans call "growth") then how do you know that you have "learned" anything?

Firstly, who says that I have NOT observed my own improvement, (or deterioration) over time?
Secondly, how do I KNOW that I have LEARNED any thing is because I compare what I KNOW now compared to what I KNEW previously.

How do you know you have "learned" anything?

I will now ask you ONCE AGAIN: I will ask you AGAIN NOW to clarify HOW you would KNOW what I am learning and/or NOT learning? Can you explain WHAT insight you have into what thoughts/thinking is going on inside this body? And, HOW you obtained this 'insight'?

And if you are not learning about communication, then what are you learning about?

What I NEED to, to explain things.

As noted multiple times by people who question you deceitful intentions.

If people, supposedly multiple times, have questioned me on my supposed "deceitful intentions", then what do they THINK/BELIEVE I am being deceitful about EXACTLY?

Some might say that just MAYBE some sort of projection might be coming into play here.

Communication goes A LOT easier when both parties state their intentions.

Okay.

My first intention, is to be here in this forum, to LEARN HOW TO COMMUNICATE BETTER.
My second intention is to communicate BETTER, out of this forum, just how SIMPLE and EASY it Truly IS for ALL to live together in peace AND harmony.

Now, what are your intentions?

[Age]

Then please do so!

In regards to WHAT parts EXACTLY?

Without ANY reference whatsoever I do NOT know WHERE to begin with 'you'.

Also, if you are serious about wanting to learn and/or understand "another's" perspective, then asking specific questions in relation to WHAT EXACTLY that you want to learn or understand HELPS considerably.

Simply “EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.” within the context that we have been discussing, that would be great, thanks.

Okay.

There is only ONE Mind, which is within ALL human beings.

This (always OPEN) Mind KNOWS ALL things.

The human brain, however, twists and distorts this KNOWING with its own THINKING.

[Age]

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 default be meaningless and would be nothing more than a renonnounced announcment.

Just out of curiosity;

COULD this just be an explanation to back up and support a BELIEF, which is being already held within that body?
Or,
IS this an explanation of what is an actual FACT, which could NOT be refuted, and/or IS in agreement with ALL?

In actual FACT Age...truth is stranger than fiction.

To know you know you know... requires a belief. Actual being (direct experience) (pure being) doesn't require a belief to be. It just is Pure Being.

So to announce you are being is to know you know which can only be known as a belief. To claim a 'knower' exists ..is within the mind of belief which is separation...(split mind)
Paradoxically, the mind of belief can reverse the belief to reach a place of clarity by renouncing any announced held belief back to it's original source, and see it for what is it, which is just a belief, a fiction so to speak. Once Removed.. the obstruction (belief) and what remains is the true Self I ...perfect clarity.

.

Okay.

This may be very True. But at the moment i have not the interest to dissect it all, and then explain, and/or ask clarifying questions.

[Age]

You are FREE to BELIEVE that you are announcing a particular point of view, if you so wish to, and if that is what you do and want to do, then that is perfectly fine with me, BUT this is completely different from BELIEVING what you ARE announcing.

If you now want to discuss about BELIEVING that what you are announcing, and are now questioning how would you "know" that you were announcing a particular point of view unless you BELIEVED that you were announcing a particular point of view, then you could do like what I do.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that I am announcing a particular point of view, for example; here on this forum, but how I "know" that I am announcing a particular point of view, here in this forum, is by if i get a response or not. If I do NOT get a response, then just maybe I am NOT announcing a particular point of view, or that particular point of view did NOT interest any one, or that particular point of view go "lost", or that particular point of view, just has NOT been read yet, or many of the other reasons WHY I did not get a response.

The reason I do NOT believe that I am announcing particular points of views, here in this forum, is because maybe I am NOT actually doing this at all, as this is just a dream, or this is any of the other countless possibilities that mean that I am NOT actually announcing any particular view at all. But how I KNOW I am announcing particular points of views is because i sometimes get responses back, and of agreement. If people agree that there are particular points of views being announced, here in this forum, then the more 'evidence', 'weight', 'support', 'proof', et cetera that I have to know that I am announcing particular points of views, here in this forum.

If there was NO agreement, however, then there is, to me, less truth and thus less knowing, and, conversely if there is FULL agreement, then that is thee Truth, and HOW I KNOW, for sure, that I am announcing points of views, here in this forum.

I totally understand what you are stating here Age. And I concur with your view, and how you present and deliver it.

Another spin on the view already concurred with...could be interpreted as such in the following...

True Self for example: a new-born baby coming into the world...cannot know anything until it is informed by ''another'' (i)...

Agreed, except that there is an INNER-KNOWING within a new-born baby (and ALL human beings) about HOW to live properly and correctly. This KNOWING transcends ALL human being learned knowing, unfortunately though human beings mostly only "listen to" and follow their learned knowing.

And that is how all belief is formed. Belief is when not-knowing true Self becomes aware of itself as a known object (other)aka (i)
Incidently the belief in ''other'' is not (out-there) separate from (in-here)...because (out-there)is only the projection of (in-here) the projection is only ever occuring HERE NOW within the first person appearance I, there really is nothing outside of a first person appearance that is not already couched within it first. The True Self of I is everywhere and nowhere. NOW infinitely for eternity.

So the True Self cannot experience itself as an (i) because the (i) is only ever an object of it's own desire. It's subject objectifying itself, the ''experience'' is purely within I only...not within the object. Here is it seen that both subject and object are one and the same Self. Not two. Self is Self Sourcing as a mirror image of itself, for it has no image of it's own except what it projects in it's own empty mirror. The mirror, just another word for SELF which is just another word for I ..is emptiness appearing full in the same instantaneous moment.

ONE cannot know something and hold onto that knowing without believing it to be true or real, that's how the dream world of separation is formed by the belief in other aka another source...other being the source of all your knowledge that you didn't know previously and so you have taken on secondary knowledge as being reality...when in truth, there is only ignorance aka real source and you are THAT.
Source doesn't need secondary knowledge to BE...secondary knowledge is the world of make-belief...a mental construction upon original ignorance the stateless state of not-knowing...the state you were in prior to you being given a name that you then believed to be who you are.

In truth, Source aka real reality has no knowledge of it's own, except what it makes-up by inventing other, it's mirror reflection. Reality is ignorant of knowledge and only ignorance is the original state of being. Everything else is just a made-up belief, an interpretation...already sourced within it's not-knowing Self the only knowing there is.

.

In a nutshell Age...I totally get what you are saying...I resonate with your own understanding.

.

[Dontaskme]

In regards to WHAT parts EXACTLY?

Without ANY reference whatsoever I do NOT know WHERE to begin with 'you'.

Also, if you are serious about wanting to learn and/or understand "another's" perspective, then asking specific questions in relation to WHAT EXACTLY that you want to learn or understand HELPS considerably.

Simply “EXPLAIN ALL of this, in great detail.” within the context that we have been discussing, that would be great, thanks.

Okay.

There is only ONE Mind, which is within ALL human beings.

This (always OPEN) Mind KNOWS ALL things.

The human brain, however, twists and distorts this KNOWING with its own THINKING.

Very true, well said.

Now, is a human brain a thing that knows, or is a human brain a known thing that cannot know?

[Dontaskme]

Agreed, except that there is an INNER-KNOWING within a new-born baby (and ALL human beings) about HOW to live properly and correctly. This KNOWING transcends ALL human being learned knowing, unfortunately though human beings mostly only "listen to" and follow their learned knowing.

I totally agree.

Knowing knows without knowing.

[roydop]

On and on and on... is exaclty Samsara.

There's nothing wrong with more experience (keep in mind Taoism 101: you can't experience a "high" without experiencing an equivalent "low").

There is also nothing wrong with an end to experience (abidance in/as pure, Absolute Being).

There is no such thing as a still mind...a still mind is like a still wind...on and on and on can't stop it, nothing to stop it.

Nothing to stop the flow of life flowering, dam in it up is futile. Resistence is futile too.

.

So is there such a phenomenon as stillness?