Teach Your Children Well

[Atla]

Great, cause once there's nondualism there's nothing to fix, correct, inform about, adjust, put in its place, stop and so on.

I tried asking these fake nondualists to donate their savings to me, after all there's no one there who needs the money. Wonder why they turned me down.

For example.
To come at it another way.

There's a pattern in the posts that get corrected and those that don't - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.
There are words that aren't right and others that get a pass - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.
There's someone who doesn't get it - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.

You can see the mechanism the dualist motor, even if it's not stated, though it often is.

And this isn't me knocking either dualism or nondualism or what could get those names.

It's kinda like, hey don't tell me what you don't really believe yourself yet. And that they don't believe yet...that's really hard to demonstrate. And even bringing it up will lead to something like....
there is no belief and no believer. easy to say when you can't live it.

Fine, I can dance that dance...

That's the neo-advaita or pseudo-advaita. They know the words but not the actual meaning. The words are just pointers that point to a realization, but they just chew on the words and don't get past that point.

[Fairy]

Great, cause once there's nondualism there's nothing to fix, correct, inform about, adjust, put in its place, stop and so on.

I tried asking these fake nondualists to donate their savings to me, after all there's no one there who needs the money. Wonder why they turned me down.

Asking questions can only be a thing, when there’s the sense of a separate self. No such thing exists. Except in this conception, albeit illusory.

No one is asking another to donate them their savings. And no one is refusing to donate their savings to the one asking, except in this conceptual dream, albeit illusory.

No one needs money, and the one who does need money, is the same no one.
No one and one are identical.

[Fairy]

I tried asking these fake nondualists to donate their savings to me, after all there's no one there who needs the money. Wonder why they turned me down.

For example.
To come at it another way.

There's a pattern in the posts that get corrected and those that don't - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.
There are words that aren't right and others that get a pass - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.
There's someone who doesn't get it - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.

You can see the mechanism the dualist motor, even if it's not stated, though it often is.

And this isn't me knocking either dualism or nondualism or what could get those names.

It's kinda like, hey don't tell me what you don't really believe yourself yet. And that they don't believe yet...that's really hard to demonstrate. And even bringing it up will lead to something like....
there is no belief and no believer. easy to say when you can't live it.

Fine, I can dance that dance...

That's the neo-advaita or pseudo-advaita. They know the words but not the actual meaning. The words are just pointers that point to a realization, but they just chew on the words and don't get past that point.

No one gets past the pointing. So it’s a mute point to make. In other words, pointless.

[Atla]

Great, cause once there's nondualism there's nothing to fix, correct, inform about, adjust, put in its place, stop and so on.

I tried asking these fake nondualists to donate their savings to me, after all there's no one there who needs the money. Wonder why they turned me down.

For example.
To come at it another way.

There's a pattern in the posts that get corrected and those that don't - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.
There are words that aren't right and others that get a pass - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.
There's someone who doesn't get it - that's dualism. It's implicit in the choosing and in the reaction.

You can see the mechanism the dualist motor, even if it's not stated, though it often is.

And this isn't me knocking either dualism or nondualism or what could get those names.

It's kinda like, hey don't tell me what you don't really believe yourself yet. And that they don't believe yet...that's really hard to demonstrate. And even bringing it up will lead to something like....
there is no belief and no believer. easy to say when you can't live it.

Fine, I can dance that dance...

There's more to this though. I interviewed her a few times. When DAM was a young child, probably something bad happened to her mind, it may have 'literally' fractured, or maybe it was some other thing that resulted in a loss of sense of self. She was thrown from the normal human sense of self. I imagine a subtle mental suffering may have followed permanently.

People can have spontaneous partial awakenings due to such circumstances. Maybe she had one too but didn't know what it was. So I guess it's no wonder that she was drawn to neo-advaita, it matched her experience a lot more than other philosophies. And it could also be a kind of escapism from the mental suffering.

[Iwannaplato]

There's more to this though. I interviewed her a few times. When DAM was a young child, probably something bad happened to her mind, it may have 'literally' fractured, or maybe it was some other thing that resulted in a loss of sense of self. She was thrown from the normal human sense of self. I imagine a subtle mental suffering may have followed permanently.

People can have spontaneous partial awakenings due to such circumstances. Maybe she had one too but didn't know what it was. So I guess it's no wonder that she was drawn to neo-advaita, it matched her experience a lot more than other philosophies. And it could also be a kind of escapism from the mental suffering.

What it sounds like you are contrasting is much like Ken Wilber's pre-trans fallacy - not assuming you're right about fairy/DAM, just focused on the distinction you're making.

[Atla]

There's more to this though. I interviewed her a few times. When DAM was a young child, probably something bad happened to her mind, it may have 'literally' fractured, or maybe it was some other thing that resulted in a loss of sense of self. She was thrown from the normal human sense of self. I imagine a subtle mental suffering may have followed permanently.

People can have spontaneous partial awakenings due to such circumstances. Maybe she had one too but didn't know what it was. So I guess it's no wonder that she was drawn to neo-advaita, it matched her experience a lot more than other philosophies. And it could also be a kind of escapism from the mental suffering.

What it sounds like you are contrasting is much like Ken Wilber's pre-trans fallacy - not assuming you're right about fairy/DAM, just focused on the distinction you're making.

Had to look that one up. Dunno, not sure. Neo-advaita is quite irrational, but just nondual awakening by itself can be seen as 100% rational. It can be seen as the first time since early childhood when we are not irrational in that regard.

[Walker]

Will you provide examples of when the word 'have' does not imply 'to own'?

If yes, then great.

Why do women have to have abortions?

*

Age, here's a generously offered hint. Look to the principle, not the specifics. It will slow down the usual sprint towards unnecessary questions and moral judgements.

[Age]

Will you provide examples of when the word 'have' does not imply 'to own'?

If yes, then great.

Why do women have to have abortions?

*

Age, here's a generously offered hint. Look to the principle, not the specifics. It will slow down the usual sprint towards unnecessary questions and moral judgements.

Why did you even begin to 'sprint' to make the assumption that you did here, and 'jump' to the conclusion that you did here, 'before' you 'stopped' to just seek out clarification first?

Maybe if you did, then you would not have 'raced off' here, with the Wrong belief that you 'now currently' have here, and are showing, here.

[Walker]

Will you provide examples of when the word 'have' does not imply 'to own'?

If yes, then great.

Why do women have to have abortions?

*

Age, here's a generously offered hint. Look to the principle, not the specifics. It will slow down the usual sprint towards unnecessary questions and moral judgements.

Why did you even begin to 'sprint' to make the assumption that you did here, and 'jump' to the conclusion that you did here, 'before' you 'stopped' to just seek out clarification first?

Maybe if you did, then you would not have 'raced off' here, with the Wrong belief that you 'now currently' have here, and are showing, here.

Because I knew in advance that you wouldn't answer the question, which proved to be true. Nevertheless, you managed to ask an unnecessary question.

[bahman]

Louisiana Becomes First State to Require Ten Commandments to Be Displayed in Public School Classrooms
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024 ... lassrooms/

Critics will see this as forcing a particular religion, or any religion, upon the little children, however the link provides the rebuttal to that reasoning.

The bill points to more recent decisions by the Supreme Court finding that the Ten Commandments “have historical significance as one of the foundations of our legal system” and represent a “common cultural heritage.” The bill further states that “Recognizing the historical role of the Ten Commandments accords with our nation’s history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the founders of our nation with respect to the necessity of civil morality to a function [SIC] self-government.”

“History records that James Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America, stated that ‘(w)e have staked the whole future of our new nation . . . upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments,”‘ the bill reads.

Critics will see this as forcing religion upon the little children, however, the rationale for displaying Ten Commandments is morality, not religion. Not all morality is equal. For instance, a different morality displayed in an educational setting might list reasons why the children should be little terrorists.

We should improve their sense of judgment rather than only tell them what is right or wrong. Good or evil is situational!

[Age]

Why do women have to have abortions?

*

Age, here's a generously offered hint. Look to the principle, not the specifics. It will slow down the usual sprint towards unnecessary questions and moral judgements.

Why did you even begin to 'sprint' to make the assumption that you did here, and 'jump' to the conclusion that you did here, 'before' you 'stopped' to just seek out clarification first?

Maybe if you did, then you would not have 'raced off' here, with the Wrong belief that you 'now currently' have here, and are showing, here.

Because I knew in advance that you wouldn't answer the question, which proved to be true.

So, you went and made a Wrong assumption, jump to the conclusion that is right, and believe the False is true, because you 'knew', in advance, that I would not answer a Truly nonsensical question if yours, correct?

And, if you did, really, want me to answer your actual question posed, and asked above here,, then "women", obviously, do not have to have abortions.

But, if you did not want me to answer question above here, then just disregard my response here.

Nevertheless, you managed to ask an unnecessary question.

What can be clearly seen here is another prime example of what is some thing to one, is not to another, but the former one comes across as though this irrefutable Fact does not exist.

Why do you 'see' 'my question' as being 'an unnecessary question'?

Also, was 'your question' a 'necessary question', or, 'an unnecessary question'?

Oh, and by the way, is there 'a principle' here?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

[Age]

Louisiana Becomes First State to Require Ten Commandments to Be Displayed in Public School Classrooms
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024 ... lassrooms/

Critics will see this as forcing a particular religion, or any religion, upon the little children, however the link provides the rebuttal to that reasoning.

The bill points to more recent decisions by the Supreme Court finding that the Ten Commandments “have historical significance as one of the foundations of our legal system” and represent a “common cultural heritage.” The bill further states that “Recognizing the historical role of the Ten Commandments accords with our nation’s history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the founders of our nation with respect to the necessity of civil morality to a function [SIC] self-government.”

“History records that James Madison, the fourth President of the United States of America, stated that ‘(w)e have staked the whole future of our new nation . . . upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments,”‘ the bill reads.

Critics will see this as forcing religion upon the little children, however, the rationale for displaying Ten Commandments is morality, not religion. Not all morality is equal. For instance, a different morality displayed in an educational setting might list reasons why the children should be little terrorists.

We should improve their sense of judgment rather than only tell them what is right or wrong. Good or evil is situational!

How does one 'improve' the 'sense of judgement', 'in another', when the one, itself, does not even have a perfect sense of judgement?

And, to 'know', and show, if one does have a perfect sense of judgement, or not, then they would be able to explain what they 'base' thier judgements on, exactly?

So, wht do you base 'your judgements' on, exactly, "bahman"?

[Walker]

And, if you did, really, want me to answer your actual question posed, and asked above here,, then "women", obviously, do not have to have abortions.

Anything one did, one had to do.
That means that anything one does, one has to do.
This is how folks do what they have to do, although they don't always own up to the need.

BTW:
You didn't answer the question.
Now is your big chance.
Millions of abortions.
Men didn't have them.
So, why do women have to have these abortions?

[Age]

And, if you did, really, want me to answer your actual question posed, and asked above here,, then "women", obviously, do not have to have abortions.

Anything one did, one had to do.

What do you rely on, exactly, to keep sustaining and maintaining this belief of yours here?


That means that anything one does, one has to do.[/quote]

Okay, but 'this' was obviously already stated, through connection, in your first sentence.

This is how folks do what they have to do, although they don't always own up to the need.[/quote]


To you, is it an absolute impossibility for you to make decisions, or 'to choose'?

BTW:
You didn't answer the question.
Now is your big chance.
Millions of abortions.
Men didn't have them.
So, why do women have to have these abortions?

But, again, "women" do not have to have abortions.

Obviously some "women" might have to have abortions, for different reasons, but, again, "women" do not have to abortions.

Do you, still, believe "women" have to have abortions?

[Walker]

Age, I still don't see your answer to the question.

If you don't have one, that's okay. Give it some thought.

Look to the principle, not the specifics.

Women who did not have abortions, did not have to have an abortion.