Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:
Also, did you not have a judgmental view about deciding in not having anything further to say and so commented about some one else "giving up" also, before in this post?

Yes you are correct, I said people are only interested in winning their opponent over to their side of the debate, including me...

Another huge cause of beliefs, disagreement, disputes, confusion, etc. is the teaching of debates. The basis of a debate is to pick one side and "fight to the death" for that side. No wonder some are confused about determinsm/free will, creation/evolution, etc. If and when people try to pick one side only, then they will never see the truth that both exist are true and co-exist.

People may be like that but I am not like that at all. There is no sides, or another side, in a One Universe. There is only One. I thought you of all people would have seen and known this already.

And I am certainly NOT interested in winning anyone over. Either a statement is absolutely true or it is not. If it is absolutely true, then no one can dispute it. There is also nothing to win or lose. Life, just does not work that way.

Dontaskme wrote:and when they fail to do so, they feel they have nothing further to discuss, and I agree with that.

That maybe the case for you but it certainly is not the case for Me.

Dontaskme wrote:I mean what's the point in any discussion unless you want the other to see from your point of view?

Again you are answering your own questions from your own beliefs. You have no intention of allowing others to answer these questions. You answer with and from your own point of view and though your view is absolutely true, right, and correct.

My point in discussions is to come together, peacefully, with a goal as the outcome, and work together in logically reasoned two-way communication to find what is needed in order to create the goal.

Dontaskme wrote:who is going to get into a discussion and then have to admit defeat or that they are wrong?

ME. I am the first to readily admit defeat, if winning was what the purpose was, and that I am wrong, if that is the case. That is the difference between the 'I' and the 'you'.

Also, just because you have a certain way of looking and doing this does in no way mean all others are the exact same as dontaskme.

Dontaskme wrote:Usually people are so strongly fixated over their chosen beliefs that the last thing they are going to do is have those beliefs torn apart or annihilated completely.

Exactly one of my points when I ask, "WHY have a belief in the first place"?

And just as you are saying people are not open to the Truth when they have a belief, because they do not want to have it "torn apart".

I like people to really think about what they would do when asked, "If what you believe was not true would you want to hear it?"

Dontaskme wrote: The point is we all hold our own truths within us already, some will be wise enough to know the real from the unreal truths, others will not be so wise and will never know real truth, they will always substitute their own beliefs over the clarity of real truth.

Are you dontaskme wise enough to know (all) the real from the unreal truths?

Are you yourself not effected by your own truths/beliefs?

Dontaskme wrote: When we choose to share our truths, we often do so in the search for validation or else why bother sharing with others at all?

You have a pattern of speaking for others, and not just for yourself, as though others do exactly what you yourself do. Trying to prove something by asking a question and answering it the way that you would answer it, does not prove anything. To Me this just looks like you are talking to yourself only, in order to get validation for what you already believe. It is like you want validation so much that you ask the question after you have the answer already. What is wrong here is the answer you give does not work for everyone.

When I choose to share my views I do it, as I have previously explained, in the hope that others will challenge me. I do it more so for others to show me where I am wrong, and, explain to me why my view is wrong. The reason I share with others is so that I can learn more and thus better understand in my search for how to express better.

Dontaskme wrote: if no validation comes ...it's pretty normal to back off.

To Me if no validation comes that in of itself does not mean anything in particular.

Dontaskme wrote:The thing about Nondual truth is there isn't any. Nondual truth means there is no truth to be known by another and that truth stands alone without a position. Nondual truth simply says that there is no one to take up the position of saying I know the truth, and only when that assumed position is let go of, will real truth remain. And that's all that needs to be understood. Knowing there is nothing to know or understand brings one from belief to clarity...

I will have to say that I have not read one word before about nondual truth or anything nondualistic so I just put nondual in a search engine I read about 10 lines and what instantly appeared to me was it was like most religions. In that when asked to clarify a question some sort of rubbish response is given. For example when asked, If god created everything, then what created god?, with a response something like "There are some things that we are not meant to know", i.e., a nonsensical answer. I can see that a lot in your writings. Call me slow, very slow in fact, but I had no realized before for sure that what you have been doing is just copying what you have read through just another religion. Nondual is just another religion that it itself believes it is totally right and holds The Truth.

I really wish human beings would just stop persistently following and copying what others believe religiously.

Here is a real Truth, there is NO one religion that is better nor more truthful than another. They ALL hold some Truth, but that is about it. Being able to see the Truth is not done in following others. Seeing and knowing The Truth is done just by seriously Wanting to change yourself for the better. If you seriously Want to change, then you will naturally "drop off" and 'let go' of your separate self.

Maybe this is the best time to come clean. I re-read the topic of this post the other day and realized I had misread it the first time. The truth is spirituality, belief in God nor the continuing search for God never changed me. What happened in my case was I was seriously seeking to change myself for the better and because I was relatively very Open and Honest I uncovered and came to discover what Spirituality and God really are. I have never believed in God nor have I ever searched for It. I also never knew what was spirituality let alone looked into it all.

If any person wants to know what God is, then that will never come along with any of the countless rubbish that has been fed to us. God and Truth is revealed when you seriously Want to change and be totally Honest and Open about doing it. But first thing is you have to admit doing wrong and who is ever going to do that?

Dontaskme wrote:Reality is Nondual, it is a verb. Noun world is made up of illusory mental constructs appearing in and from nothing. Non-duality is duality ... because there is no such thing as no duality, there is only duality, how can you have no duality....on the other hand Duality is Nonduality because it's not two ..it's ONE appearing as two, and three, and four, and five and so forth...go forth and multiply... All numbers are imaginary numbers..the only real number is one or zero which are the same concept.

You call yourself a seer. What are you actually seeing here?

Dontaskme wrote:Nonduality is the same as Duality, they only differ in context....If there was only Nonduality, how could one reality exist? If there was only Duality this would imply two realities exist....that's why Duality couples with Non to make Nonduality....<< how can I explain that any better?

With better words and language that others can understand better.

Is this what you have been saying all along or have you changed your view a bit or worded it a bit different here?

Have you always thought and said nonduality IS the same as duality?

Dontaskme wrote:If there were no NON and there were just DUALITY that would imply two realities, how can there be two consciousnesses, or two awarenesses? there's only One reality and This is It...

Does reality change?

What are you referring to when you say, "This is it..."?

Dontaskme wrote:and it's called NONDUALITY... If you don't get that now you never will.

Is it really that simple? If a person does not understand your take on "nonduality" right HERE and NOW, then they will never understand. Surely this will not be the end of your persistence???

Dontaskme wrote:If people want to get into a debate about Nonduality then either they agree to agree with each other or agree to disagree with each other, otherwise the conversation will more often do one of two things, it will either go on and on and on and on going round in circles going nowhere, or the conversation will be understood by both parties, even as each point of view appears to differ in their context. Authentic Nondual speakers when communicating with other Nondual speakers should be able to read between the lines at what's being pointed to...

When "authentic" any religion speakers are communicating with other of the same religion speakers they should be able to read between the lines at what is being pointed out. But I am not actually sure what your point is in writing that sentence.

Dontaskme wrote:I can read you ken,

And what has that reading given you?

Honest response preferably.

I hope you are reading that I do not follow any one of the multitude of human made different and separate religions whatsoever. Nonduality is just another one.

but you obviously can't read me, and there is nothing I can do about that, and quite frankly I don't care about that...so I guess we'll have to call it quits.

Dontaskme wrote:You ask me to write in a way that others can understand, but it doesn't work like that, there is no way I can do that, I can write words about this subject to the moon and back and still won't be able to help others in their own understanding, that's not how enlightenment happens to humans. It does not happen by reading someone else's ideas unless they are themselves resonating with those ideas. The capacity to become enlightened is not found in how the words are presented, but in what they are actually pointing to. A person will either see or not see, if it happens, it will do so automatically and spontaneously. It will not be forced upon someone by reading through the thoughts beliefs, ideas and words of others. If you believe it works like that then so be it, but I don't.

How many times do I have to tell you I neither believe nor disbelieve, except believe in Self?

Dontaskme wrote: Similarly I can read all the medical text books under the sun over and over again until I'm blue in the face.. but that's not going to make me a qualified brain surgeon.

Of course not. A person who performs surgical procedures uses the hands on the body that they exist in. No amount of reading can substitute actual hands on practice.

And, if a person seriously wants something, then they can and usually will get it. I have proven this already. Would you or do you really want to be a qualified brain surgeon?

Dontaskme wrote:I either am a naturally born brain surgeon or I'm not.

Sounds like you believe every thing was pre-destined to happen, am I not reading you right again?

It either happens to me or it doesn't, it's the same with enlightenment, it either happens to a person or it doesn't.[/quote]

Ahhh ok, now I am understanding more here. Some people are like "golden childs", right?

Are these ones born with enlightenment or are they born to become enlightened?

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:
'Who' is the one in relation to "my" in 'my life'?

An idea believed.

ken wrote:How long is the "all" in 'all my life'?

As long as an idea believed is believed.

ken wrote:From when did you know I was not a separate self?

When I stopped believing I was. ...when that was I have no idea....I didn't check my watch as to the precise time and day or year.

ken wrote:Although I know exactly where you are coming from, from some other's perspectives your comments were appearing very silly from the onset. All I have done is try to help you better explain.I have already said numerous times that you have glimpsed the One true Observer, and as such you have had a glance, from this Seer. The difference is that 'you' and 'I' are NOT in the same understanding. 'you' can not explain clearly and distinctly what the Seer sees, nor how to even get to the Seers advantage point. 'you' still are only looking from the small observer perspective, i.e., the seer. 'I', on the other hand, CAN not only just explain extremely clearly and distinctly what the big and real true Seer sees and KNOWS I can also explain what the Seer IS, how the little pretending seers can get to HERE and NOW, where the true Seer sits AND how they all can become One with the Seer. In fact you are still in the confusion "stakes" in regards to what the Seer can and does KNOW.


I was just trying to help you see things clearer for you, and thus also be able to explain things clearer for others.

Aww, gee thanks for the generous offer to help me see this clearly, but believe me when I say to you, I've already worked this out for and all by myself thank you very much, I would advice you to save your much more superior knowledge on someone who is more appreciative rather than waste time on me.

Dontaskme wrote:If you can't see by now that I too am a seer....

ken wrote:I can see and KNOW you too are a seer, but unfortunately you only look, and observe, mostly from one separate brain only, i.e., what I call the little self, which is NOT the real and true big Self.

Prove that DAM only sees from the brain perspective? ...listen to yourself...just see if you actually know what you are talking about when you make statements like that by proving it to be true....

dam said the one is an idea believed. All believed ideas, as far as we know, are stored/held within the brain, sometimes referred to as thoughts. Therefore, if as you say you are an idea believed and a believed idea is within the brain, then you only could and would see from that one separate brain perspective. An idea believed exists within a brain.

Believing in what the body has read with the eyes and that believed information is stored within the brain then means only what can be later seen is filtered through the brain's already gained thoughts. For example if dam lived in a place and time where other separate people did not talk about nondual truths, etc., then dam also would not be seeing and thus not talking about nonduality also.

'dam' is just a label given to the thoughts that have been constructed from the environment/universe that that body dam exists in has lived in. Although dam CAN see from the open Mind perspective it is dam's already constructed beliefs that stops dam from doing this. So dam only looks and sees from what has been put into the brain. A brain can only put out what has been put into it. For example, If a brain lives in a world where money is "needed" in order to live and in order to gain money then the body "has to" go to work, then the only views that person will have is the one where the person can only see from the brain's perspective, i.e., that person sees that we "need" to go to work in order to live. If a brain is never taught to look completely openly, thus it has never learned to look outside of itself completely openly without a belief, then that brain will never know how to. A brain can not magical think or do something that has not been programmed into it. At least two previously gained thoughts are needed in order to make a seemingly "brand new" thought or idea. Otherwise how to create peace in harmony would have been created years ago.

Dontaskme wrote:your beginning to sound like an utter fool, and me thinks you like the sound of your own voice, and you are making this one feel like it's losing the will to live, you are now actually boring me to death.

What are you getting all upset about here? ken also is just a little self just like dam is as well as every other human being is. We are all the exact same thing as we are all just a set of thoughts. We are only different in what thoughts we actually have.

The real and true big Self is the One, collective of all of us little selves, which when in agreement is the only One that can see and know the real and ultimate Truth.

ken wrote: Also, just because you have a certain way of looking and doing this does in no way mean all others are the exact same as dontaskme.

You obviously do not read my posts throughly. In fact you are so dumb and blind, I'm actually starting to feel really sorry and embarrassed for you.

I've stated many times in this thread that we each hold our own unique truth...and that ken,means that each individual will see reality as they see it, and it matters not how another one sees it, they'll either take what they need and reject what they don't...or they will not bother to read here at all. I'm not here to force this down peoples throat and say this is gospel truth believe it at your peril. If people are reading this thread it's usually because they either share an interest in the topic or they just can't resist poking in their nose with smarmy little irrelevant comments to make themselves feel good.

All truths are true, even a lie is truth, if and when the human mouth can just stop blabbering for one tiny second, truth will remain...so yeah obviously others ways and doings will not be the same as mine. I already know this and so do others, you don't need to point that out to me, you remind me of an old biddy headmaster whose only power was to dominate others into submission of their own intelligence and subscribe to theirs instead. Sorry for being so harsh, but I find you really irritating.. in fact I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

Ken, having a "view," which you do say you have, entails belief. I already gave you an example of what looks like a pretty strong belief that you have. That, by itself, invalidates the thrust of everything you say about you not having any beliefs or disbeliefs. However, you have too much of yourself invested in your belief in your lack of belief and disbelief to to let go easily.

Beliefs come in gradations and is not necessarily an assumption of knowledge. That would be a barrier to growth. We all have beliefs: openness (not-knowing) is not a lack of belief -- belief provides us with the structure we need in order to function creatively in the world -- but the ability to accommodate new experience and information without prejudice.

I'm not following this discussion closely, but I did notice that Ken brought up the good example of a young child being able to function without beliefs or disbeliefs. Such openness to each new experience and day -- just for what it is -- without assigning convoluted beliefs onto it or manipulating it to serve the ego. I don't think this openness is something we "maturely grow out of"... rather it's something we LOSE when we join the zombie adult world of hungry and fragile egos that must be constantly tended. Openness (like that of the young, free spirit we knew as children) is a quality that can be re-attained/experienced... if not totally, then to such a significant degree that it makes argument against it petty.

We're not talking about stupidly simple things like "you have belief that the sun will come up tomorrow". (I, for one, don't have that belief, anyway. I just see if it does.) For me, this question is about beliefs that are superimposed over the freeness and openness of the moving moment. There is no reason to think that anything will be a certain way, ever. Each moment can bring change in any aspect of experience or being. And one can move through each moment utilizing their experiences to the best of their ability, but not tethered to having or maintaining beliefs (even if they held a variety of them in the past as is common to do). Probably just about anything can be possible within a person's own experience -- including the ability to remain open and flexible to everything being new and different, while remaining fully functional with what arises. If you haven't experienced it as an adult, or you're contained within the boundaries of your beliefs, you might not think it possible. (That's the problem with beliefs: they exclude and ignore stuff, in order to be maintained.)

My question is (as others have asked too): Why is it so important for some "believers" to demonstrate that everyone must be a believer in some form or another? Who the hell cares? How would that justify/validate any particular beliefs? If certain beliefs serve you, great! If a person doesn't hold or maintain certain beliefs, great! Why do some believers think that the whole world has to believe like they do? If not exactly what they believe... then at least believe in SOMETHING? It seems so desperate.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs, Lacewing. (Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?) As always, your sanctimonious comments are the epitome of empty-headedness.

I'm all for "openness." Openness is critical to personal growth. But beliefs are the rungs on the ladder of personal growth and indeed the very foundation civilization is built on. All of history is one of old beliefs being discarded and replaced by new and (hopefully, but not always) better beliefs, but not no beliefs.

It's always easier to demonize beliefs than to formulate superior ones.

Reflex wrote:As always, your sanctimonious comments

I don't know what you think is sanctimonious. Seems like you just have to attack what you don't understand.

Reflex wrote:are the epitome of empty-headedness

Hmm... and yet I have a very successful life that I live consciously and with gratitude every day. Wonder how that's possible? I guess, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about when it involves other people.

Reflex wrote:I'm all for "openness." Openness is critical to personal growth.

Really? I hadn't noticed that about you. You seem intent on proclaiming your rightness and ridiculing all else.

Reflex wrote:All of history is one of old beliefs being discarded and replaced by new and (hopefully, but not always) better beliefs, but not no beliefs.

Whether you've experienced it or not, there's also such a thing as dropping beliefs without replacing them with more. It has to do with "getting clear" of preconceived notions that obstruct new awareness. It only requires "letting go" of all the noise. There's simple awareness there. It does not require new beliefs.

Reflex wrote:It's always easier to demonize beliefs than to formulate superior ones.

Why replace noise with more noise?

Lacewing wrote: Hmm... and yet I have a very successful life that I live consciously and with gratitude every day. Wonder how that's possible?

Your unconscious beliefs.

Lacewing, I know EXACTLY what you and Ken are talking about. Been there, done that. It was just a phase I went through. I eventually put it behind me as a childish fantasy.

And you really don't see the irony in what you're saying?

Reflex wrote:

Lacewing wrote: Hmm... and yet I have a very successful life that I live consciously and with gratitude every day. Wonder how that's possible?

Your unconscious beliefs.

What do you think those might be?

Reflex wrote: Lacewing, I know EXACTLY what you and Ken are talking about. Been there, done that. It was just a phase I went through. I eventually put it behind me as a childish fantasy.

Oh of course you did... because you're so advanced. You have NO CLUE what I'm about. You only have these words that you distort to fit your beliefs and elevate yourself.

Reflex wrote:And you really don't see the irony in what you're saying?

I see all sorts of ironies. What are you specifically referring to? Try to answer without projecting your crazy-ass crap about who you think I am, or what you think I think -- which you have no way of knowing.

Lacewing wrote:
My question is (as others have asked too): Why is it so important for some "believers" to demonstrate that everyone must be a believer in some form or another? Who the hell cares? How would that justify/validate any particular beliefs? If certain beliefs serve you, great! If a person doesn't hold or maintain certain beliefs, great! Why do some believers think that the whole world has to believe like they do? If not exactly what they believe... then at least believe in SOMETHING? It seems so desperate.

the good example of a young child being able to function without beliefs or disbeliefs.

A child is not immune from belief. It starts at the birth of the child, the child is given a name by the parent. The child's only recognition of itself as an entity is possible only through the help of the knowledge it has been given by the parent. The parent says to the child..''tell me your name'' and that's where identity starts, prior to which there was total silence of no thingness...constant use of memory to maintain that identity is how we function in the world, we live and function as a memory since that is the only place where the entity lives. If a child didn't believe in it's identity given to it by the parent in the form of a name it would have no way of being of any value to the society in which it functions. There is no entity living in the constant flow of the eternal present. An entity is a belief.The entity that you believe yourself to be is nothing more than a memory or thought. What ever we experience is thought induced, thought does not live, thought belongs to memory. The human mind has evolved to receive sound as words and not silence. So our daily life is thinking, and this thinking is illusory, whereas silence is real. That which is without thought lives.. the thought I am my name, or I am my teeth, my arms, my hair, my smile and so on.... further reinforced by the belief is what's creating an entity where there is none...the observer can only ever be the observed of what's known and seen. Meaning there is no entity looking at life, there is only what's looked upon....thus it is the object that creates the belief in an observer... and the object is created by the thought/knowledge/belief all of which are empty to the core....in truth you have no way of knowing what you are looking at or what's looking...

For someone who posits no beliefs, Lacewing sure has a lot of them. Ken, too, for that matter.

Reflex wrote:For someone who posits no beliefs, Lacewing sure has a lot of them. Ken, too, for that matter.

What beliefs do you think you see, Reflex? That I think you're an arrogant bag of wind? No, that's not a belief... just a suspicion based on observation. You could change that impression instantly... but so far you haven't.

Lacewing wrote:What beliefs do you think you see, Reflex? That I think you're an arrogant bag of wind? No, that's not a belief... just a suspicion based on observation. You could change that impression instantly... but so far you haven't.

You tell me. Judgments, suspicions, statements of any kind, do not happen in a vacuum; they all require a conceptual frame of reference -- beliefs. So, Lacewing, the more you protest, the more you declare your certainty in your unspoken and unacknowledged beliefs.

Reflex wrote: You tell me. Judgments, suspicions, statements of any kind, do not happen in a vacuum; they all require a conceptual frame of reference -- beliefs. So, Lacewing, the more you protest, the more you declare your certainty in your unspoken and unacknowledged beliefs.

I agree.

When the ego as a witnesser is empty without a letter or a word, the moment is present. When the ego is full with a letter or a word, the moment is absent. Life is a river that flows, but you cannot find the moment the river flows

The ego is always full in duality in the moment in the mind, which is a brief period of illusory time. A letter or a word, which is in the brief illusory period of time in the mind, makes the ego full. The letter or a word is present because it is in focus and not the moment in life, which makes the moment in life to be absent. On the other hand when the ego as a witnesser understands that the moment in life is timeless and thoughtless, meaning neither a letter nor a word is present, the witnesser is empty and the moment in life is present, because his focus is on the timeless and thoughtless moment in life and not on a letter or a word, which is in the illusory brief period of time in the mind.

"Show me a child and I'll show you a parent feeding their ego"

ken wrote:
Ahhh ok, now I am understanding more here. Some people are like "golden childs", right? ....Wrong!

Are these ones born with enlightenment or are they born to become enlightened? .....No!

Man is conscious of the aliveness (action, word or thought) of the moment with certainty, only after it happens and never before it happens. Man can never premeditate the aliveness of the moment with certainty.