There is No Me, No You, No Person, No Self ???

[Veritas Aequitas]

I won't be wasting my time on them because you lack foundation thus not be able to understand [not necessary with] my point to counter it effectively.

Notice I have never said that to you, because I actually find you facinating to talk to. What exactly do you believe there is here in reality that is counter to itself?

I find it absolutely fascinating that someone could come out with such an outrageous statement like ..'' because you lack foundation thus not be able to understand [not necessary with] my point to counter it effectively.''

You had a sort of altered states of consciousness experience which you have aligned with advaita vedanta specifically the pseudo-advaitins who rushed into the easy way out or realization.

Those who are into advaita-proper and has achieved a certain state of consciousness [developed and positive] cultivated that through years of studying the right materials and carrying out the right spiritual practices.

You admitted you are not interested in establishing those kind of foundation as advocated the advaitin masters. What you want to rely on it what you had experienced long ago and the memory of it.

Without the necessary foundation you are not likely to get far in a discussion except to blabber 'There is No Me, No You, No Person, No Self' it is only a story, etc.

When I'm trying to point to you the realisation that there is no one here to make such assumed ''differentials''... albeit in the dream, a fictional illusional story within the dream of separation. That you AV believe is real.

This unqualified "no one here" is sickening.

You must read this by Jeff Foster who was once a very famous pseudo-advaitin who now admitted his radical advaita views like yours [no-one, no-me, no-you] above are all fake.

The birth and death of fundamentalism in nonduality and Advaita teachings.
by Jeff Foster
http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writi ... teachings/

A few months ago I made this announcement:

• “I am officially no longer an ‘Advaita teacher’ or ‘Nonduality teacher’ – if, indeed, I ever was one.
  Life cannot be put into words, and however beautiful the words of Advaita/Nonduality are, they must be discarded in the end.
  I could never claim to be any sort of authority on this stuff. I will continue to speak, to sing my song to those who are open to listening, but gone is the need to adhere to any tradition, to use ‘Advaita-speak’ to avoid real, authentic human engagement, to pretend that I am in any way more or less special than you, to kid you that I know more than you, to play the ‘teacher’ by refusing to meet you in the play, to stop listening to you because I see you as ‘still stuck in the dream’ or ‘still a person’.
  This message is about love, in the true sense of the word – otherwise it is simply nihilism masquerading as freedom. The ‘Advaita Police’ reply ‘Who cares?’ I say I do. I do.”

In this essay I want to explain why I made this statement.

THE MESSAGE OF RADICAL ADVAITA

If you listen to certain nonduality/Advaita teachers who are on the scene at the moment, you may get the impression that there is something terribly wrong with having a personal ‘story’.
Having a thought-created story about yourself, your past experiences, your relationships, your feelings, your desires and hopes and fears, and so on – in other words, being a living, breathing human being – is a clear sign of delusion and duality. And you need to wake up from this mess!

If you go to a public meeting held by a teacher of ‘radical Advaita’, and they invite questions, and you start talking about something personal – for example, the death of a loved one, an addiction you have, a painful event that happened in your past – they will tell you that you are ‘stuck in your story’, or ‘lost in the dream of time and space’ or they will simply say you are ‘still a person’ and ‘haven’t woken up yet’.
The fact that you ‘told a story’ shows that you are still coming from duality – you are still identified as a seeker, stuck in the personal. Once you ‘get it’, you will no longer tell personal stories. You will exist in the eternal Now, and know nothing of your past.

These teachers, of course, no longer ‘tell stories’ (well, except the gigantic story that all stories are a sign of ignorance…). They imply that they themselves exist in some sort of mystical state beyond the personal, or that they have entered into a kind of space where the personal no longer has any meaning, relevance or interest.
They don’t have a past or future, they don’t have ‘personal relationships’ (who is there to have a relationship with?), and they certainly never suffer (because all suffering is an illusion, right?)
And so you end up feeling inferior to these people (or non-people, or nobodies, or absences, or whatever they are calling themselves today) and terribly guilty and narcissistic for still having interest in your personal story.
Liberation or enlightenment obviously hasn’t happened for you yet! And so you wait and wait for liberation to happen. And although these teachers say there is nothing you can do to reach liberation, and nobody there who can do anything anyway, you carry on going to their meetings and reading their books, in the vain hope that it will happen one day. Although there’s no ‘you’ it can happen to. And no ‘one day’….

I suggest you try to get out of the above rut like what Jeff Foster did above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

DontAskMe,

I suggest you read up on Andrew Cohen, a neo-Advaita who speak the same language you do re your non-dualism.

Cohen was born in New York City in 1955 in an upper-middle class secular Jewish household.[web 1] Cohen recounts that his life was changed by a spontaneous experience of "cosmic consciousness" at the age of sixteen.[web 1]
After pursuing a career as a jazz musician, he began a spiritual quest to recover this experience when he was 22.[1] He eventually met H. W. L. Poonja in 1986, a self-styled teacher who taught that no effort is needed to attain enlightenment "because it is merely the realisation of what one already is".[2]
At their first meeting, Cohen realized that he "had always been free".[2] Poonja declared Cohen to be his heir, and Cohen began to teach as a neo-Advaita teacher, and gathered a community around him.

[The Abuses]
The mental, physical, and financial abuse Andrew perpetrated against former students, which Andrew justifies as "crazy wisdom" are documented in books such as American Guru,[11] Enlightenment Blues, [10] and Mother of God,[9] as well as popular blogs such as What Enlightenment?[web 15] and EnlightenNixt.[web 16]

Some of Cohen's former followers, including his mother, Luna Tarlo, have viewed him as a manipulative spiritual teacher. Tarlo wrote a critical book, called Mother of God, about her experience as one of his disciples.[9] In a Psychology Today, article, published in 1998 entitled "Crimes of the Soul", Tarlo recounted how she became a disciple of her son who told her "to give way to him or their relationship would end" and forbade her "to express an opinion on anything". Tarlo said she "knew if I seriously objected to anything, I'd be kicked out" and stated that her son, formerly the "sweetest, sensitive kid, had changed into an unrecognizable tyrant."[web 17]

André van der Braak's Enlightenment Blues: My Years with an American Guru alleges that Cohen demanded large sums of money and extreme and unquestioning devotion from his students.[10]

American Guru: A Story of Love, Betrayal and Healing, by William Yenner and other former Cohen student contributors (foreword by Stephen Batchelor), allege authoritarianism, financial manipulation, physical and psychological abuse in Cohen's community, and discusses the challenges of healing after leaving the community.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Co ... #Criticism

Andrew Cohen the Cult Leader
https://medium.com/@bescofield/integral ... ce41c982eb

It is possible the above could be due to 'a few bad eggs.'
It is not the case with neo-advaitins because they based their beliefs like you on very shaky foundations thus very vulnerable for such beliefs to turn malignant.

Andrew Cohen justified his 'evil' acts because there is 'no-one' no-person, no-me, no-you that experiences these acts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

DontAskMe,

Note this 'Advaita-Trap' of "No Me, No You, No Person, No Self" that you are entrapped in as with Jeff Foster;

In my ‘story’ (yes, there is a story appearing here – who could deny that?) I spent years pushing away the personal, trying to get rid of my personal story, trying to dwell in the Absolute, to get rid of my ‘someone’ and become ‘no-one’.
Jeff was the enemy and I had to get rid of him.
The personal self was the devil, and it was only in the destruction of the devil that I would meet God. The ego was the lie that had to be annihilated.
Or at least, that’s what I believed at the time.
I had read a lot of spiritual books, and had come to a lot of conclusions about reality – not realising that my conclusions were actually personal beliefs.
Human beings are amazing creatures. We think we have found objective truth, when in fact we have just come to rest on a subjective belief, and forgotten this.

For a while, the ‘impersonal’ seemed like freedom to me, because the personal had become unliveable. My personal story (relative existence) had become hell – I hated my life, suffered terrible social phobia, felt like a total failure, saw no point in existing at all – and so it made sense at the time to escape into the impersonal heaven promised by the Advaita teachings. “There is no me, there is no you, there is no world, there are no others, suffering doesn’t exist, there‘s no responsibility on any level” – wow, what a comfort for the exhausted seeker!
A one-way ticket to freedom from all worldly problems – Hallelujah! No responsibility, no past, no choice – what a relief!
I could do what I wanted, say what I wanted, I could even hurt people intentionally and it didn’t matter because it was all Oneness and I had no choice anyway. Or so I believed.

I thought I was free, and meanwhile, the seeker was feeding itself, gorging itself on these new Advaita concepts. I thought I was nobody, and meanwhile, my personal story was feasting on the very personal idea that I was ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ the personal. I thought I was free from all divisions, and meanwhile, ‘nonduality’ and ‘duality’ were at war, ‘personal’ and ‘impersonal’ had locked horns.
I rejected all spiritual paths and practices – they were all dualistic and rooted in ignorance.
I was at war with any teacher who looked like they offered a personal path.
I saw these teachers as ‘dualistic’ because it looked like, in speaking to a person and offering them hope of any kind, they were actually feeding the seeking and keeping people trapped in their stories.
Impersonal teachings – teachings which did not speak to a ‘person’ and did not offer the non-existent seeker any hope or comfort – were the only truth; that seemed the logical next step.
And I enjoyed warning people about the dualistic teachers who were keeping people trapped in their ignorance – although of course, when challenged about this (“Jeff, isn’t it hypocritical to call other teachers ‘dualistic’ when there are no others, and duality is an illusion?”), I backtracked and said there was nobody here with an opinion about anything, and that everything was perfect as it was.

Oh yes, I became very clever with words. You have to be, when you are defending a position, and trying to make it look like you have no position to defend.
That’s how gurus are born.
I call this the “Advaita Trap” – and at the time, I didn’t think I was trapped – I thought I was free. Often when you think you are free you are more trapped than ever.

http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writi ... teachings/

[Atla]

I wonder where you got that idea.

I have mentioned the Two-Truths of Buddhism and it is also explained in that article, the person must give relevant attention to the empirical physical self and ensure there is no clinging to an idealized permanent self that survives physical death, thus facilitating the existing human self to 'flow' spontaneously.

Giving up clinging to an idealized permanent self doesn't eliminate the existential crysis; it eliminates some of it, just like in Advaita.

And can lead to new forms of suffering in some people. Anyway these are just small differences, we highly agree about stuff. And it may also depend on the IQ of the individual which approach is better (since existential depression/suffering strongly correlates with IQ/giftedness). And there also various forms of the human self; some forms of it are pretty indestructible psychological structures, and can't ever be fully non-clinging; other forms can be. And the human self is also highly different in men and women etc.

I need to clarify here re existential crisis.

DNA wise all humans has an inherent potential for and inherent unavoidable existential crisis and this is activated strongly and subliminally within the subconscious mind of the person.
As such there is no way a person can eliminate that inherent unavoidable existential crisis or DOOM.
The only solution is to inhibit and modulate the terrible impulses of the existential crisis.

The difference between advaita-proper and Buddhism-proper is its principles of the coverage in resolving this existential crisis.

In principle;
Advaita-proper's atman-Brahman principles cover a maximum 90% target in controlling the impulses of the existential crisis.
On the other hand, Buddhism-proper principles target a 100% maximum coverage in controlling the impulses of the existential crisis.
The % above is merely to demonstrate a relative difference since it is not possible to determine the exact quantum.

The above is only in principle, but in practice, both believers and practitioners will achieve different levels depending on their spiritual constitution and circumstances.
But the difference is a Buddhist can achieve 100% while the maximum for an advaitin is only 90%.

Analogy:
Buddhism-proper [non-theistic] is like a manufacturing company setting a zero defect vision, mission and objects, i.e. 100% efficiency and thus their whole system of manufacturing processes established to meet such a perfect ideal target.
Advaita-proper [theistic pantheistic] set a mission and objectives that accepts 10% defects, i.e. 90% efficiency because humans are by nature fallible and thus will make mistakes that will result in defects.
The point is when one sets a target of 90% efficiency and construct a system to achieve that target, the actual results will be less that the target, i.e. the best results could be between 85-89% and at times 90%.
But when one set a target of an ideal of 100%, in practice the result could be 95-99% and at times 100%.
See the difference.

That is the difference between Buddhism-proper and Advaita-proper.

One major difference is Buddhism-proper is non-theistic while Advaita-proper is theistic and/or pantheistic.
It is the 'theistic' element which is tied to the fundamental psychological from the basement of the brain that can hinder and restraint spiritual progress to the max or optimal. Such theistic elements can even turn malignant based on principles that can actualized in some advaitins.

The Buddhist "zero defect vision" entails that we throw out the human self and replace it with an artificial construct. Thus giving up on life before it ends. Is it worth it, why not just get over with it and commit suicide? Do we really save humanity by killing it? Do you have the right to make this decision for others?

Will you also address the "evil" of Buddhism: erasing the human spirit?

Advaita isn't theistic and isn't preoccupied with an existential crysis; non-Advaitan Vedas may be theistic. Advaita may be seen as pantheistic though, when taken literally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Buddhist "zero defect vision" entails that we throw out the human self and replace it with an artificial construct. Thus giving up on life before it ends. Is it worth it, why not just get over with it and commit suicide? Do we really save humanity by killing it? Do you have the right to make this decision for others?

Will you also address the "evil" of Buddhism: erasing the human spirit?

Advaita isn't theistic and isn't preoccupied with an existential crysis; non-Advaitan Vedas may be theistic. Advaita may be seen as pantheistic though, when taken literally.

In Buddhism it is not the case of throwing out the human self and replace it with an artificial construct. That is more like neo- or pseudo advaita in striving to get rid of the personal self to being no-one, no-me, no-person, no-you and the likes.

The ultimate and ideal of Buddhism proper is to engage 100% of the empirical self and 100% in a non-self situation in relevance to the circumstances.

Supposed one is in a team, one will have to ensure one is a 100% competent team member and in the processes of working toward a mission of the team, the individual has to be in 'oneness' [non-self] with the whole team without focusing on one's personal selfish interests at the expense of the whole team.

As I had stated the above is the ideal in principle and in practice one will strive to achieve as much as possible to the ideal.

Advaita do not specifically highlights the existential crisis like the Buddha Story.
However in the Bhagavad Gita which advaita relies on, there is an implication of the existential crisis in the Story of Arjuna and Khrishna.

• Bhagavad Gita 2.22: As a person sheds worn-out garments and wears new ones, likewise, at the time of death, the soul casts off its worn-out body and enters a new one.

The above is a consolation and relief toward the existential crisis in assuring there is some kind of salvation after physical death.

Advaita is not theistic per-se but is a subset of theism, i.e. pantheistic.

[Dontaskme]

You had a sort of altered states of consciousness experience which you have aligned with advaita vedanta specifically the pseudo-advaitins who rushed into the easy way out or realization.

No, I did not have any altered states of consciousness. Neither did I align with Advaita. I'm in line with source. I am source.

All I did was realise quite by chance there is no one to have altered states of consciousness and that the person I thought I was didn't have consciousness. It wasn't i that was conscious..I just knew that I am consciousness, I don't have it, I am it.

It's the thoughts that arise in this consciousness that has the sense of altered states ..which I saw to be illusions appearing in the consciousness I am which is not an illusion.

Those who are into advaita-proper and has achieved a certain state of consciousness [developed and positive] cultivated that through years of studying the right materials and carrying out the right spiritual practices.

I don't believe in all that nonsense about achieving certain states of this and that, that's all just monkey mind stuff, ego. I've heard about all that crap before, but as I keep repeating to you, something that you don't seem to want to hear...I by-passed all that junk because for me, there was just this immediate knowing direct experiencing of ''being'' which is another word for consciousness one without a second.

You are just going to have to accept that there really are some people who can instantly for no reason whatsoever just know things without ever knowing why. And one of the things I knew, was that I do not have to practice being ON ..I AM ON...and that's all there is to it.

I don't have to sit and meditate about whether I am there yet, I'm already here.

You admitted you are not interested in establishing those kind of foundation as advocated the advaitin masters. What you want to rely on it what you had experienced long ago and the memory of it.

Without the necessary foundation you are not likely to get far in a discussion except to blabber 'There is No Me, No You, No Person, No Self' it is only a story, etc.

Okay if you say so, not that this stupid comment has got anything to do the direct experience of being. Not that this comment is going to ruin the rest of my life or something just because of what you believe and I don't.

This unqualified "no one here" is sickening.

It's not sickening to those who know the real self. ..obviously its sickening to those not familar with it..so your comment is irrelevant to this one here.

You must read this by Jeff Foster who was once a very famous pseudo-advaitin who now admitted his radical advaita views like yours [no-one, no-me, no-you] above are all fake.

Yeah, I agree with Jeff on all accounts...so what? ..I already know all this stuff.

Source being manifests as both the impersonal and personal, the animate and inaminate ..so what? what else is new?

I often read other nondual speakers just to get a flavour of how others see it...we're all different in how we see it, doesn't make any one of those seeings wrong or right, everyone is right because there is just everything being everything...even the wrongs are right, even the lies are truth...there is only and ever what is always just free to be...albeit appearing as a myriad of different packages, flavours, expressions etc etc.. but essentially all of the same source essence... so yeah, would be a kind of dull reality without the rich diversity of what is always this ever blooming, ever unfolding fresh unique free expression of source.

I suggest you try to get out of the above rut like what Jeff Foster did above.

I suggest you get out of the rut of your self serving, self justified aggrandizing non-existent monkey mind, and see the bigger picture.

.

[Atla]

The Buddhist "zero defect vision" entails that we throw out the human self and replace it with an artificial construct. Thus giving up on life before it ends. Is it worth it, why not just get over with it and commit suicide? Do we really save humanity by killing it? Do you have the right to make this decision for others?

Will you also address the "evil" of Buddhism: erasing the human spirit?

Advaita isn't theistic and isn't preoccupied with an existential crysis; non-Advaitan Vedas may be theistic. Advaita may be seen as pantheistic though, when taken literally.

In Buddhism it is not the case of throwing out the human self and replace it with an artificial construct. That is more like neo- or pseudo advaita in striving to get rid of the personal self to being no-one, no-me, no-person, no-you and the likes.

The ultimate and ideal of Buddhism proper is to engage 100% of the empirical self and 100% in a non-self situation in relevance to the circumstances.

Supposed one is in a team, one will have to ensure one is a 100% competent team member and in the processes of working toward a mission of the team, the individual has to be in 'oneness' [non-self] with the whole team without focusing on one's personal selfish interests at the expense of the whole team.

As I had stated the above is the ideal in principle and in practice one will strive to achieve as much as possible to the ideal.

That's just unselfishness; under a benevolent One World Government, I think it could be better implemented worldwide under a more Advaitan approach. More straightforward, less convoluted, more alive.

The main problem is, again, how to get an overwhelmingly selfish world to elect a benevolent One World Government.

[TimeSeeker]

The main problem is, again, how to get an overwhelmingly selfish world to elect a benevolent One World Government.

You sell it to them.

The Googles and Facebooks of the world already have more knowledge about society than governments do. Should they choose to - they can exercise more control (as in steer social perception) far better than any government we currently have.

How did they get so powerful? They gave us what we wanted so that we could fulfil our selfish desires.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Buddhist "zero defect vision" entails that we throw out the human self and replace it with an artificial construct. Thus giving up on life before it ends. Is it worth it, why not just get over with it and commit suicide? Do we really save humanity by killing it? Do you have the right to make this decision for others?

Will you also address the "evil" of Buddhism: erasing the human spirit?

Advaita isn't theistic and isn't preoccupied with an existential crysis; non-Advaitan Vedas may be theistic. Advaita may be seen as pantheistic though, when taken literally.

In Buddhism it is not the case of throwing out the human self and replace it with an artificial construct. That is more like neo- or pseudo advaita in striving to get rid of the personal self to being no-one, no-me, no-person, no-you and the likes.

The ultimate and ideal of Buddhism proper is to engage 100% of the empirical self and 100% in a non-self situation in relevance to the circumstances.

Supposed one is in a team, one will have to ensure one is a 100% competent team member and in the processes of working toward a mission of the team, the individual has to be in 'oneness' [non-self] with the whole team without focusing on one's personal selfish interests at the expense of the whole team.

As I had stated the above is the ideal in principle and in practice one will strive to achieve as much as possible to the ideal.

That's just unselfishness; under a benevolent One World Government, I think it could be better implemented worldwide under a more Advaitan approach. More straightforward, less convoluted, more alive.

The main problem is, again, how to get an overwhelmingly selfish world to elect a benevolent One World Government.

Note this model which is specific and inherent in Buddhism proper;

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Using the above model, each individual member must strive to increase his/her own competence so that they can align with oneness as team, in this case Team Humanity.
In this oneness, the individuality of the person is not lost but they exist in complementarity like intertwining of the yin-yang.

By using the above model iteratively the individual's and thus average quotient in terms of IQ, EQ [emotional], Spiritual Intelligence, Moral, Philosophical, Wisdom, other quotients must be increased significantly in the future.
For example if the current Spiritual, Moral Quotient is 100 then the average must be increased to say 300, IQ to say 150, and the likes.

I am optimistic the above can be fulfilled in the future [near or ASAP] given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Such significant improvements must involve real positive changes of the neural connectivity in the brain/mind.

I don't see advaita-proper having such a model as above inherent in its principles and in such readiness.

[TimeSeeker]

Using the above model, each individual member must strive to increase his/her own competence so that they can align with oneness as team, in this case Team Humanity.

I have a challenge for you-three. Before you solve the the problems of Team Humanity, try and solve the problems for Team Atla-Veritas Aequitas-DontAskMe. If the three of you can't seem to come to any agreement what are the chances that 7.5 billion people can get it right?

What you are practically doing is bashing the other two over the head until they submit to your argument. Which is what wars are at social scale

Try another strategy - try to reach consensus. Agree on something. ANYTHING!
Refer to Aumann's agreement theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem )

[Veritas Aequitas]

You must read this by Jeff Foster who was once a very famous pseudo-advaitin who now admitted his radical advaita views like yours [no-one, no-me, no-you] above are all fake.

Yeah, I agree with Jeff on all accounts...so what? ..I already know all this stuff.

Source being manifests as both the impersonal and personal, the animate and inaminate ..so what? what else is new?

I often read other nondual speakers just to get a flavour of how others see it...we're all different in how we see it, doesn't make any one of those seeings wrong or right, everyone is right because there is just everything being everything...even the wrongs are right, even the lies are truth...there is only and ever what is always just free to be...albeit appearing as a myriad of different packages, flavours, expressions etc etc.. but essentially all of the same source essence... so yeah, would be a kind of dull reality without the rich diversity of what is always this ever blooming, ever unfolding fresh unique free expression of source.

I am not sure whether you understand what Jeff Forster was talking about.'

Jeff stated those "There is No Me, No You, No Person, No Self" which he once touted as a radical advaitin are all fake and he is giving that up.

He declared;

I thank the teachers of radical Advaita for singing their song, and I respectfully break with their tradition once and for all – for all traditions are limited, and the song of life cannot be contained. Fundamentalism cannot stand; love will destroy everything in the end.

Now his views are;

In the meetings we shine light on the story – we en-lighten the seeker.
We don’t feed the seeker with new concepts like “there is no me” (although those words may be used on certain occasions as pointers), and we don’t deny the appearance of the seeker or pretend there is no such thing as human suffering (and how easy it is to deny suffering when you are not suffering!).
What cuts right through the middle of indulging the storylines and denying them is present seeing – a seeing that you cannot do, a seeing that you already are. The meetings are all about a rediscovery of that seeing – which is the end of seeking.

However you are still blabbering these illusory ideas of No Me, No You, No Person, No Self" blah blah blah.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Using the above model, each individual member must strive to increase his/her own competence so that they can align with oneness as team, in this case Team Humanity.

I have a challenge for you-three. Before you solve the the problems of Team Humanity, try and solve the problems for Team Atla-Veritas Aequitas-DontAskMe. If the three of you can't seem to come to any agreement what are the chances that 7.5 billion people can get it right?

What you are practically doing is bashing the other two over the head until they submit to your argument. Which is what wars are at social scale

Try another strategy - try to reach consensus. Agree on something. ANYTHING!
Refer to Aumann's agreement theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem )

I stated I am optimistic it is possible in the future not now.
DontAskMe's brain seem to have been ossified thus I am not expecting her to agree with me. But I am not expecting significant changes within my generation.

Note 100 years ago most humans were still very tribal but since 1945 till now there is some inkling of team humanity in term of the UN.
The rating of many people on the achievements of the UN is very low but at least there is already some relative progress in terms of the convention and abolishment of chattel slavery by all [?] members.
So there is a trend of improvement in the above which should be expedited in the future.

Humanity at this stage must find ways to expedite the increase in the various Quotients I mentioned above before any progress can be noticeable.

[TimeSeeker]

I stated I am optimistic it is possible in the future not now.

Why not now? What prevents it from happening now?

DontAskMe's brain seem to have been ossified thus I am not expecting her to agree with me. But I am not expecting significant changes within my generation.

So don't EXPECT change. DRIVE change. Figure out why you are disagreeing and fix it. Find common ground. APPLY 4NT-8FP

Humanity at this stage must find ways to expedite the increase in the various Quotients I mentioned above before any progress can be noticeable.

You are still trying to fix humanity when you can't even fix a conversation between two people. Who is the person/entity/organization in humanity that must "find ways to expedite the increase in the various Quotients" for all of us? The Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry?

Somebody has to DO THE WORK and not just pay lip service to the problem

Make progress at micro-scale (society of 2 people). Then go for macro-scale (society of 7.5 billion a.k.a humanity). First you must learn to walk before you can run.

[Dontaskme]

However you are still blabbering these illusory ideas of No Me, No You, No Person, No Self" blah blah blah.

Your the one who is so 100% certain of the impossible.

.

[TimeSeeker]

Your the one who is so 100% certain of the impossible.

How do you know what's possible and what is impossible?