Tired of grand theories, just do what you want

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
One is allowed to change anything; one is as your spirit has the gift of free/will or allowance to grow.

The present is as it is and cannot be changed by anyone, however the present is constantly changing regardless.

originally posted by: daskakik
I don't have one other than, "what I experienced doesn't jive with what you are saying".

Okay, so is your view of reality based on a most thorough inspection of the situation you are always in - without bringing any pre-conceived notions, presumptions, beliefs, etc., to the consideration?

In other words, did you really find out what this reality is about before deciding on a conclusion? And if so, how did you come to that conclusion? What was the actual process and how long did you engage this consideration?

originally posted by: Manula
Its just who i am, i can change with time, but its a natural process, life will change me, i just have to be myself and live what i want to live and changes will occur, i just have to exist and be me.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The present is as it is and cannot be changed by anyone, however the present is constantly changing regardless.

Yes, and as one great master said, if you go with the flow you end up going down the toilet! LOL!

In my experience and view, this pretty much says it all as far as these self-involved notions and approaches go.

a reply to: bb23108

Are we measuring to see who's view of reality is bigger?

Yes, and as one great master said, if you go with the flow you end up going down the toilet! LOL!

If a great master said that he needs to have his great master membership card and decoder ring taken away.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The present is as it is and cannot be changed by anyone, however the present is constantly changing regardless.

If the present cannot be changed, it cannot be.

originally posted by: daskakik
Are we measuring to see who's view of reality is bigger?

You are very evasive. Why don't you just share with us your process of your coming to your conclusions about Reality - since you are sharing a lot of your critical views about what others think. What do you actually think Reality is?

originally posted by: daskakik
If a great master said that he needs to have his great master membership card and decoder ring taken away.

To me, it was a humorous way of someone saying that if an individual just goes with what everyone else is doing - i.e., going with the patterns already in place - then the same old cycle will just keep occuring.

Anyway, people tend to think that something about the historical patterning of these bodies is somehow evolving into something spiritual - but even if that is true, how long are we talking about here? It will be endless eons of time given these bodies are basically evolved primates - hardly something grand in terms of spiritual realization.

So I wouldn't go with just what the body wants to do - it will just be more of the same old bs:

Rebirth, life, flush! *repeat endlessly*

originally posted by: bb23108
You are very evasive. Why don't you just share with us your process of your coming to your conclusions about Reality - since you are sharing a lot of your critical views about what others think. What do you actually think Reality is?

What has led me to my view of reality are OBEs since my early teens.

I don't really have a conclusion but anytime I see someone use new age sounding labels like the Source, Love and Light, etc. I can relate but I also know that there is more to it.

To me, it was a humorous way of someone saying that if an individual just goes with what everyone else is doing - i.e., going with the patterns already in place - then the same old cycle will just keep occuring.

Everyone else is also talking about the source, being connected and love. It's just a different pattern from the limited selection offered.

Anyway, people tend to think that something about the historical patterning of these bodies is somehow evolving into something spiritual - but even if that is true, how long are we talking about here? It will be endless eons of time given these bodies are basically evolved primates - hardly something grand in terms of spiritual realization.

So I wouldn't go with just what the body wants to do - it will just be more of the same old bs:

Rebirth, life, flush! *repeat endlessly*

Stop being reborn.

originally posted by: daskakik
What has led me to my view of reality are OBEs since my early teens.

I don't really have a conclusion but anytime I see someone use new age sounding labels like the Source, Love and Light, etc. I can relate but I also know that there is more to it.

Okay, thanks for some specificity. So I assume this means you have a conviction that the subtle body-mind survives the death of the physical body-mind?

originally posted by: daskakik
Everyone else is also talking about the source, being connected and love. It's just a different pattern from the limited selection offered.

Not sure what you mean by this. It is difficult to have conversations on the internet because the language has so mainly possibilities in terms of what words may mean, etc. Source can mean any number of things.

To me, it made no difference what was being offered - it just became necessary to discover the truth of our reality from the ground up, so to speak. In other words, without having to go elsewhere internally, etc. - but also not having to go elsewhere externally. But rather, just stand in place and allow Reality to reveal itself, if and when it could and would. It was necessary to give up all pre-conceived notions for starters and to not seek for some specific answer. It was more about making myself available to the truth, whatever that was to be.

originally posted by: daskakik
Stop being reborn.

And you are deciding this based on what?

originally posted by: bb23108
Okay, thanks for some specificity. So I assume this means you have a conviction that the subtle body-mind survives the death of the physical body-mind?

It's what I have experienced.

Not sure what you mean by this. It is difficult to have conversations on the internet because the language has so mainly inherent limits in terms of what words can mean, etc. Source can mean any number of things.

But you do use it the way I have seen others use it.

To me, it made no difference what was being offered - it just became necessary to discover the truth of our reality from the ground up, so to speak. In other words, without having to go elsewhere internally, etc. - but also not having to go elsewhere externally. But rather, just stand in place and allow Reality to reveal itself, if and when it could and would. It was necessary to give up all pre-conceived notions for starters and to not seek for some specific answer. It was more about making myself available to the truth, whatever that was to be.

Seems to me that labeling things as bad is a pre-conceived notion. I think that is what this thread is about.

This reality has abusers and victims. Thinking that there shouldn't be either is not really accepting reality for what it is.

And you are deciding this based on what?

What you said "Rebirth, life, flush! *repeat endlessly*".

originally posted by: daskakik
It's what I have experienced.

Good. So you have a conclusion based on first hand experience - the best kind there is relative to matters of Truth.

originally posted by: daskakik
Seems to me that labeling things as bad is a pre-conceived notion. I think that is what this thread is about.

The op is full of pre-conceived notions - that it is okay to be a murderer, apparently - if that's what you want to be. That to me has nothing to do with truth, so I addressed it, especially since I have already come to my conclusions about reality a long time ago, given a long thorough investigation. But really, if someone was inflicting great pain on Manula, do you really think he would be fine with his philosophy? To me, that discussion is a waste of time after a certain point.

originally posted by: daskakik
This reality has abusers and victims. Thinking that there shouldn't be either is not really accepting reality for what it is.

Well you will need to define reality. I don't assume any of this conditionality is the absolute Truth or Reality itself. Your perception of it is just that - a perception, at best an approximation of Reality - but certainly NOT Reality Itself.

originally posted by: daskakik
What you said "Rebirth, life, flush! *repeat endlessly*".

You said, "stop being reborn" as though you were in control, so I asked you how that decision was going.

originally posted by: bb23108
The op is full of pre-conceived notions

So are your arguments against it.

Well you will need to define reality. I don't assume any of this conditionality is the absolute Truth or Reality itself. Your perception of it is just that - a perception, at best an approximation of Reality - but certainly NOT Reality Itself.

So if someone was causing Manula great pain it would only be "an approximation of Reality"? Seems wishy-washy.

I don't think he would be all good with your philosophy either.

You said, "stop being reborn" as though you were in control, so I asked you how that decision was going.

After you said:

So I wouldn't go with just what the body wants to do - it will just be more of the same old bs:
Rebirth, life, flush! *repeat endlessly*

Seems to me you are the one that said it was a choice.

I agree but once the choice is made you have to stick with it until death. That is why the choice is to be "reborn".

originally posted by: bb23108

The op is full of pre-conceived notions - that it is okay to be a murderer, apparently - if that's what you want to be. That to me has nothing to do with truth, so I addressed it, especially since I have already come to my conclusions about reality a long time ago, given a long thorough investigation. But really, if someone was inflicting great pain on Manula, do you really think he would be fine with his philosophy? To me, that discussion is a waste of time after a certain point.

Pre-conceived notions?
You are a kind of a preacher because you are not open to the ideas of others, you are always fighting to impose your truth.
My point is very simple, i believe in goodness, kindness, love, compassion, etc but we have to get there through a lot of wrong doing.
Its from sinner to saint.
Its very simple but its just another theory, but this one is different because it accepts everyone as actors of a great play, everyone has a place in the play, light and darkness have a place.
We came from light to darkness to retun to the light, but we have to play a lot of roles and characters to get there, and there is a lot of wrong doing along the way, so its ok, let people fulfill their path.
Its not ok to be a murderer but its part of evolution.
Dont take life so seriously, its all a play in action, its full of up and downs but in the end we return to love and light more complete because we lived and experienced darkness.
Just another theory, so valid as yours, so stop being a preacher and LISTEN.

originally posted by: daskakik
So are your arguments against it.

That wasn't the point. You were saying I had pre-conceived notions about the op, as though the op was free of all such notions.

originally posted by: daskakik
So if someone was causing Manula great pain it would only be "an approximation of Reality"? Seems wishy-washy.

I don't think he would be all good with your philosophy either.

Do you think your perception of this event is Reality? What about a cat's perception of this same event, or a friend's? These perceptions are not the actual Reality.

originally posted by: Manula
Pre-conceived notions?
You are a kind of a preacher because you are not open to the ideas of others, you are always fighting to impose your truth.
My point is very simple, i believe in goodness, kindness, love, compassion, etc but we have to get there through a lot of wrong doing.
Its from sinner to saint.

Yes, your op is full of pre-conceived notions - just like you said once again - you have to evolve through being a sinner to become a saint, etc. What is not pre-conceived about that? I don't have a particular problem with it being pre-conceived. This was just a point of contention with daskakik.

However, I do disagree with this very long way home, so to speak. But enough about that for now.

originally posted by: Manula
... so stop being a preacher and LISTEN.

I am all ears, my friend. Preach on.

originally posted by: bb23108
That wasn't the point. You were saying I had pre-conceived notions about the op, as though the op was free of all such notions.

The existence or lack of pre-conceived notions in the OP has no bearing on your pre-conceived notions. That is a cop out.

Do you think your perception of this event is Reality? What about a cat's perception of this same event, or a friend's? These perceptions are not the actual Reality.

So rape victims are not really raped?

What is your problem with the OP? What was all that complaining about the state of the world?

originally posted by: daskakik
The existence or lack of pre-conceived notions in the OP has no bearing on your pre-conceived notions. That is a cop out.

I already explained my points to you. If you are just looking to criticize without really bringing anything useful to the table from your own experience, what is the point of this conversation? It is beginning to seem pointless to me.

originally posted by: daskakik
So rape victims are not really raped?

Of course there is the conditional reality that we all experience. But it is always changing, and looks differently to everyone, to one degree or another - so no one's perception is the actual unconditional Reality Itself. So what is the absolute Reality prior to but not separate from all of this? That is what I have been considering or at least trying to get at here.

originally posted by: daskakik
What is your problem with the OP?

Are you just playing games by asking me the same questions? Please re-read what I already addressed. And besides, apparently it all sounds like preaching, so I am done addressing the op.

originally posted by: daskakik
What was all that complaining about the state of the world?

Do you think the world is just fine? It reflects what mankind's current state of ignorance is.

a reply to: Manula

I "did what I wanted" for many years.

I don't have anything to show for it but a lot of wasted money and probably 10 years off my liver. I also pushed a lot of people away and hurt my friends and family.

I think the problem is that many of us think we know what we want -- but we really haven't got a real clue...

originally posted by: bb23108
I already explained my points to you. If you are just looking to criticize without really bringing anything useful to the table from your own experience, what is the point of this conversation? It is beginning to seem pointless to me.

Now you are dodging.

Your arguments are full of pre-conceived notions while you criticize the OP for the same. My personal experiences have nothing to do with any of that.

Of course there is the conditional reality that we all experience. But it is always changing, and looks differently to everyone, to one degree or another - so no one's perception is the actual unconditional Reality Itself. So what is the absolute Reality prior to but not separate from all of this? That is what I have been considering or at least trying to get at here.

You are flip-flopping.

Are you just playing games by asking me the same questions? Please re-read what I already addressed. And besides, apparently it all sounds like preaching, so I am done addressing the op.

This went along with the text above it.

Do you think the world is just fine? It reflects what mankind's current state of ignorance is.

This also was part of the above.

You say reality isn't "reality" when it suits your argument while arguing at other times that the world is "really" in bad shape.

a reply to: daskakik
Read my post again relative to the seniority of Unconditional Reality and how conditional reality is a stepped down modification of That.

Rather than just assuming, as you did from the very beginning, that you understand everything I am talking about and on that basis continue to make all kinds of accusations, why don't you take some time and re-read what I actually wrote because it certainly seems to me that you mainly want to argue, accuse, and agitate more than actually consider what is absolute Reality versus conditional realities.

originally posted by: bb23108
Read my post again relative to the seniority of Unconditional Reality and how conditional reality is a stepped down modification of That.

Rather than just assuming, as you did from the very beginning, that you understand everything I am talking about and on that basis continue to make all kinds of accusations, why don't you take some time and re-read what I actually wrote because it certainly seems to me that you mainly want to argue and agitate more than actually consider what is absolute Reality versus conditional realities.

I do understand it but I don't agree with it. Besides, you have yet to convince me that it has any bearing on the claim made by the OP.

Please read that slowly and understand that it isn't even a question of "Reality versus conditional realities".