Tired of grand theories, just do what you want

originally posted by: daskakik
I do understand it but I don't agree with it.

Clearly you don't otherwise you wouldn't have continually misconstrued what I said and made various accusations. Sorry, I am not going to keep feeding this in its current mode. Best you re-read my posts if you want to continue.

originally posted by: bb23108
Clearly you don't otherwise you wouldn't have misconstrued what I said and made various accusations. Sorry, I am not going to keep feeding this in its current mode. Best you re-read my posts if you want to continue.

You have spent the better part of this thread talking about "Reality" when what the OP is contemplating is above and beyond that.

You don't think there is anything above and beyond that? Great but then, what exactly are you adding to the conversation?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

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

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

The future present CAN be changed by present events (circular time).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
The future present CAN be changed by present events (circular time).

The present is constantly appearing different, but there is no one that can change right now.
What is arising is arising without condition.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

You did all that and believe me, now you know what it is to do that mistakes, and you are wiser, but this wisdom only comes because you did it.

The importante of going throuh stuff is crucial. Without it we know nothing.

Thats the point.

a reply to: bb23108

Stop preaching and talk, this is a forum, i explained my point but never accused your point of not being valid.
You always try to place your point above others...

The opposing argument questions why unsavoury things happen in the first place, an "Eden" where we live in a state of perfection, "karma" belonging to a grand theory itself, supposes that there is a reason for negative occurrences, however, if we agree that we cannot control reality, then we have to accept it the way it is, but also we have the freedom to be ourselves when there is no requirement to follow any rules.

So, reality is flawed and we have to take control of it via some kind of "grand scheme" to prevent unfortunate events, or it is the way it is and we have to develop coping mechanisms if we assume we cannot change it.

originally posted by: Manula
a reply to: bb23108

Stop preaching and talk, this is a forum, i explained my point but never accused your point of not being valid.

Of course you are implying my point is not valid - given it is very contrary to yours. It's also okay to even say that my point is not valid - as that is what a discussion often is. But of course one should back up one's statement with their own real understanding - and not just only say another's statement is not right and leave at that. This unfortunately happens a lot on ATS.

originally posted by: Manula
You always try to place your point above others...

If I am theorizing, like you say you are here, then I will say that - for instance, when I have been involved in discussions of perception and light, as related to quantum physics, etc.

However, when I understand something from the standpoint of actual self-evident experience - i.e., first-hand knowledge - then I don't present it as a theory because having tested these matters significantly, I can state them as my actual understanding - not just some theory I am developing.

So when I am contrary to your thinking, such as on a prior thread of yours in which you insisted no one was to blame for any of their actions, I addressed what I understand to be an error in your theory.

The thread I am referring to is here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"The rationality of love, even (especially) for the evil doers"

I posted a fair amount, that was quite contrary to your theory, and its content is very similar to here. I guess this is why you say I "always try to place my point above others"? I have now been contrary to you a few times - but mainly I do this with LesMis. lol.

Anyway, it is my first-hand experience that the more I understand who I actually am in Reality, the more I am spontaneously moved to be responsible for all my body-mind's actions and functions - even though this understanding is clearly demonstrating that fundamentally I am Awareness, not the body-mind itself! Paradoxical, yes - but that is how it actually works with myself - and others I have spoken with about these matters. Reality is not apart from the physical body-mind, so the body-mind need not be escaped or avoided, but rather embraced and disciplined as the somewhat evolved primate it currently is.

It is my experience that I cannot be truly free if my motive is to disregard or escape the body-mind and the inherent need for its responsibility.

Look, I know you are well-intentioned, and part of my reason for my hardness with you is that I think you have some real understanding of these matters. But I have heard way too many people talking about non-dualism (one Consciousness), mysticism, the great being, etc., as a justification for detaching themselves from the body-mind. I think you have more sense than this, so I tell you what I may think, understand and what I have first hand experience of.

If I sound "preachy", my apologies - sometimes I can get too emphatic with my passion about these great matters.

originally posted by: bb23108
so the body-mind need not be escaped or avoided, but rather embraced and disciplined as the somewhat evolved primate it currently is.

What do you mean by discipline and why is it needed? What I get from the OP is the same thing you are saying here but without the discipline.

It is my experience that I cannot be truly free if my motive is to disregard or escape the body-mind and the inherent need for its responsibility.

Again I'm seeing a bit of double speak. You shouldn't seek to escape the body-mind but you want to repress what makes it the body-mind.

What I got after the first time I said I understood what you were saying, is that the spiritual task happens here and only here and that it is to connect with what you really are, although that isn't clear and gets further jumbled by the use of labels used by non-dualists.

With the above you seem to have added, or maybe just cleared up what you mean by reconnecting, the overcoming of the primitive instinct. To me that sounds like the plain old religion stripped of the mythos.

a reply to: bb23108

Your opinions are welcome but why attack others opinions?
My theory is not about responsibility because people are not really responsible for the variables that make them do what they do (genes, culture, education, past traumas, poverty, lack of love etc etc etc, they are so many...).
We are not in control! We have an illusion of control but its ok, lets live that illusion.
I cant blame or point responsibility anymore, i prefer to understand, support, listen, love.
I am done with judgement and condemnation.

originally posted by: Manula
Your opinions are welcome but why attack others opinions?

If you don't want feedback that is contrary to your views, you may want to stop posting, particularly topic titles like this current one. I can only assume you chose such an incendiary topic title to incite responses.

So don't be surprised when responses are not all in agreement with your views. And according to your view, why are you blaming me for attacking your opinion if I am not responsible for what I am doing?

Anyway, I will never agree with you that we have no choice in terms of what we are doing. We always have the choice to feel connected altogether as the whole body-mind in relationship to our circumstance - or to contract in our own independence and separative presumptions and feel disconnected from our current situation.

To love or not, that is the question. Do you not agree with this most essential and basic choice we have in each in every moment?

originally posted by: Manula
My theory is not about responsibility because people are not really responsible for the variables that make them do what they do (genes, culture, education, past traumas, poverty, lack of love etc etc etc, they are so many...).
We are not in control! We have an illusion of control but its ok, lets live that illusion.
I cant blame or point responsibility anymore, i prefer to understand, support, listen, love.
I am done with judgement and condemnation.

But you just judged me - that I am attacking your opinions - and you obviously think this is wrong. I am fine that you judged me, but I don't understand your denial of this.

I appreciate your intentions "to understand, support, listen, love" but these are not necessarily mutually exclusive of deciding (judging) that another's opinions have some errors associated with them. This is often an excellent way to learn, in my experience.

And besides, opinions are not what we are anyway, so why worry about them so much?

originally posted by: bb23108
Anyway, I will never agree with you that we have no choice in terms of what we are doing. We always have the choice to feel connected altogether as the whole body-mind in relationship to our circumstance - or to contract in our own independence and separative presumptions and feel disconnected from our current situation.

To love or not, that is the question. Do you not agree with this most essential and basic choice we have in each in every moment?

False dichotomy. It's a loaded question.

These are your pre-conceived notions at work.

ETA: Saying that those 2 choices are all there is, are you not saying that rape victim, during the attack, only has a choice to feel independent or feel that they are connected to the rapist?

You seem to be saying that it is better if they love their attacker.

You make it seem like Manula saying to accept the attack is so awful but, your philosophy goes even further than that.

a reply to: daskakik
Again, you show you have no clue as to what I am talking about. This may be because I am not communicating it well enough, and/or that you simply don't want to understand it because you are more intent on playing a Tar Baby-like "gotcha" game. In case you don't know what a tar baby is:

en.wikipedia.org...

You have brought basically nothing to this thread except this constant attempt to play gotcha with me. I feel no sincerity from you in terms of your questions as a real inquiry. I generally feel Manula's sincerity, but not yours - so I have only been responding to him now.

And given this lack of any kind of resonance with, or even understanding of, what I am saying about the being's intrinsic capacity to love - and your recent comment:

originally posted by: daskakik
You have spent the better part of this thread talking about "Reality" when what the OP is contemplating is above and beyond that.

You don't think there is anything above and beyond that? Great but then, what exactly are you adding to the conversation?

I really have no impulse to consider this with you any further. Since I am apparently not adding to the conversation according to you, what good could possibly come of further attempts with you?

You do not even want to understand what I am saying - nor do you understand what I am saying about love - and that's fine. If you had shown some real interest in this consideration, that would have been different, but you do not show anything but a cocky attitude toward me. So time to move on.

originally posted by: bb23108
Again, you show you have no clue as to what I am talking about. This may be because I am not communicating it well enough, or that you simply don't want to understand it because you are more intent on playing a Tar Baby-like "gotcha" game.

I'm discussing the topic in terms that others have yet to complain about.

I really have no impulse to consider this with you any further. Since I am apparently not adding to the conversation according to you, what good could possibly come of further attempts with you? You do not even want to understand what I am saying - nor do you understand what I am saying about love - and that's fine. If you had shown some real interest in this consideration, that would have been different, but you do not show anything but a cocky attitude toward me. So time to move on.

You saying that I don't understand is another cop out. Why can't I understand and still disagree?

Love? What if love is the cheese in this soul trap?

What does that do to your philosophy?

It wouldn't mean that what you have experienced and reasoned out over a long honest study is untrue but, it would mean that there is something above and beyond that.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb: The future present CAN be changed by present events (circular time).

Itisnowagain: The present is constantly appearing different, but there is no one that can change right now.
What is arising is arising without condition.

The universe is in charge; so there is no conditionality. There is not one being/entity that has appeared here momentarily as a profit to guide the human to success; only to keep it from exterminating itself prematurely (before the experiment ends).

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
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...

It is alright to pursue the self gratification unless you hurt others in the pursuit of it. I suppose you realize this. What most humans want is to know who their creator is and why it will not show itself (not accepting the "but I am all around you; just look").

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
It is alright to pursue the self gratification unless you hurt others in the pursuit of it. I suppose you realize this.

The whole point of the thread is to question this idea.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
It is alright to pursue the self gratification unless you hurt others in the pursuit of it. I suppose you realize this.

The whole point of the thread is to question this idea.

So you realize this.

a reply to: vethumanbeing
Realize would mean that that is the way it is.

I have yet to see anyone prove that that is the case.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Realize would mean that that is the way it is.I have yet to see anyone prove that that is the case.

Nothing is as it seems even to the individual that believes it is having a 'local' real time experience is no proof unless there was a witness to the event [something happened of significance]) that both could eventually agree upon was observed as the same observed occurrence (court of Law) a crime occurred? or justification of a God Being?