Is teaching humans to be good people evil?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

im getting this impression that you see us as windows residing in nothing. Peering out to space and beyond, and inside the window, there are other windows which are our senses.
Do you like the darkness? or prefer the light of day more?

There is no 'inside' or 'outside' to this.
This is what there is.
No preference.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


No inside or outside. This then is appropriate question im going to turn into sleep now, what should i do? Any thing i need to be aware of?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


You cannot do anything because you are not doing life. There is no you separate to the happening and the happening is amazing when you realize this because you don't have to do it right or be good.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Be aware that you are awareness and things are just appearances appearing and disappearing in that which you are.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

You cannot do anything because you are not doing life. There is no you separate to the happening and the happening is amazing when you realize this because you don't have to do it right or be good.

I understand completely what you mean. Everything is pure experience. Sleep is no difference.
This is valuable and useful for me.
This is the now and we are in it together. Possibly may even share a dream!
Night.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

Blindly accepting what's said to be good is not really accurate. Same for evil.

Give people the tools they need to figure things out on their own.

I'd prefer science since it needs verifiable evidence and not just gut feelings.

But even science can be wrong, or what's touted as science.

Hatred of evil can be just as evil. Fighting fire with fire is similar concept.

Basically, I want a child to have a good mind, first and foremost, to figure it without always needing the guidance of others. To not just read dogma as gospel. To USE their own mind. Of course, this inevitably means that this child will grow up to disagree on some things; maybe a lot. That's what happens when people become individuals. They have their own set of opinions. This is mostly why we have government: to get the people together and hammer out a common agreement.

It also requires time to think through things on your own. It's not as easy as reading a book or following instructions. Many people I think greatly exaggerate how easy it's to do this.

Individuals don't fit into religious or dogmatic paths very well. They're too free. They require lots of room to grow and will feel confined without it and unable to grow as individuals.

What is IS.
Splitting IS into two is insanity.
Is IS - it is not good or bad. It just is.

When the two become one the kingdom shall be revealed.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Pure experience is all there is. There is no you having a choice in the matter. There is no you that is separate from the experience. Experience is all.
The experience is the 'being' - the only entity.

Tony Parsons will help disolve the delusion in this video where he speaks about non conceptulization, non duality - this without separating this into imaginary bits.
Part one;
youtu.be...

Part two;
youtu.be...

reply to post by jonnywhite

It also requires time to think through things on your own. It's not as easy as reading a book or following instructions. Many people I think greatly exaggerate how easy it's to do this.

Trying to assimilate information which isnt static, or black and white and updating constantly is hard. I always try and approach complexity first with a degree of thought which is both simplistic and objective. Children have this skill but most cant use it very effectively because stereotype pressures reduce them to squabbling kids.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Pure experience is all there is. There is no you having a choice in the matter. There is no you that is separate from the experience. Experience is all.
The experience is the 'being' - the only entity

i am deliberately focusing on my boundary. The boundary i can see as my layer of physical and outside this layer is another layer but its not physical. Its a layer where my field of awareness interacts with the external flow of energy which i am exposed to, and is light, heat, sound. These three are the manifestation of the conceptulized reality. Then inside my physical boundary (skin) i become aware of my feelings inside my body. And it is an accumalation of sensations. Some are sensations of physical and i feel areas of higher energy, pressure points. Mabey these pressure points are the nodal points which are collectors and storers of energy and information, awareness and memory.
I notice its easy to fixate on pressure points, such as the shoulder blades calves and mid rift. Then there is an area in centre of my upper back between my shoulder blades where the brain and body awareness are sharing a common pool of awarness of eachother and exchanging information.

What is evil must surely be when conceptuliazting occurs at pressure points And results in overexciting or underexciting these points as the expense of destablizing the other nodal points and thus the harmony of the overall body.

The experience is the 'being' - the only entity. The entity can be self aware of its own construction as i described?

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by AthlonSavage


These questions are my very point of contention which is if you lose emotional objectively, which happens to all of us even in the best of times, the lines of clarity between assertivness and agressivness become less discernable. Im sure you will enjoy a passionate debate on a topic you feel strongly about. I mean dont we all in that regards, except there is a potential pitful. This is becoming addicted to control and power. It starts slow and grows, where inevitably drawn out by a passionate demeanour in such situation over time one person will become the master over the other.

I don't search emotional objectivity... I am not sure it is entirely possible while incarnated; or at least when using linear language.

Power plays are an integral part of our make up as humans incarnate (and social animals) but I don't find those overwhelming. They are a play, they are things we do, not who we are.
I do love debate! Yet the goal in debate, for me anyway, is for each one to have a opposition from which to bounce off of and construct our personal views and opinions. Resistance training for thought creation.
It is a sport.

In some contexts, we can discern a "winner" or a "loser" but that is not really important to the goal of self development. A really fulfilling debate for me is when each of us has been able to construct a well structured view or opinion and express it.

We each benefit in terms of our self awareness, and even observers benefit from this play- they get stimulated to ask themselves questions, to think and analyze, to perhaps even pick up new information that wouldn't have come out without that opposition provoking it.

I only take positions of power if I really percieve it is needed and nobody else wants it. If others want the job and seem to be up to it, I don't. I am always aware of responsibility that goes with that. I am usually in no hurry (no matter how strenuous the games) to take on the responsibility of carrying power for others.

I kinda suspect (won't claim to know, just guessing) that people who feel themselves get carried away in the plays for power might do that because they forget the responsibility that will be theirs if they get that power?
I don't know. But no, I don't find that irresistable.

I had to sleep on that one you had lots of ideas interwoven togther. Let me bounce some ideas off you. Im gonna play the Devils Advocate a bit here.

Resistance training for thought creation.

I interpret this is as as you enjoy debate as it keeps your faculties flexible and sharp, without which a person will not be able to conceptulize new ideas but only rehash old and established ones.

It is a sport

In some contexts, we can discern a "winner" or a "loser" but that is not really important to the goal of self development. A really fulfilling debate for me is when each of us has been able to construct a well structured view or opinion and express it.

You feel most comfortable in social interactions which are similar to team building events. Any forum which is the counter opposite you would categorize as a survival mode of life. You enjoy the comforts of modern life and its civilised institutions. You do not believe that outside this conceptulized construct of living that well structured views or opinion can exist or be expressed. You naturally will filter and ignore any information from this outside.

We each benefit in terms of our self awareness, and even observers benefit from this play- they get stimulated to ask themselves questions, to think and analyze, to perhaps even pick up new information that wouldn't have come out without that opposition provoking it.

Your a natural optomist who believes healthy open debate will lead to enlightened minds. You consider such forums of healthy debate will be filters of false, unuseful or harmful evil ideas.

I only take positions of power if I really percieve it is needed and nobody else wants it. If others want the job and seem to be up to it, I don't. I am always aware of responsibility that goes with that. I am usually in no hurry (no matter how strenuous the games) to take on the responsibility of carrying power for others.

You dont feel comfortable competing directly with people. You rationalize this out to yourself internally by saying If others want the job and seem to be up to it, I don't.
You dont like being burdened with responsibility. You see that as other peoples responsibility

reply to post by Bluesma


This flows from previous post so read that one above first.

I kinda suspect (won't claim to know, just guessing) that people who feel themselves get carried away in the plays for power might do that because they forget the responsibility that will be theirs if they get that power?
I don't know. But no, I don't find that irresistable.

You consider most people to be generally irresponsible with their position of power because they get carried away and forget their responsibilies. You admit to yourself you could yourself be circumvented with the vice of power, and its irresistable offers. I would surmise that subconsciously you realise you have a certain limit to be able to balance power with responsibility beyond which the tables become turned and power will control you physically and mentally. You therefore a way to reduce the risk of this ever happening you shun taking up postiions which could literally seduce you with power.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


ill listen to these

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Listened to Part 1. Hes a good speaker as i was able to understand everything he said. This is how i intepreted it:

The moment the other is conceptulized the me becomes into existance. The me sees the world of mees and interacts with them through a system where seeking of pleasure is the yardstick.
The me however being a artifical construct of the brain is burdened with a feeling that follows the self through life that something is missing. What is missing is the self has lost its true identity which is the whole.
Without understanding whats missing many selfs are bewildered and are drawn to religion as it offers a possible route to finding whats missing, or adequately tranquilizing the lost feeling.

Now and this is the funny part. Nothing was ever missing, the whole has been, is and always will be here right now. Its in the magic of every key stroke im writing.
An analogy i can think for the crazyiness of this scenarios is a dog chasing his own tale. He can never actually grab it. So what does religion do it sees the poor dog spinning around like a crazy fox and throws him a religous bone. lol

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I listened to part 2 Again i understood everything he said.

I liked that part when someone asks from the audience does mystery in life exist and he replies Yes. (lol like i thought that was kinda the obvious answer)
Then the audience member probes him again and....how does it feel? And he replies miserable. That made me Lmao.

A great follow up question from a audience member was something alomng line of "does the misery experienced is it greater in the whole or as the me" He answers that its greater in the whole as because at such a point of human awareness we perceive lifes mystery and energy directly.

This obviously raises a question are we being evil to ourselves living in the whole when we could live in the me. Yes the me is misery as well but he indicates its not as full on. Whats your sage take on this?

Also he said that awareness only exists in the human brain and that trees dont have conciousness awareness. That may of been in part 1. do you agree?

I interpret this is as as you enjoy debate as it keeps your faculties flexible and sharp, without which a person will not be able to conceptulize new ideas but only rehash old and established ones.

Yes. Also that in a debate, your opponent will point out the holes or weakness in your logic that you didn't see before, or stir you to elaborate or go further with it than you would all alone.

You feel most comfortable in social interactions which are similar to team building events.

Correct. But in which each person keeps their own differening point of view. Together, we reinforce, construct and support each others individuality.

Any forum which is the counter opposite you would categorize as a survival mode of life. You enjoy the comforts of modern life and its civilised institutions. You do not believe that outside this conceptulized construct of living that well structured views or opinion can exist or be expressed. You naturally will filter and ignore any information from this outside.

Trying to discern what you mean by "counter opposite" I guess you mean forums which are not polite assertion, but rather hostile aggresivity, based on competition?
I consider those arenas for the experience and enjoyment of emotions and social games, which is different from construct of individual self awareness exercise.

I am capable of taking part in that and sometimes do, but I admit that my personal preference is for the other kind of exchange. (Note I said it is my personal preference, not that it is inferior in any general way!)

Your a natural optomist who believes healthy open debate will lead to enlightened minds.

I believe it can, yes, if that is the intention of the particpants.

You consider such forums of healthy debate will be filters of false, unuseful or harmful evil ideas.

LOL! Oh no, no, no!! I don't believe in evil, remember??

I think such forums are a less dangerous way of practicing social interactions and power plays! I think that they are less about the ideas being debated then the positions of hierarchy of the players.
And I think that is a neat part of the social world, but also sort of see it as the masculine side. Males have more reason this instinct has developed for that than females.
Though I like to watch it sometimes! -Unless it gets too mindless, I admit! Like a violent gang fight on the street with weapons is less enjoyable than a rugby match, or hockey game... where there is violent clashes, but a measure of structure all the same.

You dont feel comfortable competing directly with people. You rationalize this out to yourself internally by saying If others want the job and seem to be up to it, I don't.
You dont like being burdened with responsibility. You see that as other peoples responsibility

No. I feel fine competing with people whose motves are the same as mine- self development. Because those people do not take it personally if they lose and feel hurt. They see it as a useful experience they shall grow from.
See, the ones that are emotionally invested in the game feel hurt if they lose, then I feel their pain too, even if I won. I don't enjoy feeling pain (be it emotional or physical) so I don't enjoy that as much.

I take responsibility very seriously. I personally get very frustrated with those who offer to take a position of power and they do not fulfil their responsibilities.
So when I take that position, I do so only if I am fully commited to being an effective and response-able leader. I am aware that I have limits to my abilities and energy to do so in too many contexts at a time, so I limit how many commitments I make.

Just like a man CAN impregnate many women at a time, I find it more responsible to limit how many he does to how many children he can support and protect. This is true in the mental world too.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


The question was 'does misery exist?' and the answer is yes - there is misery and it feels miserable! Misery arises for nobody. Misery is just life happening.

Trees are not 'self' conscious. Only humans are 'self' conscious. The human has separated itself out of the whole, whereas a tree does not do this.

reply to post by Bluesma


What happens if you come across a person who you see as completely unsuitable for a position. Lets just describe them from your vantange point as being Evil. If you saw them going for a position or role that you knew you had a fair chance of winning yourself, would you enter the race and compete for the role?

You realise they wil get role if you dont enter race and compete with them. What would you do, enter the race ..or turn and look the other way?

Just like a man CAN impregnate many women at a time, I find it more responsible to limit how many he does to how many children he can support and protect. This is true in the mental world too.

Do you think forums such as this is impregnating people with too many mental ideas? And if a person is injecting ideas then how practically could they perform the protector role?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Trees are not 'self' conscious. Only humans are 'self' conscious. The human has separated itself out of the whole, whereas a tree does not do this.

Think about this for a moment. When we die we go back to the whole. Does that imply when we die we lose awareness of self. I mean literally our consciouness has no more awaress of itself as a me, or as a separate object with a boundary. If there is no boundary then there is no layer for life forces to exert pressure on. There being no pressure then what is the experience that is being experienced in death?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


"This obviously raises a question are we being evil to ourselves living in the whole when we could live in the me. Yes the me is misery as well but he indicates its not as full on. Whats your sage take on this?"

Thinking that you can be evil to yourself is dualistic. How many of you are there? The confusion lies in the wording. It is not 'evil' it is just a mistaken identity. Mistaking yourself to be a person in time when really there is only timeless being.
This is timeless being - the only entity. It is doing everything. There is no separate anything that can do anything. It is done.