It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

I have pointed it out throughout the thread.

It's been messy please present it clearly and I can speak regarding that.

Doesn't matter.
The point is that despite it, your argument fails.

That seeing through the illusion reduces suffering? If it fails then please tell me how, no excuses this time. Just tell me why I'm wrong.

Red herring.

To the way the topic is formed in your head, that's red herring for you. For me, those two words are red herring for me. Vice-versia. We're just not on the same page that's why.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It's been messy please present it clearly and I can speak regarding that.

There is no need for you to speak in regards to that.

That seeing through the illusionreduces suffering? If it fails then please tell me how, no excuses this time. Just tell me why I'm wrong.

Red herring.

To the way the topic is formed in your head, that's red herring for you. For me, those two words are red herring for me. Vice-versia. We're just not on the same page that's why.

Red herring.

a reply to: daskakik

There is no need for you to speak in regards to that.

Red herring.

Red herring.

Red herring.

Is this how the game is played? 4-3 for me.

Or maybe your talking about red herring, as in the fish, then that would be different.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Is this how the game is played? 4-3 for me.

If you can apply it correctly.

You asked me to explain so you can speak about it. I said you don't need to speak about it. (The latter relates to the former therefore, not a red herring)

Where I have called red herring the reply is irrelevant to the part of the post being replied to.

a reply to: daskakik

Ok, I can discuss my points again as clear as I can but can please answer the post where you replied red herring to twice. Maybe you have, but as far as I'm concerned it has been vague and you'll need to repeat yourself hopefully a little differently this time.

a reply to: Andy1144

We have gone over and over the same thing a bunch of times, from different angles.

You failed when you tried to do it logically and step by step so you ended up falling back into the new agey sounding shtick.

That seeing through the illusionreduces suffering? If it fails then please tell me how, no excuses this time. Just tell me why I'm wrong.

Original post said that I agreed on some stuff but that I was being impartial. Where you fail has nothing to do with what I may or may not agree with so, red herring.

To the way the topic is formed in your head, that's red herring for you. For me, those two words are red herring for me. Vice-versia. We're just not on the same page that's why.

Original post was you saying that an atheist con not prove it to a christian that they are wrong.

My reply was that the burden of proof was on the christian.

You replied that nothing has to be proven. Then what was the point of the original post?

a reply to: daskakik

Because nothing needs to be proven on some level. DE is not a belief and thus cannot be proven through beliefs. However words can serve as pointers to DE.

Now we have to go a few steps back.

1. Do you agree that the self is an illusion. The feeling that we are an observer in addition to observing, or to experiencing, thinking ect. That feeling that we choose and control thoughts. Start here, and I'll make more points as we go through this.

EDIT: I am saying it is obvious the self and control is an illusion. No free will is a fact because everything is cause and effect. No control free from this.

originally posted by: Andy1144
1. Do you agree that the self is an illusion. The feeling that we are an observer in addition to observing, or to experiencing, thinking ect. That feeling that we choose and control thoughts. Start here, and I'll make more points as we go through this.

It doesn't matter because I am playing the impartial party that is applying logic despite what I may or may not believe.

a reply to: daskakik

It doesn't matter because I am playing the impartial party that is applying logic despite what I may or may not believe.

Well by believe, I mean believe from your level of logic, I am not talking about opinions, but supported evidence.
So in this sense applying logic to what I am saying is your belief with your logic.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Well by believe, I mean believe from your level of logic, I am not talking about opinions, but supported evidence.
So in this sense applying logic to what I am saying is your belief with your logic.

I am trying to point out that I am not applying my logic.

Supported evidence is what I am asking of you.

Whatever I believe has nothing to do with your lack of supported evidence.

a reply to: daskakik

I am trying to point out that I am not applying my logic.

What you understand and take from my supporting evidence will be based on your logic.

Whatever I believe has nothing to do with your lack of supported evidence.

It does on some level, because maybe I do have enough supported evidence but you can't discern it well enough with your logic. So it has everything to do with your logic.

The self is an illusion. Non acceptance is a thought arising from identification. To get rid of non acceptance you need to see through the self which is a thought/assumption/identification about thoughts, not actual reality.

This moment is already accepted fully as it is, but thoughts can create the illusion it could be different. The illusion can be seen through DE and self inquiry, by seeing through the illusion of self clearly.

originally posted by: Andy1144
What you understand and take from my supporting evidence will be based on your logic.

So only someone who is "awake" will accept your claims as evidence? Seems to defeat the purpose.

As for me, I will apply basic scientific logic and if you can't supply evidence by that standard then most people won't accept it.

a reply to: daskakik

So only someone who is awake will accept your claims? Seems to defeat the purpose.
As for me, I will apply basic scientific logic and if you can't supply evidence by that standard then most people won't accept it.

You don't need to be awake. This can be understood rationally. I have made my points using honest logic.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You don't need to be awake. This can be understood rationally.

Someone understanding something doesn't make it evidence, proof or true.

a reply to: daskakik

Someone understanding something doesn't make it evidence, proof or true.

Rationality implies some sort of proof, evidence and truth. My point was that there is no blind faith involved, it is completely verifiable both logically and through experience.

a reply to: Andy1144

Calling it rational doesn't make it so.

It is not verifiable logically.

Experience is subjective so, it is not proof of anything, you even said so earlier in the thread.

a reply to: daskakik

It is not verifiable logically.

Please give me an example of what isn't and I will explain it logically.

Experience is subjective so, it is not proof of anything, you even said so earlier in the thread.

Of course it is all subjective, it is proof about our subjective experience.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Please give me an example of what isn't and I will explain it logically.

You say that you have been doing this all along, why would repeating yourself be any different?

You cannot explain logically by scientific standard. That is the point.

Of course it is all subjective, it is proof about our subjective experience.

Which does not constitute proof that you can show someone else so, it is not proof to anyone but you.

Since you are communicating with others, what you are communicating is not proof to those who you are communicating with.

a reply to: daskakik

You cannot explain logically by scientific standard. That is the point.

Yes it can. Again please tell me what point and I will discuss it to the best of my ability using a completely scientific approach.

Which does not constitute proof that you can show someone else so, it is not proof to anyone but you.

But you see, we are all "you's" in this sense. DE isn't a belief and is available to all of us inclusively.

If all non acceptance to this moment arises from a thought, then this is something that is completely relatable to every human being. If suddenly everyone stopped having the illusion that things could have been different and that this moment is as it is, then no one would feel non acceptance anymore. They would feel unconditional acceptance.

Non acceptance arises from a thought that things could be different, that this moment is wrong or bad to "me". But using DE we can all see through the illusion. It's true for everyone. Becuase it is true for everyone that if they think this moment could be different (non acceptance) then DE which is available to anyone will work for everyone.

DE shows that there is no control and that this moment could not have been any different then it is now. It's about ultimately seeing through the illusion that a self exists who could have done otherwise. It's just not true however.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Yes it can. Again please tell me what point and I will discuss it to the best of my ability using a completely scientific approach.

Didn't you try that a few pages back?

If you really want to try, all points.

But you see, we are all "you's" in this sense. DE isn't a belief and is available to all of us inclusively.

So you say you will try in the first part and then start making excuses in the second.