In the Light of Truth (Abdrushin)

[inavalan]

It is an interesting exercise to intuitively interpret the Commandments' symbolism from the perspective of one's understanding of what and how we're here to do.

I guess that there are people who'd be better off interpreting them ad litteram than ignoring them completely, although I can see that being detrimental for others.

[laughter]

Dec 29, 2022 22:51:50 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The 10 Commandments

The Eigth Commandment

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!



1) The texts:

(VULGATE)
Non loqueris contra proximum tuum falsum testimonium.
(Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor)

(GNV)
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

(ERV)
You must not tell lies about other people.

2) Popular Interpretations:

BfD)
"You shall not bear false witness."
This commandment, though more generally referring to lying in any situation, more specifically refers to accusing a person falsely in a legal context. In biblical times, as today, lying while “on the stand” was a major problem. To combat false testimony, ancient Israel had this commandment (plus a requirement of two witnesses) to convict a person. Nevertheless, people are wrongly prosecuted and even killed at times in the Bible as a result of dishonest testimony.

(CfD)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The Eighth Commandment condemns lying. Because God is regarded as the author of all truth, the Church believes that humans are obligated to honor the truth. The most obvious way to fulfill this commandment is not to lie — intentionally deceive another by speaking a falsehood. So a good Catholic is who you want to buy a used car from.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

Should you assault your neighbor, beat him, wound him and perhaps also rob him, you know that you will be punished by mundane law for doing him injury, but you do not know that you have involved yourself in a whole network of reciprocal activity, the influences of which penetrate into the finest fibers of the soul. You do not heed these effects, for they even elude your intuitive perception.

Still the law of returns is absolutely unbiased and it meets out perfect justice. It has no relation to mundane punishment — it operates quite independently. There is no escape, no place where the human spirit could hide and be protected from it.

When you hear of a brutal assault and of violence done, you are indignant, if the sufferers happen to be related to you, you are shocked and horrified. But it does not disturb your equanimity if now and then, when you are present, an absent one is put in a bad light by a suggestive speech or may be, by a very significant gesture which implies more than can be said in words.

But listen and learn: The harm done by physical assault is more easily redressed than injury done to the soul, for the latter suffers in the loss of its good name.

Therefore, avoid all reputed tale-bearers with their venomous tongues as you would common murderers! They are just as bad and sometimes more dangerous.

[...]

Treat these as you would poisonous vermin, for they deserve no better.

They neither recognize nor do they pursue the noble object, the high goal of mankind which is to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

And, therefore, as the common aim is missing, when two or three people come together, they have nothing to say to one another, so they discuss each other. A habit they have cultivated and which has become pleasant to them, and as they continually practice it, they do not see how despicable it is, they have lost all sense of its baseness.

So, like, fake news?? .. Butt, sea, secular humanists don't recognize no sins.

[laughter]

Dec 27, 2022 22:38:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The 10 Commandments

The Fifth Commandment


Thou shalt not kill!



1) The texts:

(VUL)
Non occides.
(Thou shalt not kill.)

(GNV)
Thou shalt not kill.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not kill.

ERV)
You must not murder anyone.

2) Popular Interpretations:

(BfD)
"You shall not murder."
The sixth commandment is often misunderstood to prohibit killing of any kind. However, the Israelites had several crimes that were punishable by death, and they were allowed to kill during times of war. This commandment prohibits murder — that is, the intentional killing of another person without cause.

(CfD)
“Thou shalt not kill.”
The better translation from the Hebrew would be “Thou shalt not murder” — a subtle distinction but an important one to the Church. Killing an innocent person is considered murder. Killing an unjust aggressor to preserve your own life is still killing, but it isn’t considered murder or immoral.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

You will beat your breast, o man, and congratulate yourself on being no murderer, for does not to kill mean to murder?

[...]

Have you, however, never thought that it also lies in your power to deprive of life? That means the same as to kill. You have introduced, by your manner of expression, by your language, a difference of meaning that does not exist, for it does not say: Thou shalt not kill physical earth-life. The words are few but all-embracing: “Thou shalt not kill!”

Let us examine a case in point. A father, prompted by worldly ambition, wishes his son to be a scholar, and insists on his studying, cost what it may.

But the son is gifted with some special talent which urges him to do other work, for which these compulsory studies are of no value whatever. Naturally he has no interest in their pursuit, nor can he summon the joyful energy requisite for the task. But the father exacts and the son obeys. To please his father, he works to the prejudice of his health. It is quite natural that he suffers physically by thus thwarting his inclinations and neglecting the gifts that have been given to him.

[...]

In such a case the father has gravely trespassed against the Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” Besides which, he has perhaps withheld from mankind something that might have been of the greatest use to them, something the boy should have done.

The father should have considered that, although his son may have a spiritual relationship to him or to his mother, before the Creator he is a separate individual whose duty it is to develop such talents as he received on coming into the world, for his own benefit. Perhaps he was destined to make an important discovery of special value for men, by which heavy Karma that he had incurred, was by God's mercy to be remitted. The trespass against God's intention will here lie heavily at the door of the parents who accounted their paltry mundane concerns of higher importance than the great decrees of fate, thus they abused of their parental authority and power.

It is the same thing when parents allow trivial and insignificant suggestions of expediency to be of paramount importance in their calculations regarding the marriage of their children. How often in such a case, the noblest, purest impulse of their child is checked without any consideration for its feelings, whereby its material welfare may be assured but to the hurt of its soul's happiness which is of greater and more decisive moment for the child than all earthly treasures.

Of course parents should not indulge every dream, wish or whim of their child. That would be contrary to their parental duty. But searching examination utterly unbiased by mundane considerations must be made before they give way to their child.

[...]

On the other hand, a child can also sorely disappoint and kill justified hopes in its parents. If, when the latter have come forward to make the way clear that the child has chosen, it neglects to develop its gifts to attain great things, the unresponsive child would here be destroying generous and noble sentiments in its parents and thus trespassing against this commandment.

Again, when a man disappoints real friendship and abuses confidence placed in him, he kills something in that other that was a living reality and in so doing trespasses against God's Word: “Thou shalt not kill!” Fate will require atonement from him later on.

You see that all God's commandments are man's best friends, faithfully protecting him from evil and from tribulation. Love them, therefore, and cherish them as treasures that it is a pleasure for you to guard!

Interesting interpretation. But where do you draw the line? That's going to be a challenge.

A's interpretations of the other commandments so far ring somewhat true, but this one just doesn't. He falsely assumes assertion, i.e. that others can create in our reality, not to mention separation. 

This likely belongs in another thread, but it might be interesting to some of us if you explained how this idea that "other's can't create in our reality" doesn't, in turn, imply existential separation. I think I understand and can predict what you might say, but would rather not put words in your mouth. At the same time, I can understand how gopal and others might equate the notion as similar to gopal's idea that he cannot know if other perceivers are real.

On one hand, this idea (the "limits of co-creation", perhaps?) has a very natural translation as to how it can be quite confounding that people will sometimes continue to argue against mountains of "counter-factual evidence". On the other hand, it seems to me that "you can't create in another's reality", would, at the very least, be a statement made in the personal context.

[laughter]

Dec 30, 2022 3:53:22 GMT -5 inavalan said:

It is an interesting exercise to intuitively interpret the Commandments' symbolism from the perspective of one's understanding of what and how we're here to do.

I guess that there are people who'd be better off interpreting them ad litteram than ignoring them completely, although I can see that being detrimental for others.

[inavalan]

Dec 30, 2022 16:15:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

Dec 27, 2022 22:38:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The 10 Commandments

The Fifth Commandment


Thou shalt not kill!

...

This likely belongs in another thread, but it might be interesting to some of us if you explained how this idea that "other's can't create in our reality" doesn't, in turn, imply existential separation. I think I understand and can predict what you might say, but would rather not put words in your mouth. At the same time, I can understand how gopal and others might equate the notion as similar to gopal's idea that he cannot know if other perceivers are real.

On one hand, this idea (the "limits of co-creation", perhaps?) has a very natural translation as to how it can be quite confounding that people will sometimes continue to argue against mountains of "counter-factual evidence". On the other hand, it seems to me that "you can't create in another's reality", would, at the very least, be a statement made in the personal context.

Your ego's "reality" is whatever it perceives through its physical senses (there are more evolved egos that can consciously perceive more). Your ego doesn't perceive "what there is". Your ego is in a bubble. This is the same for everybody's ego. Your ego's reality is created by your subconscious based on connections with all the other units and gestalts of consciousness, not based on the observation of something that exists objectively.

When gopal perceives something, that it is "real" only for his ego, and it is based on those connections (it is the same during daydreaming, sleep-dreaming, ...) The phrase "he cannot know if other perceivers are real" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of reality (as I understand it).

"Co-creation" doesn't mean that whatever-we create something together, then that's what we-as-egos perceive. There is no agreement, give-and-take, or such. There is no objective creation. The "creator" is your subconscious, based on its connections through your whole-self's inner-senses.

"You shall not kill", like all those Commandments, is to be interpreted deeper. You actually cannot kill anybody who haven't accepted it, for their own reasons, at the whole-self level.

You shouldn't feel those negative emotions (hate, anger, fear, ...) that result in your (apparent) killing of somebody, or something, because experiencing such emotions will bring into your (ego's) reality more and more situations (created by your subconscious) that will cause you to experience more in-kind emotions (hate, anger, fear, ...), manifested in various ways. They always will eventually avalanche into an abject fear of survival (yours or others' that matter to you). In a dream you wake up from a nightmare. From the awake state eventually too.

[Reefs]

The 10 Commandments

The Ninth Commandment


Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife to lust after her!



1) The texts:

(VUL)
Non concupisces domum proximi tui nec desiderabis uxorem eius non servum non ancillam non bovem non asinum nec omnia quae illius sunt.
(Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his)

(GNV)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, neither anything that is thy neighbor’s.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

(ERV)
You must not want to take your neighbor’s house. You must not want his wife. And you must not want his men and women servants or his cattle or his donkeys. You must not want to take anything that belongs to another person.

2) Popular Interpretations:

(BfD)
"You shall not covet."
Unlike the previous nine, violations against the tenth commandment are unverifiable (except to God). Although unverifiable, this commandment is an important part of the Ten, because it seeks to address the impetus or motive contributing to the violation of the other commandments.

(CfD)
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife."
The Ninth Commandment forbids the intentional desire and longing for immoral sexuality. To sin in the heart, Jesus says, is to lust after a woman or a man in your heart with the desire and will to have immoral sex with them. Just as human life is a gift from God and needs to be respected, defended, and protected, so, too, is human sexuality. Catholicism regards human sexuality as a divine gift, so it’s considered sacred in the proper context: marriage.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

This commandment concerns and refers to man's carnal animal instinct which unfortunately he only too often succumbs to when opportunity offers. It is against this that the commandment expresses itself in the most precise and explicit terms.

Here we touch upon the salient point! Opportunity is the pitfall which ensnares and causes most men to fall who come into contact with it.

[...]

For this reason the best defense and surest protection for members of both sexes is to avoid all opportunity of being alone together.

That is the only safe-guard during the present degenerate times and will be till a future generation will have developed to a higher moral standard. It will then be a matter of course that the seat of their thoughts be sane and pure which unfortunately is not to be expected today. Then trespass against this law will be impossible.

[...]

This stern command applies to the sins of seduction and rape as well as to the defiling of another with unspoken thoughts of a lustful nature. These alone are trespass against the commandment. Thoughts originate the desire, the desire develops and furthers the base act.

Just punishment will surely overtake the trespasser, Karma must inevitably be satisfied before his soul can be released.

[...]

Be on your guard, therefore! Beware of and carefully avoid opportunity; do not be reckless!

The first requisite is to keep the seat of your thoughts pure!

Then you will never trespass against this commandment.

Neither will it serve a man as excuse, if he persuades himself that marriage was anticipated. This would be the acme of falsehood!

Marriage where devotion of the one for the other is wanting, is no marriage in the sight of God. True devotion is the best protection against disobeying the commandment, as a true lover only desires the best for his beloved one and would, therefore, be incapable of expressing impure desires or demands which is what the commandment forbids.

[Reefs]

The 10 Commandments

The Tenth Commandment


Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his farm, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his!



1) The texts:

(VUL)
Non concupisces domum proximi tui nec desiderabis uxorem eius non servum non ancillam non bovem non asinum nec omnia quae illius sunt.
(Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his)

(GNV)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, neither anything that is thy neighbor’s.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

(ERV)
You must not want to take your neighbor’s house. You must not want his wife. And you must not want his men and women servants or his cattle or his donkeys. You must not want to take anything that belongs to another person.

2) Popular Interpretations:

(BfD)
"You shall not covet."
Unlike the previous nine, violations against the tenth commandment are unverifiable (except to God). Although unverifiable, this commandment is an important part of the Ten, because it seeks to address the impetus or motive contributing to the violation of the other commandments.

(CfD)
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods."
The Tenth Commandment forbids the wanting or taking of someone else’s property. Along with the Seventh Commandment, this commandment condemns theft and the feelings of envy, greed, and jealousy in reaction to what other people have.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

No matter to which race a man belongs, the white, the yellow, the brown, the black or the red, they all share in this universal and inordinate longing to possess something they have not got, to possess something belonging to another. To put it in still plainer words, they envy everything that the other has.

Covetousness lies at the bottom of this envy, and covetousness is what this commandment forbids.

In as much as one person envies another he breaks this commandment.

This trespass is the root of much evil. It soon causes a man's downfall and it will not often be easy for him to rise again.

It is curious that the average man seldom appreciates what is his own but attaches more value to what he does not yet possess!

The Dark Powers assiduously strew out the seed of covetousness and man only too willingly prepares fruitful soil for this baneful crop. Thus it is that coveting what others possess, has become the fundamental basis as well as the motive of the activity of the greater part of mankind. At first it is a simple wish to possess something. Cunning and persuasion develop it into envy which is the special characteristic of the permanently discontented, finally it culminates in blind hatred.

Any and every means of satisfying the craving of the covetous is regarded as fair, as long as it does not too obviously offend against mundane laws.

In proportion to the growth of man's mania to acquire will he put aside God's commandment and forget it.

[...]

Envy is inherent in the individual as well as in nations, it guides the activity of political bodies and breeds wars, it conduces to party-spirit and is at the bottom of unending dissension, even in the case where only two are conferring.

One would fain call out to all reigning potentates: “In what country and among what people is the tenth commandment obeyed?”

Every one of them is inspired by covetousness and every one of them impudently and heartlessly strives to acquire what belongs to another. Their ambition is to attain to greatness and power and in pursuit of their aim, they shrink neither from single murder nor from general massacre, nor from enslaving whole nations.

Their fine speeches of self-protection and self-defense are but cowardly evasions, for they themselves feel that something must be said to excuse their monstrous crimes against God's commandment.

[...]

Tear out and cast from you this ignoble and sordid feeling of covetousness! Consider that, after all, a community only consists of single individuals. Eschew, therefore, all feeling of envy and do not hate men who, in your opinion possess much more than you do. If it is so, there will be some good reason for it, and you have only yourselves to blame if you cannot perceive the reason. It was not God's Will that you should have restricted your power of conception thus inordinately! It is thanks to your unfortunate and fatal devotion to your intellect that it is compressed into such extremely narrow limits.

[Reefs]

Dec 30, 2022 3:53:22 GMT -5 inavalan said:

It is an interesting exercise to intuitively interpret the Commandments' symbolism from the perspective of one's understanding of what and how we're here to do.

I guess that there are people who'd be better off interpreting them ad litteram than ignoring them completely, although I can see that being detrimental for others.

I have mixed feelings about A's interpretations. On the one hand, he makes some interesting points, especially about the 5th commandment. But there are also strong beliefs of unworthiness and lack mixed in which give a rather distorted perspective. So there's quite a number of bogus beliefs to be found there which he propagates as truth.

Here's a list of the 22 most common flawed premises among humans, presented in one of the A-H books:

Flawed Premises

1. I am either physical or Non-Physical, either dead or alive.

2. My parents, because they were here long before I was born, and because they are my parents, know better than I do what is right or wrong for me.

3. If I push hard enough against unwanted things, they will go away.

4. I have come here to live the right way of life and to influence others to the same right way of living… .

5. Because I am older than you, I am wiser than you; and therefore you should allow me to guide you.

6. Who I am began the day I was born into my physical body… .

7. With enough effort, or hard work, I can accomplish anything.

8. To be in harmony with another, we have to want and believe the same things.

9. The path to my joy is through my action… .

10. I cannot have everything that I desire, so I have to give up some things that are important to me in order to get others.

11. If I leave an unwanted situation, I will find what I am looking for.

12. There is a finite container of resources that we are all dipping into with our requests… .

13. There are right ways and wrong ways to live… .

14. There is a God Who, having considered all things, has come to a final and correct conclusion about everything.

15. You cannot know, while you are still in your physical body, the true reward or punishment for your physical actions… .

16. By gathering data about the manifestations or results of the way the people of the earth have lived and are living, we can effectively sort them into absolute piles of right and wrong… .

17. Only very special people, like the founder of our group, can receive the right message from God… .

18. By ferreting out the undesirable elements in our society, we can eliminate them… .

19. A good relationship is one in which the dominant intention of each person involved is to find agreement and harmony with the other.

20. When I focus upon things of a physical nature, I am less Spiritual.

21. It is my job as a parent to have all the answers so that I can teach those answers to my children.

22. I can criticize successful people and still achieve my own success.

So, comparing that list with A's interpretation of the 10 commandments, we can check quite a lot of boxes. 

[Reefs]

Dec 30, 2022 16:06:53 GMT -5 laughter said:

Dec 29, 2022 22:51:50 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The 10 Commandments

The Eighth Commandment

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!



1) The texts:

2) Popular Interpretations:

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

So, like, fake news?? .. Butt, sea, secular humanists don't recognize no sins.

Yeah. And in mundane terms people seem to regularly get away with it, it goes 'unpunished'. A makes a big deal about karma and how people will be held accountable in the afterlife for their deeds. But unlike A believes, the 'punishment' doesn't come when you meet your creator, it comes right away in the form of negative emotion, tension in the body, misalignment and miscreating as a result of that misalignment (aka 'instant karma')...

[Reefs]

Dec 30, 2022 16:15:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

Dec 27, 2022 22:38:25 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The 10 Commandments

The Fifth Commandment


Thou shalt not kill!



1) The texts:


2) Popular Interpretations:


3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:


Interesting interpretation. But where do you draw the line? That's going to be a challenge.

A's interpretations of the other commandments so far ring somewhat true, but this one just doesn't. He falsely assumes assertion, i.e. that others can create in our reality, not to mention separation. 

This likely belongs in another thread, but it might be interesting to some of us if you explained how this idea that "other's can't create in our reality" doesn't, in turn, imply existential separation. I think I understand and can predict what you might say, but would rather not put words in your mouth. At the same time, I can understand how gopal and others might equate the notion as similar to gopal's idea that he cannot know if other perceivers are real.

On one hand, this idea (the "limits of co-creation", perhaps?) has a very natural translation as to how it can be quite confounding that people will sometimes continue to argue against mountains of "counter-factual evidence". On the other hand, it seems to me that "you can't create in another's reality", would, at the very least, be a statement made in the personal context.

This will only make sense from the 'seeing thru the eyes of Source' perspective. And it only implies separation if you think of individuals as 'individual clumps' instead of 'a stream of consciousness' or 'consciousness streaming'. Individual doesn't equal personal. That distinction is very important.

[laughter]

Dec 30, 2022 18:41:51 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Dec 30, 2022 16:15:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

This likely belongs in another thread, but it might be interesting to some of us if you explained how this idea that "other's can't create in our reality" doesn't, in turn, imply existential separation. I think I understand and can predict what you might say, but would rather not put words in your mouth. At the same time, I can understand how gopal and others might equate the notion as similar to gopal's idea that he cannot know if other perceivers are real.

On one hand, this idea (the "limits of co-creation", perhaps?) has a very natural translation as to how it can be quite confounding that people will sometimes continue to argue against mountains of "counter-factual evidence". On the other hand, it seems to me that "you can't create in another's reality", would, at the very least, be a statement made in the personal context.

Your ego's "reality" is whatever it perceives through its physical senses (there are more evolved egos that can consciously perceive more). Your ego doesn't perceive "what there is". Your ego is in a bubble. This is the same for everybody's ego. Your ego's reality is created by your subconscious based on connections with all the other units and gestalts of consciousness, not based on the observation of something that exists objectively.

When gopal perceives something, that it is "real" only for his ego, and it is based on those connections (it is the same during daydreaming, sleep-dreaming, ...) The phrase "he cannot know if other perceivers are real" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of reality (as I understand it).

"Co-creation" doesn't mean that whatever-we create something together, then that's what we-as-egos perceive. There is no agreement, give-and-take, or such. There is no objective creation. The "creator" is your subconscious, based on its connections through your whole-self's inner-senses.

"You shall not kill", like all those Commandments, is to be interpreted deeper. You actually cannot kill anybody who haven't accepted it, for their own reasons, at the whole-self level.

You shouldn't feel those negative emotions (hate, anger, fear, ...) that result in your (apparent) killing of somebody, or something, because experiencing such emotions will bring into your (ego's) reality more and more situations (created by your subconscious) that will cause you to experience more in-kind emotions (hate, anger, fear, ...), manifested in various ways. They always will eventually avalanche into an abject fear of survival (yours or others' that matter to you). In a dream you wake up from a nightmare. From the awake state eventually too.

Just as there is no objective reality, neither is there subjective reality.

[laughter]

Dec 31, 2022 0:28:18 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Dec 30, 2022 16:15:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

This likely belongs in another thread, but it might be interesting to some of us if you explained how this idea that "other's can't create in our reality" doesn't, in turn, imply existential separation. I think I understand and can predict what you might say, but would rather not put words in your mouth. At the same time, I can understand how gopal and others might equate the notion as similar to gopal's idea that he cannot know if other perceivers are real.

On one hand, this idea (the "limits of co-creation", perhaps?) has a very natural translation as to how it can be quite confounding that people will sometimes continue to argue against mountains of "counter-factual evidence". On the other hand, it seems to me that "you can't create in another's reality", would, at the very least, be a statement made in the personal context.

This will only make sense from the 'seeing thru the eyes of Source' perspective. And it only implies separation if you think of individuals as 'individual clumps' instead of 'a stream of consciousness' or 'consciousness streaming'. Individual doesn't equal personal. That distinction is very important.

That's what I was referring to. People really have to turn off the thinker for any of that to rezz at all. Not just that, they have to get present .. to sensation, emotion, and the boundlessness those appear into.

[inavalan]

Jan 1, 2023 16:51:53 GMT -5 laughter said:

Dec 30, 2022 18:41:51 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Your ego's "reality" is whatever it perceives through its physical senses (there are more evolved egos that can consciously perceive more). Your ego doesn't perceive "what there is". Your ego is in a bubble. This is the same for everybody's ego. Your ego's reality is created by your subconscious based on connections with all the other units and gestalts of consciousness, not based on the observation of something that exists objectively.

When gopal perceives something, that it is "real" only for his ego, and it is based on those connections (it is the same during daydreaming, sleep-dreaming, ...) The phrase "he cannot know if other perceivers are real" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of reality (as I understand it).

"Co-creation" doesn't mean that whatever-we create something together, then that's what we-as-egos perceive. There is no agreement, give-and-take, or such. There is no objective creation. The "creator" is your subconscious, based on its connections through your whole-self's inner-senses.

"You shall not kill", like all those Commandments, is to be interpreted deeper. You actually cannot kill anybody who haven't accepted it, for their own reasons, at the whole-self level.

You shouldn't feel those negative emotions (hate, anger, fear, ...) that result in your (apparent) killing of somebody, or something, because experiencing such emotions will bring into your (ego's) reality more and more situations (created by your subconscious) that will cause you to experience more in-kind emotions (hate, anger, fear, ...), manifested in various ways. They always will eventually avalanche into an abject fear of survival (yours or others' that matter to you). In a dream you wake up from a nightmare. From the awake state eventually too.

Just as there is no objective reality, neither is there subjective reality.

Now, you're just ping-ponging ... And strawmaning ...

There is no objective physical-reality. There are an infinite number of subjective physical-realities that were, are, and will be, not in terms of physical-time.

Suspend for a moment your beliefs, then ask your inner-guidance, and don't rationalize what you get.

[laughter]

Jan 1, 2023 21:27:38 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Jan 1, 2023 16:51:53 GMT -5 laughter said:

Just as there is no objective reality, neither is there subjective reality.

Now, you're just ping-ponging ... And strawmaning ...

There is no objective physical-reality. There are an infinite number of subjective physical-realities that were, are, and will be, not in terms of physical-time.

Suspend for a moment your beliefs, then ask your inner-guidance, and don't rationalize what you get.

Explain to me exactly how it was a straw man?

The absence of a belief is not a belief.

[inavalan]

Jan 1, 2023 21:52:51 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jan 1, 2023 21:27:38 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Now, you're just ping-ponging ... And strawmaning ...

There is no objective physical-reality. There are an infinite number of subjective physical-realities that were, are, and will be, not in terms of physical-time.

Suspend for a moment your beliefs, then ask your inner-guidance, and don't rationalize what you get.

Explain to me exactly how it was a straw man?

The absence of a belief is not a belief.

It exactly what you are doing in this reply again. The fact that you (honestly) don't realize you're doing it, doesn't mean you aren't doing it. Look up the definition! I posted it too.