Death

[sree]

Aug 3, 2022 9:56:11 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Aug 3, 2022 8:41:07 GMT -5 sree said:

So, why don't we do this? Discuss smartly and free of bias. Best of all, don't blame anyone as though there are alien life forms from another planet hiding among us and mucking up our lives. There are only humans here. Every human being is you. Beat your chest and kick your own butt for the national debt, the stealing of public funds once you get elected to office.

But you won't do that. You see yourself as a grand daddy in the South minding your own business unconnected to vermin out there wrecking the country and the world. Blaming yourself and not others for the sins of the world is to kick your own butt.

I would, if I could, kick my own butt to practice what I preach. I can't. Can you show me how? 

I don't know a lot about the upper echelons or workings of 'the system', but recently I was considering if there's something about the system itself which means in order for there to be have's there also has to be have-not's. There's a show called Narcos I watched a while back, and I was considering the CIA's alleged propensity to conduct covert operations to continually destabilise the South American countries. You see the premise pop up on the various tv show's actually and I guess some might consider it's just conspiracy theory stuff, but I don't believe so. I think it has and does happen. So the question is why. Why is it better for more powerful countries to keep others down. Plus seemingly swathes of their own compatriots for that matter. Is it purely about those who control the majority of wealth and power in our own countries. That it needs to be that way for them to maintain that level of power and influence. Or is it something even more entrenched whereby it's necessary even for yours and mine relatively privileged lifestyles. I don't actually have the answer to that, but I suspect it may well be the latter. Because I'm convinced it goes on wholesale at state level and pretty much has since time immemorial.

If everyone was as privileged as you, why would they be cleaning your house and fetching your groceries. That's one of the reasons why I asked, what are you prepared to sacrifice. What if I said any perceived 'stain' was actually only relative to your comfort and privilege. Maybe you think, ah but it's fine for there to be variations in relative levels of privilege, just as long as we aren't unnecessarily starting wars between nations etc. But I'm wondering if one isn't just the extreme of the other. Already it's said there are various jobs in our home countries that the ancestral population aren't keen to do, and for the most part, simply don't need to do. So they ship in foreign labour, both documented and undocumented to get it done. But would they be coming to do for you if all counties and citizens were equally peaceful and prosperous. I'm not sure 'the system' can carry that. Maybe working together for the common good, in time technology could be developed to pick up some of the slack, we're heading that way. But realistically that’s still some way off, and certainly in the current status quo is it not the case that there are some roles which tend only to be performed by the have-not's. And if they find themselves in that position instead of you, regardless of absence of wars between nations, why wouldn't they want to stand up for themselves. Why wouldn't they still want to fight you for your relative privilege as best they can.

Thank you for the post. It is well thought out. The attention you gave to forming your questions justify my being in this forum. Even if this is the only post of this quality, my time spent here has been worthwhile. I must admit that there have been periods of despair: the thought of being in a dump with losers because I am a loser myself. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

Imagine, you and I comprise a think tank, a research institute, like the World Economic Forum (WEF), addressing the questions and concerns in your post. Surely, that amount of international heft devoted to ending human suffering would find the cause. Instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Wouldn't that be better than each loser being a light to himself seeking the selfless state?

I agree with Krishnamurti that being an individual is the cause of suffering. Davos is an initiative of individuals, each with his point of view and priority. This is why every move they make fuels the flames of human suffering. Not much different from the members in this forum hashing stuff out.

Therefore, liberation from self-hood, is a prerequisite for participation in the think tank; otherwise, the individualistic perspective would yield self-serving solutions. As individuals, we cannot see selfishness at work. Water cannot see what water is, said Krishnamurti. Mother Theresa believed she was helping the poor and not exploiting poverty to win a place in Heaven. What do you think Bill Gates believe in for the betterment of mankind?

Am I free of the self? Yes. I will take any lie-detector test conducted by members here. The problem is, who knows what is what unless the tester is also free of the self? Are you free of the self? If not, who will you nominate to test me? Most of you guys are just throwing muck at each other instead of seriously authenticating findings of universal value to everyone.

My personal situation. Yes, I do employ domestic help when I am in Asia. Do I need to? Probably not. I could live in a hotel. It would be the same thing, right? I pay and don't have to lift a finger to do anything. When you examine my situation, someone is always doing something to make life comfortable for me, and all I have to do is pay those unfortunate enough to be holding the short end of the stick. The entire grid that supports my lifestyle is run on the backs of people right down to the peasant in Mexico growing the avocado now in my salad bowl. How would you question the morality of my selfless state then? I did say I live better than Krishnamurti. That guy didn't even have to lift a finger to make his bed.

So, how do I deal with corruption in government from the US President right down to the cop on the take in my town? I have always been horrified by the brutality of the American prison system. How can we put an end to all crime? How can we stop seeing enemies at every corner, get rid of nuclear weapons, scrap our military and end warfighting? All these questions I ask are expected from every US citizen as a responsible participant in our democracy. This is spelled out in our Constitution.

Living right is what spirituality is about. Taking responsibility for our common welfare in this world is a spiritual calling.   

  

 

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2022 13:23:00 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 3, 2022 9:56:11 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

I don't know a lot about the upper echelons or workings of 'the system', but recently I was considering if there's something about the system itself which means in order for there to be have's there also has to be have-not's. There's a show called Narcos I watched a while back, and I was considering the CIA's alleged propensity to conduct covert operations to continually destabilise the South American countries. You see the premise pop up on the various tv show's actually and I guess some might consider it's just conspiracy theory stuff, but I don't believe so. I think it has and does happen. So the question is why. Why is it better for more powerful countries to keep others down. Plus seemingly swathes of their own compatriots for that matter. Is it purely about those who control the majority of wealth and power in our own countries. That it needs to be that way for them to maintain that level of power and influence. Or is it something even more entrenched whereby it's necessary even for yours and mine relatively privileged lifestyles. I don't actually have the answer to that, but I suspect it may well be the latter. Because I'm convinced it goes on wholesale at state level and pretty much has since time immemorial.

If everyone was as privileged as you, why would they be cleaning your house and fetching your groceries. That's one of the reasons why I asked, what are you prepared to sacrifice. What if I said any perceived 'stain' was actually only relative to your comfort and privilege. Maybe you think, ah but it's fine for there to be variations in relative levels of privilege, just as long as we aren't unnecessarily starting wars between nations etc. But I'm wondering if one isn't just the extreme of the other. Already it's said there are various jobs in our home countries that the ancestral population aren't keen to do, and for the most part, simply don't need to do. So they ship in foreign labour, both documented and undocumented to get it done. But would they be coming to do for you if all counties and citizens were equally peaceful and prosperous. I'm not sure 'the system' can carry that. Maybe working together for the common good, in time technology could be developed to pick up some of the slack, we're heading that way. But realistically that’s still some way off, and certainly in the current status quo is it not the case that there are some roles which tend only to be performed by the have-not's. And if they find themselves in that position instead of you, regardless of absence of wars between nations, why wouldn't they want to stand up for themselves. Why wouldn't they still want to fight you for your relative privilege as best they can.

Thank you for the post. It is well thought out. The attention you gave to forming your questions justify my being in this forum. Even if this is the only post of this quality, my time spent here has been worthwhile. I must admit that there have been periods of despair: the thought of being in a dump with losers because I am a loser myself. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

Imagine, you and I comprise a think tank, a research institute, like the World Economic Forum (WEF), addressing the questions and concerns in your post. Surely, that amount of international heft devoted to ending human suffering would find the cause. Instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Wouldn't that be better than each loser being a light to himself seeking the selfless state?

I agree with Krishnamurti that being an individual is the cause of suffering. Davos is an initiative of individuals, each with his point of view and priority. This is why every move they make fuels the flames of human suffering. Not much different from the members in this forum hashing stuff out.

Therefore, liberation from self-hood, is a prerequisite for participation in the think tank; otherwise, the individualistic perspective would yield self-serving solutions. As individuals, we cannot see selfishness at work. Water cannot see what water is, said Krishnamurti. Mother Theresa believed she was helping the poor and not exploiting poverty to win a place in Heaven. What do you think Bill Gates believe in for the betterment of mankind?

Am I free of the self? Yes. I will take any lie-detector test conducted by members here. The problem is, who knows what is what unless the tester is also free of the self? Are you free of the self? If not, who will you nominate to test me? Most of you guys are just throwing muck at each other instead of seriously authenticating findings of universal value to everyone.

My personal situation. Yes, I do employ domestic help when I am in Asia. Do I need to? Probably not. I could live in a hotel. It would be the same thing, right? I pay and don't have to lift a finger to do anything. When you examine my situation, someone is always doing something to make life comfortable for me, and all I have to do is pay those unfortunate enough to be holding the short end of the stick. The entire grid that supports my lifestyle is run on the backs of people right down to the peasant in Mexico growing the avocado now in my salad bowl. How would you question the morality of my selfless state then? I did say I live better than Krishnamurti. That guy didn't even have to lift a finger to make his bed.

So, how do I deal with corruption in government from the US President right down to the cop on the take in my town? I have always been horrified by the brutality of the American prison system. How can we put an end to all crime? How can we stop seeing enemies at every corner, get rid of nuclear weapons, scrap our military and end warfighting? All these questions I ask are expected from every US citizen as a responsible participant in our democracy. This is spelled out in our Constitution.

Living right is what spirituality is about. Taking responsibility for our common welfare in this world is a spiritual calling.   

  

 

Unbeknownst to you of course but the more you lose the more you gain

[sree]

Aug 3, 2022 12:02:10 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Aug 3, 2022 10:38:46 GMT -5 @cobb said:

Haven't read it a long time but I remember thinking that the sermon on the mount could be a very good road map to an easy quality life.

But (fundamentalist) Christians don't think that way. They believe you don't have to do anything. You just have to have a realization that you are saved, that's all, done, that's the end of the journey. 99% of the said Christians don't even try to live by the words of Jesus, they are superfluous to them. I have heard it preached from the pulpit that the life and teaching of Jesus was for the Jews. They preach that the Christian Church didn't start until Pentecost (after the death of Jesus), so nothing of the life of Jesus is relevant. So, in my book, Protestantism is nonsense. I left and said goodbye at 17 (only internally, so I basically lived a fraud around my family most of my life. About 7-8 years ago, I started speaking my mind in discussions. And I said, if you don't want to know [my opinion], don't ask. I rarely get asked stuff anymore.

In the very words of Jesus you will find immunity against such nonsense. But you can only read (anything) from what you already believe. It's very difficult to step outside your own "beliefs".

The Sermon on the Mount is as strict as any teaching you will find anywhere, almost impossible to do, impossible for ego to do.

Why is it impossible to do? Forget how others practice Christianity, be a light to yourself and find the right way. In my opinion, the entirety of Jesus' teaching is in The Sermon on the Mount. Jesus turned Judaism on its head. Throw away the rest of the Bible.

[ouroboros]

Aug 3, 2022 13:23:00 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 3, 2022 9:56:11 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

I don't know a lot about the upper echelons or workings of 'the system', but recently I was considering if there's something about the system itself which means in order for there to be have's there also has to be have-not's. There's a show called Narcos I watched a while back, and I was considering the CIA's alleged propensity to conduct covert operations to continually destabilise the South American countries. You see the premise pop up on the various tv show's actually and I guess some might consider it's just conspiracy theory stuff, but I don't believe so. I think it has and does happen. So the question is why. Why is it better for more powerful countries to keep others down. Plus seemingly swathes of their own compatriots for that matter. Is it purely about those who control the majority of wealth and power in our own countries. That it needs to be that way for them to maintain that level of power and influence. Or is it something even more entrenched whereby it's necessary even for yours and mine relatively privileged lifestyles. I don't actually have the answer to that, but I suspect it may well be the latter. Because I'm convinced it goes on wholesale at state level and pretty much has since time immemorial.

If everyone was as privileged as you, why would they be cleaning your house and fetching your groceries. That's one of the reasons why I asked, what are you prepared to sacrifice. What if I said any perceived 'stain' was actually only relative to your comfort and privilege. Maybe you think, ah but it's fine for there to be variations in relative levels of privilege, just as long as we aren't unnecessarily starting wars between nations etc. But I'm wondering if one isn't just the extreme of the other. Already it's said there are various jobs in our home countries that the ancestral population aren't keen to do, and for the most part, simply don't need to do. So they ship in foreign labour, both documented and undocumented to get it done. But would they be coming to do for you if all counties and citizens were equally peaceful and prosperous. I'm not sure 'the system' can carry that. Maybe working together for the common good, in time technology could be developed to pick up some of the slack, we're heading that way. But realistically that’s still some way off, and certainly in the current status quo is it not the case that there are some roles which tend only to be performed by the have-not's. And if they find themselves in that position instead of you, regardless of absence of wars between nations, why wouldn't they want to stand up for themselves. Why wouldn't they still want to fight you for your relative privilege as best they can.

Thank you for the post. It is well thought out. The attention you gave to forming your questions justify my being in this forum. Even if this is the only post of this quality, my time spent here has been worthwhile. I must admit that there have been periods of despair: the thought of being in a dump with losers because I am a loser myself. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

Imagine, you and I comprise a think tank, a research institute, like the World Economic Forum (WEF), addressing the questions and concerns in your post. Surely, that amount of international heft devoted to ending human suffering would find the cause. Instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Wouldn't that be better than each loser being a light to himself seeking the selfless state?

I agree with Krishnamurti that being an individual is the cause of suffering. Davos is an initiative of individuals, each with his point of view and priority. This is why every move they make fuels the flames of human suffering. Not much different from the members in this forum hashing stuff out.

YW. The issue as I see it is that people need to be able to learn at their own pace and you can't force it on anyone. At least whilst thye're doing so folks have different priorities too, as well as values that seem to vary from culture to culture. So I guess to some extent the system has to allow for and cater for that. With that in mind I suspect the best that can be done is transparency. To bring things into the light and that in turn may effect a shift in priorities. Actually it's interesting to consider here to what extent the system is a product of the individuated mindset and vice versa. The one thing I am convinced about though is that clarity is the key.

Currently transparency at state level doesn't seem to be the case and there may be a reason things have evolved that way. I'm mindful of your, "you can't handle the truth" meme. I mean to say that some people may be happy for others to do their dirty work and we already talked about out of sight out of mind. Others still are likely just apathetic upon their relatively cushy lives. In any event, realistically I don't see any path to instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Sorry if that sounds defeatist, but I consider it realist.

Therefore, liberation from self-hood, is a prerequisite for participation in the think tank; otherwise, the individualistic perspective would yield self-serving solutions. As individuals, we cannot see selfishness at work. Water cannot see what water is, said Krishnamurti. Mother Theresa believed she was helping the poor and not exploiting poverty to win a place in Heaven. What do you think Bill Gates believe in for the betterment of mankind?

What I call halo polishing won't get it done, but I'm of the opinion true altruism is a possiblity. Selflessness.

Am I free of the self? Yes. I will take any lie-detector test conducted by members here. The problem is, who knows what is what unless the tester is also free of the self? Are you free of the self? If not, who will you nominate to test me? Most of you guys are just throwing muck at each other instead of seriously authenticating findings of universal value to everyone.

So you think you need to be free of self to understand what that would entail. I say I'm not and I do. That being conscious is enough for the time being. Although if necessary one should strive dilligently to live virtuously. And I nominate myself during our discourse as is only natural.

If you don't mind me being direct, I don't think you are free of self at all, and in fact consider some of the things you've said on the forum to be indicative of a particularly self-interested brand of spirituality. At times amusingly so. Which isn't gonna cut the mustard. So I colour you deluded in that respect. I don't need a test, I evaluate as I go, and fwiw I sense your next major breakthrough will have to come in the form of some sort of [self-]surrender and that that's unlikely to be any time soon.

Besides I've recently come to see that this idea that self or identity view as the 'be all and end all' when it comes to suffering, is a particular Advaitan standpoint and one that contrasts from my preferred brand of spirituality. It's not about what you are or aren't, but rather what you do or don't, and that follows suit from clarity, quite naturally. Perhaps somebody might want to try to make the argument that ultimately action itself is always predicated on a false identity view and I'd be open to hearing about that. But from what I see folks generally mistake how deep that river runs. Anyway, I digress.

My personal situation. Yes, I do employ domestic help when I am in Asia. Do I need to? Probably not. I could live in a hotel. It would be the same thing, right? I pay and don't have to lift a finger to do anything. When you examine my situation, someone is always doing something to make life comfortable for me, and all I have to do is pay those unfortunate enough to be holding the short end of the stick. The entire grid that supports my lifestyle is run on the backs of people right down to the peasant in Mexico growing the avocado now in my salad bowl. How would you question the morality of my selfless state then? I did say I live better than Krishnamurti. That guy didn't even have to lift a finger to make his bed.

So, how do I deal with corruption in government from the US President right down to the cop on the take in my town? I have always been horrified by the brutality of the American prison system. How can we put an end to all crime? How can we stop seeing enemies at every corner, get rid of nuclear weapons, scrap our military and end warfighting? All these questions I ask are expected from every US citizen as a responsible participant in our democracy. This is spelled out in our Constitution.

Living right is what spirituality is about. Taking responsibility for our common welfare in this world is a spiritual calling.   

I'm on-board with all that. And I guess we start by asking the hard questions, both of ourselves and of others as you have done there. I spose I've already indicated my answer in the thread but you didn't like it. To recap, my opinion is that the way you address all those things is by first apprehending the highest truths and wisdom and then by imparting it in the form of relatable instruction so that folks can see and test the truth of it for themselves. Also by being the literal living embodiment of that truth, so living by example. The crux of it would be as simple as, actions have [inescapable] consequences, you reap what you sow, and do unto others …. . It's not actually rocket science, and the fact is on some level all know the path but few walk it. Tbh I suspect we are moving incrementally toward a better world but people learn slowly, individually and collectively (if we want to think in those terms).

[sree]

Aug 3, 2022 15:26:43 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Aug 3, 2022 13:23:00 GMT -5 sree said:

Thank you for the post. It is well thought out. The attention you gave to forming your questions justify my being in this forum. Even if this is the only post of this quality, my time spent here has been worthwhile. I must admit that there have been periods of despair: the thought of being in a dump with losers because I am a loser myself. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

Imagine, you and I comprise a think tank, a research institute, like the World Economic Forum (WEF), addressing the questions and concerns in your post. Surely, that amount of international heft devoted to ending human suffering would find the cause. Instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Wouldn't that be better than each loser being a light to himself seeking the selfless state?

I agree with Krishnamurti that being an individual is the cause of suffering. Davos is an initiative of individuals, each with his point of view and priority. This is why every move they make fuels the flames of human suffering. Not much different from the members in this forum hashing stuff out.

YW. The issue as I see it is that people need to be able to learn at their own pace and you can't force it on anyone. At least whilst thye're doing so folks have different priorities too, as well as values that seem to vary from culture to culture. So I guess to some extent the system has to allow for and cater for that. With that in mind I suspect the best that can be done is transparency. To bring things into the light and that in turn may effect a shift in priorities. Actually it's interesting to consider here to what extent the system is a product of the individuated mindset and vice versa. The one thing I am convinced about though is that clarity is the key.

When it comes to a fundamental change in consciousness, there is no individual agency making the effort to bring it about. This conversation between us is not a dialogue between two people. The intensity of the inquiry brings about change without any awareness of it happening. Consciousness activates us all in a similar way a single operating computer program moves a thousand self-driving delivery trucks on a national highway grid.

Just look at how we are living now compared to when you were a kid. All humanity changes unconsciously from the horse and buggy to the social media world. Consciousness is the real world itself. You are the world, and the actual world is you. Consciousness is not your property coming from your brain.

[ouroboros]

Aug 3, 2022 16:14:23 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 3, 2022 15:26:43 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

YW. The issue as I see it is that people need to be able to learn at their own pace and you can't force it on anyone. At least whilst thye're doing so folks have different priorities too, as well as values that seem to vary from culture to culture. So I guess to some extent the system has to allow for and cater for that. With that in mind I suspect the best that can be done is transparency. To bring things into the light and that in turn may effect a shift in priorities. Actually it's interesting to consider here to what extent the system is a product of the individuated mindset and vice versa. The one thing I am convinced about though is that clarity is the key.

When it comes to a fundamental change in consciousness, there is no individual agency making the effort to bring it about. This conversation between us is not a dialogue between two people. The intensity of the inquiry brings about change without any awareness of it happening. Consciousness activates us all in a similar way a single operating computer program moves a thousand self-driving delivery trucks on a national highway grid.

Just look at how we are living now compared to when you were a kid. All humanity changes unconsciously from the horse and buggy to the social media world. Consciousness is the real world itself. You are the world, and the actual world is you. Consciousness is not your property coming from your brain.

Sure, that's true enough broadly speaking. But you can't really deny individuated expression, even in terms of how the whole plays out, and the rate of change as you put it, or progressive component as we are interested in seems to be variable in that context. I mean there are spiritually slow learners and there are fast learners, as facets of the expression as a whole, and it's the slow learners tendency to perpetuate that which leads to unnecessary suffering. Who incidentally are often drawn to positions of power and the accumulation of excessive wealth. Yet they are still bound by majority rule to some extent. Which is why some talk in terms of critical mass.

[stardustpilgrim]

Aug 3, 2022 15:09:34 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 3, 2022 12:02:10 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

But (fundamentalist) Christians don't think that way. They believe you don't have to do anything. You just have to have a realization that you are saved, that's all, done, that's the end of the journey. 99% of the said Christians don't even try to live by the words of Jesus, they are superfluous to them. I have heard it preached from the pulpit that the life and teaching of Jesus was for the Jews. They preach that the Christian Church didn't start until Pentecost (after the death of Jesus), so nothing of the life of Jesus is relevant. So, in my book, Protestantism is nonsense. I left and said goodbye at 17 (only internally, so I basically lived a fraud around my family most of my life. About 7-8 years ago, I started speaking my mind in discussions. And I said, if you don't want to know [my opinion], don't ask. I rarely get asked stuff anymore.

In the very words of Jesus you will find immunity against such nonsense. But you can only read (anything) from what you already believe. It's very difficult to step outside your own "beliefs".

The Sermon on the Mount is as strict as any teaching you will find anywhere, almost impossible to do, impossible for ego to do.

Why is it impossible to do? Forget how others practice Christianity, be a light to yourself and find the right way. In my opinion, the entirety of Jesus' teaching is in The Sermon on the Mount. Jesus turned Judaism on its head. Throw away the rest of the Bible.

You could not have listened to all of this. The hard part starts at minute 3:45, goes to at least minute nine, verses 5:20-5:28. I stopped at minute nine. I don't think anybody here can do as Jesus says in those verses. In many of those verses he says it's not good enough to just obey outwardly, if you think it or feel it, it's missing the mark.

[sree]

Aug 3, 2022 17:53:09 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Aug 3, 2022 15:09:34 GMT -5 sree said:

Why is it impossible to do? Forget how others practice Christianity, be a light to yourself and find the right way. In my opinion, the entirety of Jesus' teaching is in The Sermon on the Mount. Jesus turned Judaism on its head. Throw away the rest of the Bible.

You could not have listened to all of this. The hard part starts at minute 3:45, goes to at least minute nine, verses 5:20-5:28. I stopped at minute nine. I don't think anybody here can do as Jesus says in those verses. In many of those verses he says it's not good enough to just obey outwardly, if you think it or feel it, it's missing the mark.

Of course, you can. There is one provision. You can do as Jesus said if you are not living a conventional life. Look at satch. He yells at his wife. There is no way either he or his wife - in that marital situation - can do otherwise. Turning your right cheek is ridiculous in a boxing ring when the other guy is going to knock the shit out of you. And just as ridiculous is Krishnamurti's teaching when he told you to see your wife without the past in order to break that cycle of yelling.

I live an unconventional life. No wife. No boxing ring. If my country goes to war, I would leave in the same manner those guys fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Only fools would do the bidding of crazy politicians who lose sight of their duty to serve us instead of making us serve them. You are no fool, stardust. You think well in this forum. Why won't you also think well in the real world?

 

[sree]

Aug 3, 2022 15:26:43 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Aug 3, 2022 13:23:00 GMT -5 sree said:

Thank you for the post. It is well thought out. The attention you gave to forming your questions justify my being in this forum. Even if this is the only post of this quality, my time spent here has been worthwhile. I must admit that there have been periods of despair: the thought of being in a dump with losers because I am a loser myself. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

Imagine, you and I comprise a think tank, a research institute, like the World Economic Forum (WEF), addressing the questions and concerns in your post. Surely, that amount of international heft devoted to ending human suffering would find the cause. Instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Wouldn't that be better than each loser being a light to himself seeking the selfless state?

I agree with Krishnamurti that being an individual is the cause of suffering. Davos is an initiative of individuals, each with his point of view and priority. This is why every move they make fuels the flames of human suffering. Not much different from the members in this forum hashing stuff out.

Currently transparency at state level doesn't seem to be the case and there may be a reason things have evolved that way. I'm mindful of your, "you can't handle the truth" meme. I mean to say that some people may be happy for others to do their dirty work and we already talked about out of sight out of mind. Others still are likely just apathetic upon their relatively cushy lives. In any event, realistically I don't see any path to instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Sorry if that sounds defeatist, but I consider it realist.

No, it is not defeatist. It is not easy to break out of Supermax, a maximum-security prison. This is what existential reality is. We built it with our intellect (knowledge). We need to reverse engineer our way out. Moving forward using reason will only tighten the Gordian knot. This was what satch was doing with his cat.

Instantaneous awakening is the solution to ending the state of suffering. This is to say, a full belly is the end of hunger pain. We need to hunt for food to fill the belly. Krishnamurti’s “no path” to awakening is misleading. What he meant was “don’t try to figure it out with your intellect”. We can use another tool: intelligence.

As for the deplorable state of the society we are in, don’t touch it. As I have said, human energy is toxic. Trying to fix it is to fuel that evil state with our life energy. Step away. Refusing to be a part of evil is not apathy.

[sree]

Aug 3, 2022 15:26:43 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Aug 3, 2022 13:23:00 GMT -5 sree said:

Thank you for the post. It is well thought out. The attention you gave to forming your questions justify my being in this forum. Even if this is the only post of this quality, my time spent here has been worthwhile. I must admit that there have been periods of despair: the thought of being in a dump with losers because I am a loser myself. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

Imagine, you and I comprise a think tank, a research institute, like the World Economic Forum (WEF), addressing the questions and concerns in your post. Surely, that amount of international heft devoted to ending human suffering would find the cause. Instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Wouldn't that be better than each loser being a light to himself seeking the selfless state?

I agree with Krishnamurti that being an individual is the cause of suffering. Davos is an initiative of individuals, each with his point of view and priority. This is why every move they make fuels the flames of human suffering. Not much different from the members in this forum hashing stuff out.

What I call halo polishing won't get it done, but I'm of the opinion true altruism is a possiblity. Selflessness.

Cite me an example of this in the real world. Let's examine it.

Selfless self is an oxymoron. For now, I will keep an open mind.

[Reefs]

Aug 3, 2022 21:52:57 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 3, 2022 15:26:43 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

What I call halo polishing won't get it done, but I'm of the opinion true altruism is a possiblity. Selflessness.

Cite me an example of this in the real world. Let's examine it.

Selfless self is an oxymoron. For now, I will keep an open mind.

I think altruism is a misconceived concept. As you pointed out, 'selfless self' is not the answer. That's just another round of identity poker in the spiritual circus, a self masquerading as selfless.

True selflessness would require acting from a perspective of no-self. Which means a perspective prior to self. Which means a perspective prior to selfish vs. selfless, altruism vs. selfishness. 

As I keep saying, you can't live a concept. 

[sree]

Aug 3, 2022 15:26:43 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Aug 3, 2022 13:23:00 GMT -5 sree said:

Thank you for the post. It is well thought out. The attention you gave to forming your questions justify my being in this forum. Even if this is the only post of this quality, my time spent here has been worthwhile. I must admit that there have been periods of despair: the thought of being in a dump with losers because I am a loser myself. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

Imagine, you and I comprise a think tank, a research institute, like the World Economic Forum (WEF), addressing the questions and concerns in your post. Surely, that amount of international heft devoted to ending human suffering would find the cause. Instantaneous awakening for all mankind. Wouldn't that be better than each loser being a light to himself seeking the selfless state?

I agree with Krishnamurti that being an individual is the cause of suffering. Davos is an initiative of individuals, each with his point of view and priority. This is why every move they make fuels the flames of human suffering. Not much different from the members in this forum hashing stuff out.

So you think you need to be free of self to understand what that would entail. I say I'm not and I do. That being conscious is enough for the time being. Although if necessary one should strive dilligently to live virtuously. And I nominate myself during our discourse as is only natural.

If you don't mind me being direct, I don't think you are free of self at all, and in fact consider some of the things you've said on the forum to be indicative of a particularly self-interested brand of spirituality. At times amusingly so. Which isn't gonna cut the mustard. So I colour you deluded in that respect. I don't need a test, I evaluate as I go, and fwiw I sense your next major breakthrough will have to come in the form of some sort of [self-]surrender and that that's unlikely to be any time soon.

Besides I've recently come to see that this idea that self or identity view as the 'be all and end all' when it comes to suffering, is a particular Advaitan standpoint and one that contrasts from my preferred brand of spirituality. It's not about what you are or aren't, but rather what you do or don't, and that follows suit from clarity, quite naturally. Perhaps somebody might want to try to make the argument that ultimately action itself is always predicated on a false identity view and I'd be open to hearing about that. But from what I see folks generally mistake how deep that river runs. Anyway, I digress.

You would nominate yourself for the job even though you don't meet the qualification of integrity specified? This is a dismissal of my requirement for conducting an effective inquiry. Corruption begins here. Violation of rule. Disregard for ethics. Our society is a mess because we are a mess. You don't consider me a qualified selfless inquirer (i.e. untainted office bearer) and admit that you are just as unclean; and yet, you would want us to embark on an inquiry into how to bring about a world of selfless commitment to each other.

You have unwittingly uncovered the root cause of our suffering in this world. We are the evil cause of our suffering. 

 

[stardustpilgrim]

Aug 3, 2022 21:04:37 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 3, 2022 17:53:09 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

You could not have listened to all of this. The hard part starts at minute 3:45, goes to at least minute nine, verses 5:20-5:28. I stopped at minute nine. I don't think anybody here can do as Jesus says in those verses. In many of those verses he says it's not good enough to just obey outwardly, if you think it or feel it, it's missing the mark.

Of course, you can. There is one provision. You can do as Jesus said if you are not living a conventional life. Look at satch. He yells at his wife. There is no way either he or his wife - in that marital situation - can do otherwise. Turning your right cheek is ridiculous in a boxing ring when the other guy is going to knock the shit out of you. And just as ridiculous is Krishnamurti's teaching when he told you to see your wife without the past in order to break that cycle of yelling.

I live an unconventional life. No wife. No boxing ring. If my country goes to war, I would leave in the same manner those guys fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Only fools would do the bidding of crazy politicians who lose sight of their duty to serve us instead of making us serve them. You are no fool, stardust. You think well in this forum. Why won't you also think well in the real world?

 

I stopped watching when Jesus said, Be perfect. That must have been verse 5:28. And if it wasn't clear he added, as God is perfect.

[ouroboros]

Aug 3, 2022 21:52:57 GMT -5 sree said:

Aug 3, 2022 15:26:43 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

What I call halo polishing won't get it done, but I'm of the opinion true altruism is a possiblity. Selflessness.

Cite me an example of this in the real world. Let's examine it.

Selfless self is an oxymoron. For now, I will keep an open mind.

I can't really, and even if I tried it would always be open to the charge that any such action always had some sort of self-interest at the heart of it. That a mother giving her life to protect her child had biological programming at its root, etc. I know the dance, so it sounds like a pointless endeavour. Feel free to disregard my comment.

[ouroboros]

Aug 3, 2022 22:20:10 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Aug 3, 2022 21:52:57 GMT -5 sree said:

Cite me an example of this in the real world. Let's examine it.

Selfless self is an oxymoron. For now, I will keep an open mind.

I think altruism is a misconceived concept. As you pointed out, 'selfless self' is not the answer. That's just another round of identity poker in the spiritual circus, a self masquerading as selfless.

True selflessness would require acting from a perspective of no-self. Which means a perspective prior to self. Which means a perspective prior to selfish vs. selfless, altruism vs. selfishness. 

As I keep saying, you can't live a concept. 

Sure, I agree with this actually. It's well put. Selfless self sounds more likely to be halo polishing.