Princess Arabia

I love it when you say silly things. Shows the human side you're trying to get rid of you space kangaroo you.😜

Exactly. Lol

How do you know this. Have you ever literally died (the body) and witnessed consciousness flooding you.

What then constitutes something being alive if not being compared to something else. It doesn't have to be death but something else has to take the place of it's opposite because life or something being alive is describing that something which is limited because anything with a description is form, and form is limited. There has to be something else for something to be described as alive. This is the actual premise for why I made the post and your statement here doesn't prove that being alive is all there is and having a presumption that there's something else is the only way that life can even be a thing. So presuming there's something else is legitimate. Can't have life without something else.

A dead body turns to......whatever it turns to after awhile....skeleton. There's still a happening and a process there. Some form of action without anyone doing it. Shitting is happening as a process without anyone doing it. Who or what determines which one is alive and which one is dead.

I said that for the purpose of the post and to relay a point. By the post's contents, it's obvious I'm not saying we're all definitely alive or dead, just openly asking how do we know.

Lol, ok. I'll give you that. Be cynically peaceful.

Questioning things is what made me realize a lot. I just question silently to myself and give myself the answers by observing. The people that ostracized didn't feel how they wanted to feel. People don't want to lose themselves and will kill before being killed. Being killed as in their made-up identity. They want to feel and have others confirm what has no ground to stand on. It feels kike a betrayal in a sense. I say I'm this and you're not confirming that and I'm loosing that sense of identity so you have to go - in a sense.

The words in bold italic "I feel", confirms what I'm saying in the other comment. I don't just talk out my ass without understanding what I'm saying even if I'm wrong, there's still an understanding there even if my understanding of it is wrong. I've just seen too many times of this to be the case by observing myself and others. I just wanted to point out that you yourself confirmed what I'm pointing at. The clues are always staring us in the face if we take the person out the equation. That's hard to do while in it and easier for the onlooker. That's called going meta.

That only feels like that when there's something that is looked for. It's hard for the individual because it puts meaning to everything in relationship to it when it's just life doing life with no meaning and purpose. This is what it means to suffer. No meaning, no purpose, no suffering. Perfect example. It can't be helped, though, because the person searches for a feeling no matter what it does and that can only stop when there is no person there. It goes hand in hand. Even if you say you're going to stop talking to people about that, it's because there's still a feeling being desired. The only thing I can say to that is for you to recognize this and to not blame people for your thinking they're stupid or whatever descriptive word you use, but that it's you being disappointed with not achieving the feeling you were after. Maybe that'll loosen up the tension a bit and relieve the suffering somewhat to nit feel so intense.

If the title of the thread was correct, that would mean everyone in a relationship, married or had friends were stupid. Makes no sense and the heading alone isn't a smart way to look at the world.

Right, and also the smart teacher.

If one was that smart, they'd know how to adapt to the different circumstances. So, maybe it's not that it's being smart to know these things alone, but to know the difference when to use that knowledge. I might know what a hammer looks like and how to describe it, but I might not know how to use it. A person might not know what the definition of a hammer is but they know how to use it. Now, who's smarter. Smartness is only defined by what it's being compared to and being smart depends on how the person uses what they define as being smart. If one thinks being smart is knowing a bunch of stuff but not how to use that knowledge then that's not being smart and life will eventually show you that it's all relativistic.

By what was known before and by comparison. Trace it back to the first knowing and it's "I am here". Now we're learning about non-duality and trying to get rid of the self. So knowing is an illusion and based off of a sense of self-recognition, not what is. If one didn't know themselves to be, they wouldn't know anything, they'll just be responding and reacting to everything through instincts and those responses and reactions would be happening on it's own just like it's happening already but without a claimer.

This might help.

You should be happy then that you're not attracting the idiots. Go celebrate.

Conscious of what. Conscious of what was taught to you and what you know. I could know that the tree is grey but it is actually brown. What if there's no consciousness and you're hallucinating consciousness. You're only saying you're conscious because someone told you what it's like to be conscious. Everyone could be dead and the dead is speaking to the dead. Noone would know the difference if they didn't know what it felt like to be alive. Now switch the words alive and dead around. Do you think a cat knows it's a cat, it's just operating on instincts. A dead body still operates on 'instnct' by rotting.

Hope you're not implying that I'm asking if I exist and that i'm stupid if I am. That's not what the post is about. I could still exist as a dead person and of course if everyone was dead, no one could tell the difference because if I think I'm alive, then I'll think everyone else that has the same characteristics that I used to determine that I'm alive, I'll also think is alive. If you grew up from being a baby and everyone used the term dead to describe aliveness, you would think you were a dead person. A baby only learnt that when they had abilities to understand what's being said and the terminologies used.

Don't agree but we're entitled to our differences of opinions. When I substitute different things, words or circumstances in each case, I can't seem to find the similarities. Example, if I have a bias of preferring oranges to apples, it doesn't mean I don't like apples, it just means I prefer oranges. If I prefer black men to white men because of a bias towards white men because of an experience I had, it doesn't mean I dislike white men or think black men are superior to white men. I could even think white men are superior but dislike them for that and that's my bias to why I prefer black men. One cannot be racist towards an orange or an apple but they can a bias towards either. Racism only applies to race and that's why I am showing the differences. An Italian woman doing something to make you dislike Italian women on a whole, or even substituting white for Italian, doesn't make one a racist but biased because that's not comparing another race to another. If there were only Italians that existed in the whole world, no one could be racist whatsoever but they could still have biases and preferences. So, to me they are not the same thing.

What you have described, imo, is biases not racism. A bias now towards Italians and Psychiatrists. By definition, racism is the belief that a race is superior to another not the likes or dislikes of it.

No seeking is also a form of seeking. There's no point in seeking and there's no point in not seeking. Freedom cannot be escaped; it is all there is. Seeking is a concept, and non-duality cannot be applied. If one feels relief from not seeking, that is just a function of the seeking energy. If one says they'll keep seeking because it's all bullshit to not seek, no one is doing that but the seeking energy. It's energy. Seeking energy can be nothing other than a seeking energy. It cannot stop seeking because then it wouldn't be there to stop itself from being itself. I don't mean seeking for a lost purse, i mean seeking for things pertaining to spirituality. Seeking for a purse is still seeking it's just the content is supposedly or seemingly different. Stopping the seeking for a purse that was never found still implies that the seeking energy stopped the seeking of the purse, not that the energy is no longer there. If an orange turns up missing and seeking arises again, that's the seeking energy appearing to rise again. No one is seeking for the orange, seeking is what's happening. If someone decides to not seek for enlightenment, no one is doing that, it's merely the still apparent seeking energy appearing to not seek for enlightenment. That's what not seeking means by that's still seeking. There's no one to even know they're not seeking anymore because knowing is also the seeking energy appearing as knowing. There's not actually anyone seeking to begin with and no one knows this. You can analyze, think through, dissect and rationalize and analyze all you want, there's no escaping the seeking energy because it's the same as knowing. A baby isn't seeking but there's no one there to know that. When it cries for food, that's the body's response to hunger and not the baby knowing it's hungry. Man's dilemma is the tree of knowledge. That's where the eating of the apple from the tree of knowledge came from. Good thing is it never really happened and is just a story just as everything else written or told including this post.

The Absolute cannot be seen. It is the seeing itself. The sense of self is illusory and isn't really there so it cannot really dissolve but recognized that it never really happened. That recognition will still be the Absolute appearing as recognizing that. There can be an understanding of the Absolute through the Absolute and a relaxing of the energy structure, but nothing is really seen through because seeing implies someone to see through. It's still the Absolute appearing as "seen through" and "understanding". None of it really means anything because nothing is separate, they are only appearances and like a movie screen with all the appearances happening on the screen which isn't separate from what appears on it. What is seeing through all that; nothing can because it is all one happening. Me talking to you, you talking to breakinthewall, me typing, you typing, all happening in one timeless, spaceless movement.

I re-read your initial comment and you're right, we're speaking of two different things. You did say "flare us the wrong way" And I read and interpreted it as shine the wrong way. So now, I get your point and it has been taken and understood.

You're still explaining what the sun's shining can result in. The solar flares is not the sun itself. The damages it caused is not the sun itself. All the sun can do is shine; the results of that shining is a separate issue from the sun being the sun and it's essence.

Some people are seeking enlightenment but don't even know what enlightenment is. They can probably tell you what it's not but not what it is. Pretty insane to me to be seeking something and not know what you're seeking. Can you learn how to become a teacher from something or someone that doesn't know how to teach. How can a book, a mantra or practice make you enlightened if that thing doesn't know how to become enlightened. I can read a book on how to become a teacher, the book isn't telling me how, the author is by telling me with words using the book. The author knows. I have to do the processing of the words. I have to understand what's being said. How can something tell or show you how to become enlightened without you processing the information. There are lots of things involved in this process. How will you know when you've reached enlightenment. That's also a processing that has to happen. You know you can teach once you've processed that information that you know you can teach. A person who hasn't taught before can still know they can teach because of other competencies. Knowing you're enlightened still requires processes and knowing. If one is enlightened but doesn't know it, since it's not considered as a process, who is there to know it if they don't know. If you know, then it required a process and someone has to be there to process that knowing to know. You cannot 'unknow' something and knowing is separation. If you know you're enlightened, you're only enlightened to the notion of being enlightened. Can't be both. If you're a teacher, you are first and a teacher second. That's two. You are/I am enlightened is separation there's nothing separate. I am a teacher is not the I AM. I am enlightened is not the I AM. Maybe all I'm saying here is a bag of crap anyway and a bunch of nonsense, but I just was writing from thoughts and what I believe is the case. I don't know shit.