No Self

Person 1: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is real! Person 2: This is a ridiculous statement. Please tell me you are joking. Person 1: Why is that? Amazing how dismissive and overconfident you Normies are! Person 2: Nice try, but your contention is far too absurd to be given consideration. Person 1: Sounds like you are afraid that it just might be true. I am only trying to freely share ideas. I dare you to provide any contrarian evidence. Person 2: Firstly, the position 'Rudolph is real' and 'Rudolph is fictional' are not equivalent. The former is preposterous. If you wish to claim he is real, the burden of proof is on you. Person 1: And why might that be? Person 2: There is no Rudolph. Person 1: Says who? Person 2: For God's sake, there is a universal consensus that Rudolph was always a fictional character. Historically it was a part of the Christmas tradition in Christian societies, presumably to make the whole movement more appealing to children. This is common knowledge all around the world! Person 1: What's your source on that claim? Who is Mr. Universal Consensus and where was his evidence? Person 2: You are a lunatic for even considering this a serious discussion! Person 1: Ouch! Sounds like you're pretty defensive there. What's wrong? Don't worry, it will be easy to fit in with all the sheeple with your arrogance and your dismissive, closed mind. Person 2: OK, first of all, there is no scientific evidence for Rudolph. No credible sightings, no scientific studies, no photographic evidence, no respectable mainstream media articles presenting any sort of conceivable proof that this should even be worthy of discussion. The historical records clearly state that Rudolph was only a children's character. Next you'll be saying Bugs Bunny is real. Person 1: Oh, and he's not? Sounds like you're just a brainwashed shill pushing the agenda of the lamestream media. Person 2: You are a complete fool. This is so retarded. Have you no education whatsoever? Person 1: The fact that you resort to personal insults and endlessly espousing the virtues of brain-dead 'educated' conformists, while never even having an open mind to rational discussion, is proof that YOU are the fool. If you can get over yourself, go to Rudolph-Truther.com or AlexJones.com and let the other side actually speak for once, then come back and see if you can dispute any of the arguments presented there. Person 2: For Christ's sake, Rudolph-Truther.com is a known phony website. It is not in any way equivalent to a respectable source. I am not going to be baited into this insanity. Person 1: Who says it's phony? Person 2: It was listed as a deceptive website on a recent CNN report, for one. Person 1: LOL, sounds like you've been drinking the fake news CNN Kool-Aid. Person 2: YOU are the one drinking fake news Kool-Aid. Person 1: Nice comeback there, pal. Just need to up the ante in the originality department. Person 2: This discussion is over. I cannot believe how crazy you cultists are. Person 1: Sorry to make you lose your composure like that. I used to be closed-minded like you. The truth hurts when you've been brainwashed into supporting the Deep State narrative for an entire lifetime. I hope you're able to outgrow that straight-jacket phase some time. The truth awaits you. *Person 2 has left the chat* Conclusion: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is real. Any questions?

A middle ground is trying to achieve financial independence and retiring as early as possible. This is what I've been dedicated to for the past 10-15 years. Very hard with high house and living prices. But I'm not up for having no shelter or having to hunt animals with a spear.

At the human level, escaping loneliness is a motivation. From early childhood, the greatest fear is abandonment which means death. Some of the insane beliefs that many adults hold onto seem ultimately a means of being a part of an in-group. It's human nature and one of the things that makes us so irrational, and so easily manipulated. To one who is enlightened, 'loving everyone' would be a result of not viewing others as separate. It seems to come naturally. Even the duality of alone/connected would be redundant.

Yes. Women are generally closer to enlightenment because the feminine energy embodies important principles of surrender and letting go. But men seem to be more likely to end up alone and without distractions like relationships, which makes sincere seeking more effective.

This varies enormously from person to person. There are people with no family and no friends in this world, so that factor does not apply, or only minimally. For many others, there are loved ones who would suffer and this is worth accounting for. Another big ethical issue is that there can be trauma inflicted on whoever discovers the body. Can't comment on methods for the same reason, but my research was based on that of organisations like Exit International. As for evidence, the nature of the situation is that the word of those with personal experience or insight must be taken or else dismissed. The sheer scale of the consensus around this issue from a variety of spiritual seers and individuals who have experienced 'death' (or lack thereof) first-hand is hard to dismiss. The conclusion is much the same as Keyhole summarised below; I presume he is about to be blasted for lack of evidence also. I understand what you are saying. For almost everyone, it is necessary to get help around this issue. The right online video or the right forum comment may help since you seem on the verge of breakthrough. Or you may need to seek out someone who can give you the right guidance in exposing the falseness of the mind - including the identity of the frustrated seeker. You may have noticed that many of the greatest spiritual success stories start out in exactly the place that you are now. People with sheltered lives need not apply.

I've always railed against the argument about causing suffering to others. It implies living purely for the feelings of others. Should somebody stay in an abusive relationship to avoid hurting the feelings of the partner? The 'it can get better' argument is very applicable to young people. Not so applicable to 80-year-olds. People in between need to decide where to draw the line. One thing to keep in mind is that many suicide attempts fail and can lead to permanent injury or being treated horribly by government institutions. Other methods may be barbaric or unethical. The only peaceful and effective methods require much forethought, which is good in a way as it prevents people from making rash decisions. Another consideration is the research of suicide-NDE studies. Even a quick search of NDERF will enable unbiased research into the topic. Often people find themselves in the 'void' for long periods, denied the great light that normally applies to people whose lives conclude conventionally. According to Neale Donald Walsch's Home with God book, individuals who complete suicide will be reborn, back in time, into the same lifetime to try again. While the story of the 'unhappy me' is of course very familiar and very strongly identified with, my advice is to find out if it is true before trying to kill the body as a solution. I am not speaking of meditation as a pain-management band-aid, but the way of Eckhart Tolle, the way of Nisargadatta Maharaj, the way of Ramana Maharshi. Die before you die.

Commonsense will prevail eventually.

I have experienced the scenario you describe. I needed to go to the hospital and did not have the strength to carry my backpack of essentials into the ambulance. Things like my phone charger to maintain any contact with the outside world, or much-needed moisturiser to shower in comfort. It was very frustrating. Then came the joy of returning home to clean up the blood. And yet, compared to the horrors of a dysfunctional family, all this is quite manageable. As for ageing later in life, it doesn't bear thinking about!

Just to offer a different perspective: Given Elon Musk's ultimate vision entails saving humanity via clean energy and multiplanetary habitation, having him emerge as the world's richest person is a radical change from bygone decades when it was fossil fuel peddlers and the like at the top. At least innovation is being rewarded and encouraged, rather than amoral ruthlessness. That said, I'm all for taxing the wealthy. It's very hard to do this as they will simply change locations or use other trickery.

The only way to avoid discussions like these going into the gutter is to use gender-neutral terminology wherever humanly possible. Gay people have relationship problems too. I guess it will be hard to make generalisations about people of their own gender. Is there any person who has not been a bit manipulative at some stage? And yet, we should call out people who have a dangerous lack of empathy and will leave their victim in ruins.

Rather than 'shoulds', it would be more accurate to say that an advanced society extends respect and compassion to all beings. Ours at least extends compassion to human millionaires. There's a bit of a way to go to become advanced, though.

Try to be aware of the cognitive bias. Extremely ignorant people are more likely to get our attention, even if they represent a minority. We are fascinated by the social media science experiment of how low people will sink in letting their gullible brains be hacked by disinformation. By being aware of this, the problem can be seen as less serious than it appears; indeed, it also leads us to be conscious of where our own attention is going. All of us have a grossly distorted vision of reality. "You don't see things as they are, you see them as you are." Also, watch as the ego is energised by its superiority over the flat-Earthers. Their egos are in turn energised by the non-mainstream exclusivity of their cults. It's a miserable cycle.

By the time it loses nuance in the hands of rioters, BLM is an anti-police, or even an anti-society movement (with nuance, it is a police accountability movement). Republicans claim to support law and order, even if this coup is not exactly the finest example of that. But the respective backgrounds make a difference. Then there's the ease with which this could turn into a civil war.

This is a great question and one I've pondered myself. And, yes, I think I would vote for him (aside from not being from the US!). Why would I care if he was unfaithful to his wife if his actions were saving entire rainforests? Would I care if he is a gutter-mouth if he brought the corruption of the fossil fuel lobby to its knees? Not really; he would merely be a weapon in a legitimate battle. That's the same reason some people support him even though they know he is a douchebag. Would I support lies? This depends on the circumstances. During Nazi Germany, there were people who secretly kept Jewish people safe from execution and they lied to the authorities. Considering all politicians lie anyway, I'd have an open mind to supporting one with a proper green agenda. Taking up arms? Well, no. And we should not assume that 74 million people are taking up arms, or even supportive of what is happening. They merely have strong grievances with the Democrats so side with the other option. Just to give an example, some might feel that there's a need for radical change, and Trump represented a bull in a china shop (quite literally given his stirring up of issues with China's uncapped dominance). It might be a kind of 'accelerationism'; bringing about major change by throwing a grenade into the old system. Or maybe some of them just believed that a businessman would prevent the escalation of national debts, as he said he would. These are just some examples. Why people stood by him even after it became clear he was a conman is another question entirely; faux news ecosystems probably have a lot to do with it. No offense taken, and I will gladly change course if a compelling argument comes along. Let me put it this way. I live in Australia. Indigenous people lived here for up to 60,000 years doing minimal damage and living as one with nature. European settlers have bulldozed most of the country to oblivion (as with the rest of the world) in a matter of a couple of centuries, and we are one of the worst countries for mass extinctions of animals. So that's what happens when the environment is not respected. It's about our own survival, but also compassion, respect, decency and humanity. I can't think of a more important cause than this, and the remainder of society, including its economic systems, should be shaped around it. Gun debates, etc., fade into oblivion when there's such a huge elephant in the room. That's my current political perspective and I try and live by it.

Note the underlying assumption: something is wrong and something needs to happen. Hence every religion and political system is born, and the conflicts between them. From the perspective of a master, the world is perfect, including the journeys of hardship being undertaken by many beings. They feel compassion and will naturally help others when appropriate, but do not have any messiah complex. A similar question was once raised by Neale Donald Walsch: why did Jesus not help all beings at once, not just the select few who crossed his path? The answer: to do so would be to violate a sacred law of the universe, to let each being walk their path. Eckhart Tolle has commented that some enlightened people are destined to dedicate their lives to various causes that will involve directly helping others, while for others, simply being on Earth while radiating the essence of the Self is a meaningful contribution in its own right.

The most enlightened people today might not have any sort of public following so are probably living unremarkable lives in places like India. Trying to find them is a very valid pursuit, though. If only he were still with us (in the body), I feel Ramana Maharshi would take the prize. We have a good crop of teachers today (Rupert Spira, etc.) but nobody else but Ramana manages to bitch-slap my ego into oblivion as soon as they open their mouths.

The most dangerous thing is black-and-white logic where by Trump=bad, me=good. You'll notice this is just a polar opposite of the Trump cultists' outlook that Trump=good, Democrats=bad, equally devoid of nuance or openness to opposing perspectives. If we are to be enlightened in any sense, this is not workable. People can have many different reasons for voting. They may be single-issue voters (pro/anti guns, abortion, environment, etc.), they may be conforming to the culture that surrounds them, or they may have some other unique outlook. The same way that there have been hundreds of documentaries telling the story of WWII, there could be hundreds of perspectives of looking at this presidency. The word 'Trump' essentially has no meaning, yet it triggers people as if it did. I'm a single-issue voter, as I think the environment is an issue that is literally billions of times more important than anything else in politics. It also represents serving the wellbeing of all beings on the planet. As such, I'll quietly admit that Trump is an absolute scumbag from this perspective. However, I will always go out of my way to seek common ground with the opponent - such as opposing the cancel culture, 'woke' bullshit, fiscal irresponsibility, aggressive identity politics and other failures of the left - in the hope of coming together to create a saner world.

It's not easy finding a description that both factions would agree upon. It is perverse indeed. My comment refers to Trump's background as an entertainer, and the escalating drama that he has built into every stage of the shitshow that is now reaching a final crescendo as we speak. 'Elect a clown, expect a circus'; no truer words have been spoken. But an addendum: some clowns kill. This is the conversation we need to be having. In other words, most regular people are facing the same problems, such as financial hopelessness, but the right has managed to obfuscate debates about supporting the less fortunate with its anti-socialist battle cries, instead channeling people's rage into the current cult-of-personality extremist movement. (And the usual comment about social media algorithms heavily promoting right-wing extremism, despite ad hoc censorship, applies.) When people are too stupid and gullible to vote in favour of their own interests, do they deserve what they get?

Does the room you're in right now really exist?

Michio Kaku has discussed the possibility of downloading knowledge or learning skills without having to learn them. It's something that may happen one day. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2965072/Will-holidays-soon-uploaded-MINDS-Dr-Michio-Kaku-reveals-use-brains-50-years.html

I see everyone's on the edge of their seats for the season finale. Donald Trump - most entertaining president in history?

I can recommend Deutsche Welle (the German state media). DW News - YouTube

Normal people are lunatics, too. Ever seen what they do to each other or the animal kingdom?

Personally I don't use much of it, and am able to do so in ways that do not cause me to hate half the population. But apparently millions of others don't have the same capability, so I stand by my remark.