How to practically force your ego to die?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

SEDM = Sovereign Education and Defense Ministry. That's the group you advised I look into and posted their URL, correct? Yes, you don't like citizen because that implies you are a citizen, which you are.

There you go assuming and presuming. And there goes your ignorance. Sedm is not a group, sedm is a private ministry. But since you did not read anything on their website, except for what sedm stands for, you do not know that.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

1 - You invent your own form of "sprituality" based on a misunderstanding of non-duality, equating it to unconditional love.

I can say the same thing about you and about your so called experts

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

2 - You embrace the tenants of SEDM:

How do you know what I embrace or not? There you go assuming and presuming again. And there goes your ignorance again.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

a) You don't pay taxes or contribute to the commons yet you reap the fruits of the commons your fellow citizens pay for and contribute to. Where's the unconditional love for your fellow citizens? You are taking advantage of them without regard for their ability to pick up your slack, to carry your dead weight. That's selfish in the extreme and the diametric opposite of unconditional love.

I contribute my fair share. I have a private contract with both my local police and fire departments And it is my right to pay as little taxes as possible. Gas taxes pay for the roads. what is my dead weight and how am I taking advantage of people? I am not on welfare, I receive no benefits from the government including social security. I do not even have a social security number anymore. Do you work for the IRS? You are acting like how the IRS acts by making excuses and you know what? Those excuses are total bullcrap, and I have already been through this with the IRS. I get it, it is much easier to follow than to self govern your own self and to think for yourself. Your comment on unconditional love is null and void with your assuming and presuming. And here is your ignorance again.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

b) You don't have a driver's license, registration or insurance yet you use the public roads, again leaching off society and without regard for the safety of its citizens. That is you're operating an uninspected and uninsured motor vehicle, and should you have an accident because of mechanical malfunction you willfully neglected your obligation to the safety of your fellow citizens. Because you are uninsured you also are probably not in a position to compensate them for damages inflicted. Where's the unconditional love? Looks like more self-centered selfishness and in the extreme. Some would call it gross negligence.

as I said above gas taxes pay for the roads. Here you are with your assuming and presuming. And here is your ignorance again. You are just trying to make me look/feel bad-unloving with your if(s). I have never been in an accident. The common law does not try to prevent crime (unlike civil law), there has to be a injured party to be a crime under common law.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

You might consider this an emotional rant, but I consider it a valid response to your deluded and dangerous philosophy of life. You only care about yourself. You have no concern for other citizens' ability to carry your dead weight and no concern for any harm you might inflict on them due to your gross negligence in pursuit of your worldly agenda. Where's your vaunted spirituality of unconditional love?

so says you, the assuming and presuming emotional ranter.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Your two posts to me in this thread indicate a massively egotistical and selfish individual with no regard for others. Seems like the only person you have unconditional love for is yourself. You will love yourself regardless of taking advantage of the goodwill of your fellow citizens, even putting them in harm's way. But hey, I guess your vaunted spirituality of unconditional love justifies that.

Nope, you are trying to make me look/feel bad with your assumption, presumptions and with your ignorance of the common law.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

By the way, where did I threaten you? I just pointed out you're likely in for a world of hurt. Eventually. And "Make my day"? Is that more of your unconditional love on display? You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means. LOL!

I do not think you know what sarcasm is with your assumptions and presumptions.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

But go ahead, be my guest. Be the southbound end of a northbound horse. Just don't pretend to be an advocate and aspirant of a spirituality of unconditional love. At the very least it's unseemly...

You obviously do not know what unconditional love is even after I told you what unconditional love is or you are just making **** up to make yourself feel better.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

By the way, I don't need to learn the law. I know it. Another thing I know is I'm not going to jail like so many sovereign citizens do. YouTube is full of videos of them being dragged out of cars and arrested and also being dressed down by judges in court, being denied bail and sent to the slammer.

You know, follow and worship caesar's roman civil law, not common law. Keep following and worshipping caesar's roman civil law, that is your right, even though it is crazy to do so after you know the truth. And yes the united states civil law, By civil law I mean codes, statues, etc etc is based on roman law.

[davidsun]

I do not condone dismissively/pejoratively labelling someone who presents a thoughtful critique of someone's stated position as a 'ranter'. I suggest sticking with counterpresenting facts and/or opinions aimed at 'correcting' what you regard as being said someone's misperceptions and or misattributions.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Nobody needs to think at all. Thoughts are nothing more and nothing less than memories and knowledge of the past or day dreaming about the present or future.

Back to my original point. How much thinking went into your last response? How much emotion? You do know sarcasm is an emotional retort? Do you really lack thought, emotion and humor and do you actually attempt to suppress them? How successful is that? Is that really how the Divine wants us to live our lives in this reality?

As I already said, unless you're a philosophic zombie it's impossible to not think and not feel, therefore a spiritual philosophy equating non-dualism to unconditional love with the path to realization being no thinking and no emotion is a very short dead-end street. As a practical matter it's impossible to practice and exist in this world.

Examples:

Did you have to think whether to pay property taxes or contract directly with local police and fire services, determining which was more advantageous and least against your principals?

Are you going to have pancakes, eggs, cereal or oatmeal for breakfast today?

What day will you do your grocery shopping and why?

Do you make decisions about outdoor activities based on weather forecasts?

How did you arrive at your principals, and if you don't recall them from memory how do you live by them?

Do you balance your checkbook or otherwise track your assets and available cash?

How do you arrive at these decisions and conclusions without thinking?


Do you do things because you like them and avoid things because you don't like them?

Why live on hundreds of acres instead of a half acre city or suburban plot? Do you prefer the aesthetics of the rural landscape better than those of more congested areas?

Do you have any preferences?

Why and how unless emotions are involved?


How can one survive in this reality without thought and emotion? Without accessing memory or planning (dreaming) for the future?


You can believe what you want and live your life how you want, but when you put forth what appears to me an obviously flawed spiritual philosophy in a public forum dedicated to spirituality and insist it's not only correct, but the actual philosophy of the same name (non-dualism) developed and practiced over thousands of years is wrong because you say it is by virtue of your invented belief system, expect to be challenged.

You now have another opportunity to address my original observation and critique. If this discussion is to continue please stick to the topic at hand as I'm not going to respond to tangential replies not germane to the difference of opinion.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I do not condone dismissively/pejoratively labelling someone who presents a thoughtful critique of someone's stated position as a 'ranter'. I suggest sticking with counterpresenting facts and/or opinions aimed at 'correcting' what you regard as being said someone's misperceptions and or misattributions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rant

Being emotional and assuming and presuming about everything is a not being a thoughtful critique.

Originally Posted by davidsun

I do not condone dismissively/pejoratively labelling someone who presents a thoughtful critique of someone's stated position as a 'ranter'. I suggest sticking with counterpresenting facts and/or opinions aimed at 'correcting' what you regard as being said someone's misperceptions and or misattributions.

By the way, thanks for the reminder. I was mistaken in following a tangential reply deflecting from my question about thinking, instead centering on politics and civil & criminal law. It was not germane to the question at hand.

It's at times like this I'm comforted by the story of the cleansing of the Temple. LOL!

Originally Posted by MikeS80

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rant

Being emotional and assuming and presuming about everything is a not being a thoughtful critique.

I gave a thoughtful critique:

"If I didn't think at all I'd be fast out of a job. My creditors and the IRS would be knocking at my door for lack of paying bills and filing tax returns. I'd also have a terrible time on the road as local and state police wouldn't appreciate me driving an unregistered, uninspected and uninsured vehicle and without a driver's license. My oil tank would be empty and I'd be freezing my butt off and my electric and internet service would be cut off for lack of payment. I also wouldn't be posting here.

Thinking and emotions are unavoidable. They are features of body-mind, not bugs. What is avoidable and a bug is overreaction to thoughts and emotions. Taking things personally.

It all depends on which "I" one identifies with and how much work one's done to focus and concentrate the mind."

Which you then deflected by diving into how you avoid all those tasks requiring thinking. The next obvious set of questions I already presented addresses other tasks requiring thinking, including how you determined your strategy and tactics of avoiding the original tasks I presented requiring thinking.

I don't ever expect you to address this, because you can't. It invalidates what you assert about not having to think or have emotions.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Back to my original point. How much thinking went into your last response? How much emotion? You do know sarcasm is an emotional retort? Do you really lack thought, emotion and humor and do you actually attempt to suppress them? How successful is that? Is that really how the Divine wants us to live our lives in this reality?

As I already said, unless you're a philosophic zombie it's impossible to not think and not feel, therefore a spiritual philosophy equating non-dualism to unconditional love with the path to realization being no thinking and no emotion is a very short dead-end street. As a practical matter it's impossible to practice and exist in this world.

Examples:

Did you have to think whether to pay property taxes or contract directly with local police and fire services, determining which was more advantageous and least against your principals?

Are you going to have pancakes, eggs, cereal or oatmeal for breakfast today?

What day will you do your grocery shopping and why?

Do you make decisions about outdoor activities based on weather forecasts?

How did you arrive at your principals, and if you don't recall them from memory how do you live by them?

Do you balance your checkbook or otherwise track your assets and available cash?

How do you arrive at these decisions and conclusions without thinking?


Do you do things because you like them and avoid things because you don't like them?

Why live on hundreds of acres instead of a half acre city or suburban plot? Do you prefer the aesthetics of the rural landscape better than those of more congested areas?

Do you have any preferences?

Why and how unless emotions are involved?


How can one survive in this reality without thought and emotion? Without accessing memory or planning (dreaming) for the future?


You can believe what you want and live your life how you want, but when you put forth what appears to me an obviously flawed spiritual philosophy in a public forum dedicated to spirituality and insist it's not only correct, but the actual philosophy of the same name (non-dualism) developed and practiced over thousands of years is wrong because you say it is by virtue of your invented belief system, expect to be challenged.

You now have another opportunity to address my original observation and critique. If this discussion is to continue please stick to the topic at hand as I'm not going to respond to tangential replies not germane to the difference of opinion.

Instead of listening, You twist/misconstrue words and you make up definitions for everything to try to make a false point/claim. If you listened to what I said with your brain instead of with your feel good/feel bad emotions, you would know I ment thoughts of the ego-not thinking this or that is good/positive or bad/negative. You assume and presume with your ignorance that not thinking this or that is good/positive or bad/negative makes you a thoughtless or philosophic zombie as you call it to make yourself feel good about yourself, when in fact, it does not make you thoughtless at all. Sarcasm in the context I used it, is irony, irony is not an emotion. You are all over the place trying to prove a negative which proves your ignorance. What does, what I do in my personal life have to do with posting in this thread/forum? Are trying to make this personal? Next you will be telling me I should not be pooping or peeing because pooping and peeing requires me to think I have to poop or pee. My non-duality spirituality is based on non-duality while your non-duality spirituality is obviously based on duality, which is ironic.

Another thing that is ironic is you saying I am going off topic while I am just responding to your replies. How is that being off topic? What is your original observation and critique you want me to respond to? I already responded to everything. You want me to respond to you again and again so you can assume and presume again and again so you can try to prove a false point over and over again?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I gave a thoughtful critique:

"If I didn't think at all I'd be fast out of a job. My creditors and the IRS would be knocking at my door for lack of paying bills and filing tax returns. I'd also have a terrible time on the road as local and state police wouldn't appreciate me driving an unregistered, uninspected and uninsured vehicle and without a driver's license. My oil tank would be empty and I'd be freezing my butt off and my electric and internet service would be cut off for lack of payment. I also wouldn't be posting here.

Thinking and emotions are unavoidable. They are features of body-mind, not bugs. What is avoidable and a bug is overreaction to thoughts and emotions. Taking things personally.

It all depends on which "I" one identifies with and how much work one's done to focus and concentrate the mind."

Which you then deflected by diving into how you avoid all those tasks requiring thinking. The next obvious set of questions I already presented addresses other tasks requiring thinking, including how you determined your strategy and tactics of avoiding the original tasks I presented requiring thinking.

I don't ever expect you to address this, because you can't. It invalidates what you assert about not having to think or have emotions.

So you coming to conclusions by guessing and by being presumptuous and assumptuous with your incorrect/false knowledge is you being thoughtful? All righy then. You just gave a critique, not a thoughtful critique. I responded to your assumptions and presumption about thoughts and thinking in another response. As I said in that other post, with your logic, assumptions and presumptions, pretty soon you will be telling me I should not be pooping or peeing because pooping or peeing requires me to think I have to poop and I have to pee. You will not go that far and you will not find what you seek with your assumptions and presumptions, and with your non-duality spirituality based on duality by the so called experts.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

So you coming to conclusions by guessing and by being presumptuous and assumptuous with your incorrect/false knowledge is you being thoughtful? All righy then. You just gave a critique, not a thoughtful critique. I responded to your assumptions and presumption about thoughts and thinking in another response. As I said in that other post, with your logic, assumptions and presumptions, pretty soon you will be telling me I should not be pooping or peeing because pooping or peeing requires me to think I have to poop and I have to pee. You will not go that far and you will not find what you seek with your assumptions and presumptions, and with your non-duality spirituality based on duality by the so called experts.

It's probably best to end this discussion here. It's to no one's benefit, including other forum members.

Peace.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Back to my original point. How much thinking went into your last response? How much emotion? You do know sarcasm is an emotional retort? Do you really lack thought, emotion and humor and do you actually attempt to suppress them? How successful is that? Is that really how the Divine wants us to live our lives in this reality?

As I already said, unless you're a philosophic zombie it's impossible to not think and not feel, therefore a spiritual philosophy equating non-dualism to unconditional love with the path to realization being no thinking and no emotion is a very short dead-end street. As a practical matter it's impossible to practice and exist in this world.

Examples:

Did you have to think whether to pay property taxes or contract directly with local police and fire services, determining which was more advantageous and least against your principals?

Are you going to have pancakes, eggs, cereal or oatmeal for breakfast today?

What day will you do your grocery shopping and why?

Do you make decisions about outdoor activities based on weather forecasts?

How did you arrive at your principals, and if you don't recall them from memory how do you live by them?

Do you balance your checkbook or otherwise track your assets and available cash?

How do you arrive at these decisions and conclusions without thinking?


Do you do things because you like them and avoid things because you don't like them?

Why live on hundreds of acres instead of a half acre city or suburban plot? Do you prefer the aesthetics of the rural landscape better than those of more congested areas?

Do you have any preferences?

Why and how unless emotions are involved?


How can one survive in this reality without thought and emotion? Without accessing memory or planning (dreaming) for the future?


You can believe what you want and live your life how you want, but when you put forth what appears to me an obviously flawed spiritual philosophy in a public forum dedicated to spirituality and insist it's not only correct, but the actual philosophy of the same name (non-dualism) developed and practiced over thousands of years is wrong because you say it is by virtue of your invented belief system, expect to be challenged.

You now have another opportunity to address my original observation and critique. If this discussion is to continue please stick to the topic at hand as I'm not going to respond to tangential replies not germane to the difference of opinion.

You sure do like to take what I say out of context to suit yourself, don't you? You quoted a response to r6r6r. The response of mine to r6r6ro that you quoted was about a pencil thus the context of the whole thing was about physical objects. Physical objects like a pencil are not important. When I am hungry or thirsty I simply eat or drink what I want or desire (not what I like or dislike) in that exact present moment. For someone who talked to me about the one subject and of the many objects, you put a lot of your awareness and thought into the many objects. That is what you get when you have a non-duality belief based on duality that separates non-duality/oneness/unity. non-duality/oneness/unity Do you see the irony/ignorance in that? Separating non-duality/oneness/unity in any way while you are searching for non-duality/oneness/unity within that same seperation lacks common sense.