Someone here

@The0Self Can't BS me

Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself... The man who is not under restraint is free, to whom things are exactly in that state in which he wishes them to be; but he who can be restrained or compelled or hindered, or thrown into any circumstances against his will, is a slave. But who is free from restraint? He who desires nothing that belongs to others. And what are the things which belong to others? Those which are not in our power either to have or not to have, or to have of a certain kind or in a certain manner. Therefore the body belongs to another, the parts of the body belong to another, possession belongs to another. If, then, you are attached to any of these things as your own, you will pay the penalty which it is proper for him to pay who desires what belongs to another. This road leads to freedom, that is the only way of escaping from slavery, to be able to say at last with all your soul: Lead me, O Zeus, and thou O destiny, The way that I am bid by you to go.

Solipsism is another word for insanity

Murder is immoral, right? So, is it immoral to eat animals? We don't kill them in defense, it's murder. Right? I used to have a problem with this. I was a vegetarian once (no longer).. Some people do consider this murder, but I don't really consider this murder since some animals are meant to be eaten in many cultures. Of course, in India it is illegal to eat beef, so I tend to think it sometimes depends on one's culture.

As for us eating animals as a form of murder, it wouldn't really be a form of murder. Animals are not protected under the constitution and are not defined as creatures who have rights (why should they have rights when they cannot even recognize those rights? That is why murders are executed because they have violated someone else's right to life and have blatantly shown they do not recognize their own.) The only rights animals have is not to be tortured and abused. I don't think slaughtering animals is a form fo abuse (though there are some cases, once in awhile, that they do horrible things...PETA enjoys exploiting this as much as they can...even when it's decades old!) You cannot apply the same rights that humans have to animals. I know...Animals are important to the ecosystem...Then again, we seem to breed so many...we're not hurting the ecosystem.

Perhaps consider making yourself more clear and easy to understand.

@Windappreciator It's a little different. It's not like I go to a hunter and ask "please sir, would you mind killing an animal for me to eat?" What happens is I go to a shop. There is meat there. I buy the meat. Whether or not I buy the meat, there will still be meat there which means there will still be animals being killed. If everyone gave up meat, then yes, there would be no meat industry. But that will never, ever happen. So what difference does it make if one less person is buying meat? (this is similar to the question about why vote

But do you think we should make a distinction between "eating" an animal and "killing" it. I agree that killing animals is equally immoral as killing people. But not the eating part if you didn't do the slaughter yourself. .. dunno about you guys, but I've never 'murdered' an animal. When I buy meat, someone else has already done the killing for me.

Well we don't think that plants have consciousness. They are alive but they are not sentient (they don't experience pain).

only true cause of death is birth. Anything that is born will die. Everything that is created will be destroyed. When it comes to so-called "causes of death", the rest is at best merely a matter of perspective, if not a deceptive shell game. For example, consider a cigarette smoker who dies with lung cancer shortly after catching the common cold. Would it even make sense to debate about whether the so-called "cause of death" was (1) cigarettes, (2) suicide, (3) lung cancer, or (4) the common cold? I propose that it would make no sense to have such a debate or to assert that one of those is or could be the cause. No human can be saved from death. Thus, nothing else causes a human to die because the death is inevitable from the birth. The human will die regardless of whether they smoke, whether they catch a cold, whether they get lung cancer, whether they drive a motorcycle, whether they are suicidal, or whether they desperately cling to life in terrified fear of death. Neither the presence nor absence of any of those things--or any other things like them--will prevent the person from dying. Thus, those things and anything like them cannot be a true cause of death. One could argue instead that a given event or factor (e.g. the presence of smoking versus non-smoking) would speed up the time of the death. Slightly accelerating or postponing the timing of something is very different than causing it. Moreover, analogous to accelerations or decelerations in Newtonian physics, these factors are cumulative not mutually exclusive, and are thus in practice immeasurable and countless if not infinite. For example, if 8 dogs are pulling a sled, it does not make sense to say which dog is the cause of the sled moving, nor is it true that only the dogs are responsible for the sled moving. Rather, there are countless and presumably infinite factors at play, such as but not limited to friction, gravity, the weather, and how much the guy riding the sled ate for breakfast. Imagine the proverbial sled is going down a steep ice-hill, having black-hole-like properties, and thus the sled will reach its destination very soon regardless of any of those other factors, and some of the dogs are futilely trying to pull the sled up the hill but can only at best slightly decrease the rate of acceleration. That would be a more accurate analogy to anything attempting to prevent human death, such as exercising daily instead of smoking cigarettes daily. There is no preventing death, and no practical way to significantly change to its timing on cosmological scales. The length of a human life is but an itsy bitsy teeny tiny sliver in cosmological spacetime. As a human, each of us is going to die very soon. Every human dies quickly. There is no cause of death, besides birth itself. Once born, the death is inevitable. We are going down the black-hole-like ice-hill quickly, from birth to death, and no dog can reverse the trajectory. When one of us humans reach the bottom of the ice-hill (human death), it is absurd and nonsensical, worse than false, to point to any one dog, or even a few dogs, or even dogs as a whole versus gravity or what the sled rider ate, and accuse that thing of being the cause. It doesn't matter what any of the dogs did, and what the rider ate or didn't eat, and thus those kinds of things cannot logically be considered causes. If you take the cause away, then the result cannot happen. Therefore, if you take an alleged cause away, and the result does still happen, then the alleged cause is no true cause at all, reductio ad absurdum. Thus, the only cause of death is birth.

@Waken thanks Sure go ahead and suggest what has helped you.

@nistake ?

There is no actuality to death.

Obviously you don't know what death is because you didn't die yet.

@Surfingthewave autism? You mean the disorder? No I don't have it. Just anxiety and depression.

NOTICE That you can't distinguish illusion from reality

In our everyday awake state of consciousness.. the body is perceived as made of separate organic “stuff”.. and seems to has a clear boundary between itself and the surrounding space. But in reality “stuff” can not exist. no mathematicallly precise boundary is possible between any object and its surrounding. With psychedelicds.. In some altered state of consciousness the solidness of the body can dissolve and the skin boundary can seem to disappear. You may call such altered state of consciousness abnormal or even delusional. But paradoxically it's such abnormal perceptions that more closely mirror the true nature of reality. Is Our so-called normal perception of a material world populated by material bodies more like a functionally adaptive chronically sustained delusion?

This question comes up time & again: If there’s only One Thing (non-duality) how do you explain all the apparent ‘many things’ we see manifested? Our bodies? The hard solid ground? The water we can see.. feel and drink? The atoms.. quarks and other particles of apparently ‘real’ matter that make up water.. earth and bodies? (Apparently, indeed. Science has already confirmed all atoms are 99% space.. less than 1% “matter.”) Unfortunately.. You are asking for a mind-based.. mind-understandable answer.. and insisting ([“non-objective] answers won’t help”) on limiting the answer to something the dual.. subject/object-based mind can comprehend. “If there’s only One Thing, which means all body-minds are illusions or projections.. could you please explain what that illusory body-mind is…to my illusory body mind:-) See the problem? It’s like a person’s shadow. Can a shadow explain what’s casting it.. or jump up and become the person casting it? Your right eye is a non-duality. You only have one right eye. It cannot see itself as a non-duality. That would take a second eye sitting outside the first eye, looking back at it…and then you’d be back to duality. Within your nighttime dream.. you always think you are your body and your body is real. When a dream car swerves towards you.. your dream body jumps out of the way to avoid getting hurt. Your dream is created by just One Thing. Your mind. No one else’s. So it’s just One Thing, creating all these many things. Real things, or at least.. you’re quite certain their real” while you’re dreaming. But then you wake up.. and you see they were just projections from your One Thing. Your waking dream is no different. “It just seems to be more continuous and last longer,” as Ramana Maharshi said, “but a dream projection, nonetheless.” At the Absolute level.. it’s obvious there is only One Thing.. or more accurately, NoThing. The Unmanifest. The Void. In enlightenment, or what you call ‘transcendence,’ we can get a fragrance of that. But we can only be The Absolute.. Not know it. because The Absolute can not know Itself. That would take two.. right - The Absolute and a separate “knower.” Then it wouldn’t be The Absolute anymore.. it would be a duality. So what can we do? We can know that the One Non-Dual Thing is ‘in the background’ behind all duality, projecting itself through The Everything.. including our bodies.

will try to put this as simple as possible. This question comes up time & again: If there’s only One Thing (non-duality) how do you explain all the apparent ‘many things’ we see manifested? Our bodies? The hard solid ground? The water we can see.. feel and drink? The atoms.. quarks and other particles of apparently ‘real’ matter that make up water.. earth and bodies? (Apparently, indeed. Science has already confirmed all atoms are 99% space.. less than 1% “matter.”) Unfortunately.. You are asking for a mind-based.. mind-understandable answer.. and insisting ([“non-objective] answers won’t help”) on limiting the answer to something the dual.. subject/object-based mind can comprehend. “If there’s only One Thing, which means all body-minds are illusions or projections.. could you please explain what that illusory body-mind is…to my illusory body mind:-) See the problem? It’s like a person’s shadow. Can a shadow explain what’s casting it.. or jump up and become the person casting it? Your right eye is a non-duality. You only have one right eye. It cannot see itself as a non-duality. That would take a second eye sitting outside the first eye, looking back at it…and then you’d be back to duality. Within your nighttime dream.. you always think you are your body and your body is real. When a dream car swerves towards you.. your dream body jumps out of the way to avoid getting hurt. Your dream is created by just One Thing. Your mind. No one else’s. So it’s just One Thing, creating all these many things. Real things, or at least.. you’re quite certain their real” while you’re dreaming. But then you wake up.. and you see they were just projections from your One Thing. Your waking dream is no different. “It just seems to be more continuous and last longer,” as Ramana Maharshi said, “but a dream projection, nonetheless.” At the Absolute level.. it’s obvious there is only One Thing.. or more accurately, NoThing. The Unmanifest. The Void. In enlightenment, or what you call ‘transcendence,’ we can get a fragrance of that. But we can only be The Absolute.. Not know it. because The Absolute can not know Itself. That would take two.. right - The Absolute and a separate “knower.” Then it wouldn’t be The Absolute anymore.. it would be a duality. So what can we do? We can know that the One Non-Dual Thing is ‘in the background’ behind all duality, projecting itself through The Everything.. including our bodies.

Have you started seeing the futility of this grand, bottomless project of trying to make yourself happy and secured? Has it worked? Are you completely at ease, bliss, secured, without fear and anxiety? If not, what's the percentage of progress you made in this grand project over your 10-20-30-40-50 years of lifetime? Do you see the impossibility of this game which is rigged against you? Why do you even try? Why do you still believe you can make yourself happy, secured, fulfilled permanently? Why not simply acknowledge and accept the utter fragility of yourself? Happiness and wellbeing is NOT something you deserve. When did you buy into this bullshit story? Have you lost your mind? Just look at you! If you were a Greek god with a lifetime of 10 billion years, who knows no physical or mental exhaustion, who possesses immense prowess and can survive even a planetary destruction; it would be rational to claim that such a being has legit high chance of deserving and claiming happiness, well being and permanent security. On the other hand look at you! How fragile and vulnerable you are! It takes a zillion things in proper place in your environment and psycholology to make a moment of respite for you while a minor little thing like a virus, temperature, gravity, accident, discomforting thought, tough emotion can legit screw you over. It takes like 15-20 years of healthy childhood, education and environment to have a decent, high esteemed self, while only one traumatic event or imagination can plant a deep imprint in you and screw you over badly for life! Can you simply let go and accept your vulnerability? Can you let go of this impossible project and assumption that you can actually secure yourself? Can you totally accept your fate for having pain, grief, fear, depression as your usual and natural condition and simply stop trying to make it otherwise? Just look at you trying so hard to build and maintain your sand castles in midst of a gigantic Tsunami. See how easy it is to disturb you and your fickle boundaries.. What happens if you simply give up on chasing this impossible dream? You are already bound to be screwed, right? How worse can it be? Maybe a new dimension will open up if you simply give up and accept your fate?

@The0Self I understand where your coming from. So many things happened to me recently . I realized for the first time that I am infinite and full of joy. The rest of the world to me is a theme-park (perfect organized but utterly soul-less point-less). But it's hard to maintain that causeless joy all the time. For every up there is a down. For every high there is a low.

LOL. You only care about happiness. You don't care about anything else. Entirely

@Esilda ?? LOL