Why is it so hard to love each other

[Reena]

15 minutes ago, Cosmin Visan said:

 

Yes. You reverted back to animal level of spiritual development. Go pick up that good man (a.k.a. killer) that will kill others for your benefit! Congratulations!

Whimin are animals. If you hate animals, stay away from them. 

Hating Whimin is like hating this tiger. So sad. 

 

 

[James123]

5 hours ago, Cosmin Visan said:

 

You never read history in your life. No worry, if you will get unlucky that your country will go to war, you will also kill without problem. This topic can be closed.

The real war is not outside, it is within. 

Peace!

[Phil]

14 hours ago, James123 said:

The real war is not outside, it is within. 

Peace!

No! The hate is of the environment!!!!

 

Just kidding of course. 

 

Love you brother! 🙏🏼♥️

[James123]

48 minutes ago, Phil said:

No! The hate is of the environment!!!!

 

Just kidding of course. 

 

Love you brother! 🙏🏼♥️

Love you too brother 🙏🙏❤️❤️

[Joseph Maynor]

It's healthy to want to fight on some level, but we want to be smart -- we don't want to fight with the ones we want to have a relationship with.  So it's like, find a way to get your fighting ya ya's out without doing it with people you want to relate with.  I think this is a key insight.  All of us need something we can fight with.  We're like a dog that needs to play-fight, it's in our nature.  That's part of the human aspect of ourselves.

[Phil]

12 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

All of us need something we can fight with

That’s entirely presumed. 

 

12 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

ourselves

That as well.

 

The ‘fight’ is based on the belief in separate human selves and is happening in thought, sensation & emotion, not perception or reality, not with someone else. Human or humans have never been experienced. The desire for conflict arises only with the belief in separation and individual identity. 

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

That’s entirely presumed. 

 

That as well.

 

The ‘fight’ is based on the belief in separate human selves and is happening in thought, sensation & emotion, not perception or reality, not with someone else. Human or humans have never been experienced. The desire for conflict arises only with the belief in separation and individual identity. 

Phil, respectfully, from my perspective you're making presumptions.  I speak in a commonsense way.  I know what you're saying.  But, let me ask you, what's your answer to this?  Who is doing the fighting?  I guess the fighting doesn't exist from your perspective.  What happens when Phil is fighting albeit maybe indirectly, who's doing that?  You're not, right?  That's kinda weird.  Imagine explaining that to your opponent.  I'm sorry, I'm fighting but not fighting you right now.   What about the other person, they can't be fighting you because you don't think anyone exists.  So let me get this straight, you think nobody exists, but what about the appearance of fighting, is that totally an illusion?  What about relative showing up in the world, I guess you would say that's nonsense because there are no separate selves.  I don't totally deny the existence of the self like you do.  I never thought that approach was tenable.  I see a wobble in the human vs./and Divine duality much more so than abdicating the human as unreal.  I think this causes the ego to be put into the shadow which causes a lot of foreseeable and preventable problems in self help, ego development work, and even spiritual enlightenment work.  I take the position that one must accept the ego, the human, in some sense (not in every sense) as yours.  I'm not going to argue with you indefinitely, but I think this clarifies my position relative to yours, unless you have more to say here.  We just don't see eye to eye regarding the "no separate selves" presumption you prefer to hold true.  I'm trying to be polite too in my response here so as not to turn this into a fight.  I have no desire to fight with you or anyone about these issues as I've been here already, years ago.

Edited January 15 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

Thinking you have no ego (or self) or that the ego doesn't exist in a way keeps you from growing.  You're putting the ego into the shadow.  If you're not working on something (the human level on some level) it doesn't improve.  You have to own that you exist, in both human and Divine forms on some level.  That's the Masculine (Yang).  It's never going to work to throw Yang in the shadow.  I'm well aware of this.  The Divine Feminine doesn't dictate or control all of reality.  Things are more complex and nuanced than this from my point of view.  

Edited January 16 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Phil, respectfully, from my perspective you're making presumptions.  I speak in a commonsense way.  I know what you're saying.  But, let me ask you, what's your answer to this?  Who is doing the fighting?  I guess the fighting doesn't exist from your perspective.  What happens when Phil is fighting albeit maybe indirectly, who's doing that?  You're not, right?  That's kinda weird.  Imagine explaining that to your opponent.  I'm sorry, I'm fighting but not fighting you right now.   What about the other person, they can't be fighting you because you don't think anyone exists.  So let me get this straight, you think nobody exists, but what about the appearance of fighting, is that totally an illusion?  What about relative showing up in the world, I guess you would say that's nonsense because there are no separate selves.  I don't totally deny the existence of the self like you do.  I never thought that approach was tenable.  I see a wobble in the human vs./and Divine duality much more so than abdicating the human as unreal.  I think this causes the ego to be put into the shadow which causes a lot of foreseeable and preventable problems in self help, ego development work, and even spiritual enlightenment work.  I take the position that one must accept the ego, the human, in some sense (not in every sense) as yours.  I'm not going to argue with you indefinitely, but I think this clarifies my position relative to yours, unless you have more to say here.  We just don't see eye to eye regarding the "no separate selves" presumption you prefer to hold true.  I'm trying to be polite too in my response here so as not to turn this into a fight.  I have no desire to fight with you or anyone about these issues as I've been here already, years ago.

Could everyone love each other in your dream?

 

37 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Thinking you have no ego (or self) or that the ego doesn't exist in a way keeps you from growing.  You're putting the ego into the shadow.  If you're not working on something (the human level on some level) it doesn't improve.  You have to own that you exist, in both human and Divine forms on some level.  That's the Masculine (Yang).  It's never going to work to throw Yang in the shadow.  I'm well aware of this.  The Divine Feminine doesn't dictate or control all of reality.  Things are more complex than that from my point of view.  

What would you say to thinkers in your dream?

[Joseph Maynor]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

Could everyone love each other in your dream?

 

What would you say to thinkers in your dream?

 

So are you saying you're not dreaming but everyone else is?   This is kinda sounding like Leo Gura.  Something like -- everyone is dreaming, but my dream is the one right one.  I don't buy into Leo Gura's proposition that we're all dreaming.  If you thought we were all dreaming, why would you be trying to correct me and others?  This is the whole solipsism thing.  It eats itself.  I really don't want to challenge this but it gets ridiculous.  You have to look at the implications of the conclusion that you're driving toward.  I don't agree with Leo Gura or you that life is a dream.  I never thought that was true.  That's a huge presumption right there.  Life doesn't have to be a dream, you're creating that to be so.  But I see you're so entrenched in your point of view that you will never waiver on this, so it's pointless to debate this with you or Leo Gura.  This is the reason I have avoided arguing with you.  I never should have argued with Leo Gura either.  You guys are bought in.  This is your message to try to help others and I'm not on board with it.  I'm similar but different in perspective from you two.  You point to me, but I ask you - why are you dreaming the dream you're dreaming?  You're making yourself the one right teacher (just like Leo Gura does) in your dream, but why?  Why are you creating that dream?   See, you and Leo Gura are tacitly assuming you're not dreaming otherwise you wouldn't do this, you wouldn't have an argument.  You're both assuming that everyone else is dreaming and in illusion, but you're smarter, you're standing on a ledge of truth without making this mistake yourselves.  I don't buy that premise for one minute.  If we're all dreaming, that means you are too, and we can thus ask why you're creating the dream you are as well.   What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  I already know the answer to this puzzle by the way, so keep that in mind.

Edited January 15 by Joseph Maynor

[Jonas Long]

48 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

So are you saying you're not dreaming but everyone else is?   This is kinda sounding like Leo Gura.  Something like -- everyone is dreaming, but my dream is the one right one.  I don't buy into Leo Gura's proposition that we're all dreaming.  If you thought we were all dreaming, why would you be trying to correct me and others?  This is the whole solipsism thing.  It eats itself.  I really don't want to challenge this but it gets ridiculous.  You have to look at the implications of the conclusion that you're driving toward.  I don't agree with Leo Gura or you that life is a dream.  I never thought that was true.  That's a huge presumption right there.  Life doesn't have to be a dream, you're creating that to be so.  But I see you're so entrenched in your point of view that you will never waiver on this, so it's pointless to debate this with you or Leo Gura.  This is the reason I have avoided arguing with you.  I never should have argued with Leo Gura either.  You guys are bought in.  This is your message to try to help others and I'm not on board with it.  I'm similar but different in perspective from you two.  You point to me, but I ask you - why are you dreaming the dream you're dreaming?  You're making yourself the one right teacher (just like Leo Gura does) in your dream, but why?  Why are you creating that dream?   See, you and Leo Gura are tacitly assuming you're not dreaming otherwise you wouldn't do this, you wouldn't have an argument.  You're both assuming that everyone else is dreaming and in illusion, but you're smarter, you're standing on a ledge of truth without making this mistake yourselves.  I don't buy that premise for one minute.  If we're all dreaming, that means you are too, and we can thus ask why you're creating the dream you are as well.   What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  I already know the answer to this puzzle by the way, so keep that in mind.

THIS is why I can't stop coming here once in a while to laugh my entire ass off at shit like this🤣🤣🤣

[Blessed2]

12 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I have no desire to fight with you or anyone about these issues as I've been here already, years ago.

 

You've mentioned this many times lately. "I don't want to argue. I don't want to debate." etc.

 

That's very odd. It probably seems reasonable to you somehow, but honestly, for probably everyone else it looks akin to walking to a stranger in a grocery store and saying only "I don't want to argue with you, I'm tired of it" and walking away.

 

No-one else is interpreting these conversations and Zoom calls as debates or fights or arguments.

 

I'd look into that.

 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Blessed2 said:

 

You've mentioned this many times lately. "I don't want to argue. I don't want to debate." etc.

 

That's very odd. It probably seems reasonable to you somehow, but honestly, for probably everyone else it looks akin to walking to a stranger in a grocery store and saying only "I don't want to argue with you, I'm tired of it" and walking away.

 

No-one else is interpreting these conversations and Zoom calls as debates or fights or arguments.

 

I'd look into that.

 

 

When one shares one argues.  But you're criticizing a side-issue.  Look at what this discussion is about on a deeper level.  I understand you want to criticize me, but there's an elephant in the room here that you ignore from my point of view predictably.  Phil hasn't responded I see.  I don't expect him to respond to the merits of the issues I raised.  So I don't want to argue because it's not "of quality" to me from my perspective.  Like I said, I've already integrated these perspectives.  I know where this all goes.

Edited January 16 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

 

9 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

So are you saying you're not dreaming but everyone else is?

No, very straight forward. Dream analogy, thought experiment. 

 

How about… could everyone love each other in a dream?

And… are there thinkers in a dream?

 

[Joseph Maynor]

38 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

No, very straight forward. Dream analogy, thought experiment. 

 

How about… could everyone love each other in a dream?

And… are there thinkers in a dream?

 

I'll let you have this one Phil.   I don't want to argue about spirituality.  I hate arguing about it.   It's like arguing over what the best color is.  Spirituality is personal from my point of view.   I'm cool with people having different spiritualities rather than thinking I need to mind-meld other people with me as the one right guru or whatever.  That's not my schtick.

Edited January 16 by Joseph Maynor

[Blessed2]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

there's an elephant in the room

 

Yeah. The elephant is my projection.

 

There is nothing wrong with you. For whatever reason I hold onto nonsense rather than freedom.

 

[Mandy]

Law of attraction be so funny, "I don't want to argue", you get nothing but arguing. Ask the Universe for what you DO want, it knows no exclusion. 

[Blessed2]

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

When one shares one argues.

 

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

So I don't want to argue because it's not "of quality" to me from my perspective.  Like I said, I've already integrated these perspectives.  I know where this all goes.

 

So sharing is not of quality to you and your perspective? Sure about that?

 

[Jonas Long]

Did you know that "irony" is written on the ceiling of the internet?

[Jonas Long]

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'll let you have this one Phil.   I don't want to argue about spirituality.  I hate arguing about it.   It's like arguing over what the best color is.  Spirituality is personal from my point of view.   I'm cool with people having different spiritualities rather than thinking I need to mind-meld other people with me as the one right guru or whatever.  That's not my schtick.

I feel for you, really.  You perceive ordinary conversation and discourse as being riddled with threats to you.  Instead of listening you are already preparing your defenses, but you are so flustered by anything that you're pushing all the wrong buttons and firing random missles wildly all over the place.  It's hard to watch, which is why the laughter response often occurs.