Demolishing desire

Seeking truth, however much we do not see it, sounds very contradictory. How do you seek what is always before you? I do not disagree with the idea of 'seeking truth' only because it is seeking that seems to have gotten us into this mess, therefore how can we ever realize our fault without first experiencing it. Feedback would be appreciated on this idea. It is a belief of this mind that the possibility exists that perhaps the only way to find truth is to give up on seeking truth, only by failing our search and realizing our failure. By realizing failure, we have no choice but to give up on the search. By giving up the search, we would be forced to confront our unhappiness, which we then realize was only caused by our search for truth. We would have to realize that our faulty was in that we thought we didn't see truth, which was before our eyes the entire time. This would most likely cause a radical paradigm shift in the mind, causing the mind to see its own faulties. It went searching for the one thing it knew was there(Truth) so it could be happy, it failed, it realized its own unhappiness, it begins to accept what is, for it knows that if it cannot find pure truth it will never find pure contentment in anything else, it realizes it will never be content with any desire, it spots desire, it demolishes it.

What do you think?

 

Not necessarily. Your cells have individuality, yet they are part of a whole.

I condemn false beliefs. And of course there is separation.

Your statement is wrong, there is a time when they are meant to be desired.

Your message was foul and wrong, thats why I said it. About whether you know what you are talking about- you could be deliberately lying about things and actually know whats going on.

These are not insults, they are corrections. Many of your statements are false or misleading.

Of course, all things teach. I have learned things about you from what you say.

I am one with everything.

Do you actually know someone who has not experienced reality, consciousness, truth, and oneness? Wow. You are so kewl. Like totally mega kewl. Maybe you have meet someone who does not understand what these things are? I think I have, or they just like to lie about these things (nudge nudge, wink wink, you know what i mean- ya know what I mean?).

I recognize that you are reality.

Wrong. Everything is reality. Unless you are somehow excluding me from reality, I am reality.

Actually we are One, you are just lying or do not understand what you are.

Here we go.. slowly, don't worry: We Have Learned That Reality Can Decieve.

Actually I would know that I am teaching reality, because every action I make teaches reality.

Lies. I am all of these things.

We were discussing "the divine power to teach truth in its complete essence before". However, you can also learn about "reality in its complete essence" from my actions.

You keep spewing forth falsehoods, why should I believe you now?

I have learned that you spew forth falsehoods and conjecture by observing your statements. I have never claimed to be unwilling to learn.

You do not acknowledge that we both teach truth in its complete essense- you by being false, me by being truthful.

Always learning, Kharakov

 

"Not necessarily. Your cells have individuality, yet they are part of a whole."

This is an inaccurate analogy (in Hikaru's opinion). Here is why: In physical existance, Oneness is not possible, as it is restricted by the laws of physics. You may very well be One with all, and yet have a separate body. Oneness is a concept that applies only to the spiritual realm. Spiritual Oneness implies no spiritual individuality whatsoever. All conscious acting must not be in the name of you, it must be in the name of all. "Your" physical body must be the medium through this.

In a way, and in retrospect, your analogy IS quite correct. Cells have no spirit of their own; each cell is filled with the exact same consciousness that every other cell is filled with. Your cells are, essentially, One with your mind and spirit. This is the goal that we, as humans, must attain. Oneness in mind and spirit, even though physically, we are individual.

"I condemn false beliefs. And of course there is separation."

Condemning, by definition, means separation, unless it is hypocritical, in which case it is moronic and anti-establishment.

"Your statement is wrong, there is a time when they are meant to be desired."

Not desired; chosen. Yes, we must CHOOSE truth and Oneness, but we must not desire it, for desire will fill the mind with bias, and one cannot make a clear decision when biased. Even though a married man does not want to cheat on his wife, desire for another woman's body drives him to make a contradictory decision. Desire is the opiate of the mind; it distorts the interpretation of reality into partial fantasy, and truth and Oneness in reality cannot be found in an imagination's world.

When truth and Oneness happen upon us, we must choose it. But we must not seek it out; it must find us, or else we will be so overcome with the desire to find it that we will accidentally and unknowingly distance ourselves from it further.

"Your message was foul and wrong, thats why I said it."

This is your belief; you cannot prove that it is foul or wrong, and at the same time, Hikaru cannot prove that it is NOT foul and wrong. It is a belief.

To criticize on belief that cannot be proven nor disproven is a sign of bias.

Thus, as I have previously stated, you are biased. Bias stems from desire. You are biased because you desire what you say to be correct. Yet, your desire to be correct is leading you astray, as you are now criticizing others' beliefs in order to achieve Oneness. Criticizing is a form of discrimination, and discrimination leads away from Oneness.

"These are not insults, they are corrections. Many of your statements are false or misleading."

You cannot prove Hikaru's statements false or misleading, just as he cannot prove that they are true or correct. These are beliefs, and as you are not Truth nor are you Oneness, and you only interpret reality, you are in no position to refute them and call them false or misleading.

"I am one with everything."

You are not one with Hikaru. Were you One with Hikaru, we would not be arguing.

Therefore, you are either lying or mistaken, as you are clearly NOT one with everything, as you claim.

This statement right here will serve to be Hikaru's triumph in this argument, as he has just proven you to be mistaken.

"Do you actually know someone who has not experienced reality, consciousness, truth, and oneness? Wow. You are so kewl. Like totally mega kewl. Maybe you have meet someone who does not understand what these things are? I think I have, or they just like to lie about these things (nudge nudge, wink wink, you know what i mean- ya know what I mean?)."

Again, a person does not experience reality. They experience only their interpretation of reality. They do experience consciousness in its true form, but they do not experience complete awareness, nor do they experience complete truth or Oneness, as these are found in reality, and the mind can only interpret reality.

A person may THINK that what they interpret is reality. However, as proven in the Matrix, what is interpreted by the brain may very well NOT be reality at all.

"I recognize that you are reality."

This is an incorrect recognition. Hikaru is not reality. If Hikaru were reality, than he would be himself, you, everyone else, and the universe, and even beyond the universe, all at the same time.

This clearly is not so, and Hikaru knows that this is not so because Hikaru knows what he is.

Again, you have been here proven wrong.

"Wrong. Everything is reality. Unless you are somehow excluding me from reality, I am reality."

Everything is REAL. Reality is the collective real. It is the complete collection of all that is real. You are real, I am real, but we are still classified as real and not reality because we do not include eachother, even though both of us are real.

Your terminology is flawed by simple textbook definition.

"Here we go.. slowly, don't worry: We Have Learned That Reality Can Decieve."

Thank you for proving Hikaru's point! We have learned that reality can decieve! However, this statement should be further clarified:

We have learned that our interpretations of reality can decieve, falsifying to each of us what is actual.

And just for good measure, Hikaru argues that if you actually were reality, you have just said here that reality can decieve. Therefore, you, by being reality (not that you actually are), are deceptive and false by your own nature.

Of course, this is NOT true, but in case you decide to pull a dogmatic argument such as "I am reality" again, that outlet is covered.

"Actually I would know that I am teaching reality, because every action I make teaches reality."

Every action you make is merely an interpretation to other people. You may move your foot because it is in someone's walking path. I may INTERPRET this to be a sign that you are uncomfortable. Another person may INTERPRET this to mean that you are in excrutiating pain.

Your actions are interpreted differently by other people. Similarly, reality is interpreted differently by each person.

You do not teach reality through your actions, you merely change the interpretations of reality for other people.

"Lies. I am all of these things."

Again, if you were One with all, then you would be One with Hikaru. Hikaru knows that you are not One with him. Therefore, you are incorrect once more.

"We were discussing "the divine power to teach truth in its complete essence before". However, you can also learn about "reality in its complete essence" from my actions."

Actions do not teach! They merely change the interpretations of reality that other people have! Actions are interpreted differently by many people; no single action can teach one specific concept because every action can be interpreted differently by other people.

"I have learned that you spew forth falsehoods and conjecture by observing your statements. I have never claimed to be unwilling to learn."

You have claimed to be willing to teach. In order to teach, you must know all that you are going to teach.

A history teacher cannot teach history if she does not know history.

History teachers DO know history, therefore, they have nothing further to learn about what they teach.

You claim to be a teacher of reality. In order to be a teacher of reality, you must know reality. Therefore, you must have nothing further to learn ABOUT reality. Therefore, you are unwilling to learn because you have nothing left to learn about this topic.

You have never directly claimed to be unwilling to learn, but you have implied that you are unwilling to learn by the definition of being able to teach reality, as you so claim.

Once again, Hikaru has proven the contradiction that you have said.

"You do not acknowledge that we both teach truth in its complete essense- you by being false, me by being truthful."

Teach: What is the act of teaching?

An ACT is something that changes reality.
Acts are interpreted differently by different people, as I have described above. An act such as suicide, for example, may be interpreted as suicide, but it may also be interpreted at martyrdom.
Teaching is an act that conveys a concept to another person.

However, this concept may ALSO be interpreted differently by other people.

Therefore, it is impossible to teach truth and reality in their complete essences, as the concept of truth and reality will be misinterpreted by many people.

 

It is my understanding that if one is able to see truth and be purely passively observant of truth, this means on the outside as well as the inside, their mind is purely liberated from suffering. Maybe its the other way around. Either way, if there is any desire/fear that one is not atleast completely aware of, (created from the desire NOT to do something), the mind cannot be considered liberated. The liberated mind is one with everything, as he observes the universe and his mind as one, all present, all truth. Perhaps the way out of the loop is to realize you are not who you think you are. You are beyond that. You are an observer, observing the universe through the eyes of a human mind. No one thing can distract the ever-present mind which is not distracted by self-wants. All things must be observed, for no one thing could be greater than another to the liberated mind. Maybe the question isn't "How do we get liberated" but "How do we observe" or maybe no question will lead there. I cannot say for I am not free of desire. I see it more and more, though I am unable to prevent it. Desire cannot be the way out of desire. The way must be beyond that.

 

Isness speaks with great knowledge.

Isness, Hikaru offers you this quote:

"If that's true, then this whole thing is a trap!" - Paul Atreides
"Perhaps ... but the first step in avoiding a trap is knowing that it exists." - Duke Lato Atreides

This quote is from a great book/movie, Dune.

Similarly, Hikaru belives that the first step in avoiding desire is knowing that one has desire.

It may very well be impossible to snuff desire completely, but it is Hikaru's firm belief that desire can be minimized only when one knows that he has this desire within him.

 

Do you assume that your action of opposition to something is not part of a greater spiritual oneness? Or do you believe that something which opposes another thing is in fact part of the greater spiritual oneness?

However there is a time when the desire for these things will lead someone to learn about them (as I have said before).

Not necessarily. Your continued desire for this thing will drive you to find it.

If I find a corpse rotting on the road and claim that it is foul then someone could argue that it is not foul to the maggots or bacteria consuming it, however, to a lifeform which it is wrong for (wrong to consume) it is foul. The same thing with spiritual statements, such as your pessimistic one that I have criticized from the begining (the one that states that someone might be to far gone to save). You continually defend this statement as if it were not foul and wrong to say such a thing.

You have described your statement (that someone may be to far gone to save) accurately. A pessimistic bias is foul and wrong. Do you defend pessimism or do you claim your statement was not pessimistic?

Herein lies the rub. If you accept that pessimism is the correct path, your statements are not misleading. If you reject pessimism, and choose optimism, your statements are misleading. There is the path into darkness and the path into light- however if you claim to lead someone into light with pessimism, you are being false as well as misleading.

Incorrect. You are as much a part of me in disagreement as you are in agreement.

All experience is part of reality. Misleading, false statements once again.

Once again, you are being pessimistic. If my thoughts are a dream that a butterfly in tijuana is having, this does not mean that my thoughts are not reality as well. Reality is built upon itself. Everything within reality is reality's expression of itself.

We both agree that reality can be decieving. However this does not mean that your interpretation of reality is not reality itself. If reality builds the illusion of water on a road in Omaha, your interpretation that it is water is part of reality, even though it is not actually water. Deception is an integral part of reality, which is why I recognize you as reality, even though your statements are false and misleading.

A false and misleading statement. Hikaru can be reality and just plain old Hikky Z. as well. You are decieved if you look at reality as something separate from what you are.

You are either lying or truly do not know what you are.

Do you not see that all reality is one and moves as one? I forget where I heard this, but someone once told me that sometimes it is hardest to notice something that is right under your nose.

Wrong:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=reality

When you look at a tree and see leaves, are you not still looking at a tree? Do no think by looking at a leaf you are not also looking at reality.

Once again you are wrong and misleading. I am only deceptive to those who do not recognize me. I am not false. I am what I am: if you view me as false, you are false; if you view me as true, you are true. If I claim I am false, I am false. If I acknowledge I am true, I am true.

Individuals can understand reality the same way, although they see it from different perspectives. You cannot truthfully think that what you see is not reality, even if it is not something that others can see.

Everything teaches reality, as everything is a part of and is reality.

Your false statement that we are not One shows only one thing- that you are lying (whether it is because you believe your lies or not is something i do not know).

You learn about reality by all the actions you are exposed to. All actions teach reality. That they can be interpreted differently is true. That they teach reality is true as well.

Reality teaches reality. Simple. As part of reality (being reality as well) I teach reality, as do you. Your statements teach falsehood and mine teach truth, which are both part of reality. A math teacher only needs to know the concepts that they teach as I only know the concepts that I teach, besides, my actions would teach you about reality even if I did not know what reality is.

Wrong, history is constantly growing and as part of reality there is constantly more to learn and teach. As usual, you spew forth misleading falsehoods.

False. I know reality.

False. Reality constantly grows (history) therefore I have an infinite amount of reality to learn about.

False. I am willing to learn and have many things to learn about reality (calling it a topic is misleading (as usual with your statements)). There are tons of details about reality that I do not know.

False once again. Being able to teach something does not mean you are unwilling to learn.

This statement is both wrong and right.

Yes. All actions are part of reality. Therefore you can learn about reality by every action. Including the action of learning <-- think about this one (fun, in a zenny kinda way).

Wrong. Even if people can misinterpret what reality and truth are, it does not mean that it is impossible to teach these things. You can misinterpret what a Sine wave or logarithmic function is, but you can (hopefully) be taught what they are.

I have a question for you. Are you (hikaru z) being so wrong and illogical deliberately? This is not meant as an insult, please do not take it as such, I am just curious. Although, as reality, your actions are all deliberate.

 

Desire can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. Do you desire to understand desire to the point that you see it as good?

Food tastes better when you are hungry.

You ever eat food with too much salt on it? Or eat with wierdo health nuts who undersalt their food (my parents). Too much desire is painful. Not enough is bland and unremarkable. However, the right amount is good. Maybe you have hypertension and should cut out the salt....

 

Hunger is unavoidable. To desire to eat because of your hunger will only cause you to focus on your hunger. You finally are able to eat, but you wasted all of your previous time suffering from hunger. Desire causes you to focus your attention, narrowing your vision. Of course if you focus on anything you are going to notice it more. Focus on pain, you will feel pain. Focus on a happy moment, you will be unhappy when its over. Focus on the future or the past, you will miss what is going on now. This mind does agree that desire can lead to a sense of motivation. However, would you not be able to perform your task best with a clear, present mind, not stuck in the future, not stuck in the past. When the mind believes it can achieve something, of course it will be motivated to achieve it. However, if it were to be denied this one thing, it would suffer greatly. You allow your mind to desire any one thing, it will be unhappy until that desire is fulfilled permanently. No one thing is permanent. Desire only leads you to more desire and more unhappiness. Can you not say that if your desires are unfulfilled you will be unhappy? And can you not say that all desire is unfulfilled? All desire ends with fulfillment, but that fulfillment is rarely permanent. One might come to the conclusion then that all desire is unnecessary, however good or bad it may seem.

 

Toke on the bong and be friends now =] We all have something to say, we all have minds that create ideas. Whatever these ideas are, they must all be listened to and rationalized, not criticized.

 

You may see light and dark as opposites. Hikaru sees them as compliments, much in the yin/yang sense. Furthermore, opposition to that which is false does not even fall into this category whatsoever. Your argument has nothing to do with what Hikaru spoke of.

Not quite correct there. Many people have a concept called "free time," where they may pursue activities that are of interest to them. During any free time, one may pursue truth, Oneness, and what have you, without DESIRING to have them, pursuing them only because they have nothing better to do.

Desire implies that there is a heirarchy, and anything that is desired is higher on that heirarchy than free time is; thus, other things are sacrificed in such desire. There is a difference between pursuit and desire. Pursuit need not be driven by desire; pursuit can be driven by boredom or curiosity as well.

And that drive to find it will lead us astray, as DESIRE attempts to link the imaginary to the actual. The actual is NOT the imaginary, nor could it ever be so (unless Oneness were actually achieved, and even then, this may or may not be guaranteed), thus, any attempts to link the two will fail, no matter what the circumstances.

Is that what this is about? Hikaru's statement "You may already be too far gone to save."?

There are many types of people in this world, Kharakov. MOST of them are dogmatists, to at least some degree. This means that they will NEVER change themselves nor what they believe, no matter WHAT you say. These people, like you and Hikaru, for example, have desire. But they are not willing to enlighten themselves enough to drop that desire. Instead, they perfer a life a servitude and a lack of knowledge, which may as well be the equivalent of a Technical Knock Out to death. Hikaru argues that these people may already be considered dead, as they will NOT change, NO MATTER WHAT.

These people who will not change ARE already too far gone to "save;" they are figuratively dead. They CANNOT be enlightened.

And yes, there ARE some people who CAN be "saved," as they are not dogmatists.

This is why Hikaru said, "You MAY already be too far gone to save."

Most people are too far gone.
Some, such as yourself, are not.

You may find this statement to be foul, if you choose, but this statement certainly cannot be found bloated, nor wrong. And foul is only in the sense that you dislike that notion, whether or not that notion is correct or incorrect. Foulness is relative, and in this case, only relative to you, because you have chosen to see it that way.

Hikaru claims that his statement was not pessimistic.

A pessimistic statement might be "You are surely too far gone to save."
An optimistic statement might be "But you can still be saved!"

Hikaru's statement is merely an observation, a realistic statement. Its proposition is true, as the proposition coincides with actuality, and the figures line up.

Hikaru does not dismiss the possibility that some people can change.
Nor does he dismiss the possibility that some people cannot change.

Instead, he weighs them, and finds his use of the word "may" to be accurate, in accordance with the statistics.

A pessimist believes that they are right. An optimist believes they are right as well. Both see their views as "leading to the light," or at the very least, to either safety or happiness.

Neither pessimism nor optimism are true. That is, they are not actual. They do not coincide with the figures and math. To say that "you can be saved" is untrue. To say that "you cannot be saved" is also untrue. These statements only exist to state that which is false. Neither are correct.

Hiakru and you disagree about each of your opinions.

This statement is already proof that you and Hikaru are not One.

For Hikaru has a different opinion than you do.

Were you and he one, your opinions would be identical, and you would not be arguing at all to begin with.

All experience is part of AN INTERPRETATION of reality.

If you move your foot into the walking aisle of an airplane, and Hikaru experiences this, and comes to the conclusion that you are uncomfortable, the experience that Hikaru had can easily be false, if you actually moved your foot in order to trip the waitress as part of a joke.

In this case, Hikaru *experienced* you moving your foot because you were uncomfortable. This experience was NOT actual. Therefore, NOT all experiences are part of reality; they are only parts of INTERPRETATIONS thereof.

How was Hikaru's statement pessimistic? Hikaru merely stated that the mind can only *interpret* reality. This is an empirically correct statement, it is PROVEN. It is realistic. Not pessimistic in any sense whatsoever. You are dogmatically calling Hikaru's responses pessimistic without even showing any grounds for pessimism.

If your thoughts are a dream that a butterfly in Tijuana is having, this does not necessarily mean they are related in any way. If they are, that does not mean that they are related to actuality, as both could be similar or perhaps even exacting interpretations of reality.

Furthermore, reality does not "express itself." Reality IS itself. Actually just IS. Reality is not conscious, it cannot perform the action of expression. Reality is subjective in that sense. It can only be *acted UPON*, that is, interpreted, or changed perhaps. But it cannot "express itself," as actuality is not sentient. Perhaps the driving force BEHIND actuality is sentient, perhaps the spiritual energy that flows through actuality is sentient (if you believe in that), but actuality itself is merely a state of physical existance, and nothing more.

 

For the last time, please cease to call Hikaru's statements false and misleading without any sort of proof. You are tacking this repetitive statement onto the end of every other paragraph. You are merely using satire and lexical structure to convince the reader that something is true, even if it is not.

First off, reality is not decieving. Reality can be interpreted incorrectly, which can lead to the assumption that reality is deceiving, but reality is not sentient. It cannot decieve. Any deviance between your interpretation of reality and actuality itself is not because REALITY is deceiving, it is because your interpretation of it is flawed, and your mind has associated your imagination (which has no actual grounds whatsoever) with reality.

Reality does not build an illusion of water on a road in Omaha. You interpret that reality built it. Reality does not build it. It is a road in Omaha, without water. If you see water, it is because your imagination has become so strong (as this tends to happen when one desire something badly, *such as water,* for example) that your imagination has greatly influenced your interpretation of reality, and therefore, you SEE water along the road to Omaha. But reality did not PLACE an illusion there. Your imagination, which is a subset of you, PLACED the illusion there.

Again, with the lexical tabbiness, "false and misleading." When will you learn that repetition does not prove anything?

Hikaru cannot be reality and plain old Hikky Z as well. For you see, Hikky Z is actual. He has a body, a mind, and a spirit, and all of these things exist as a part of a whole concept called "actuality." Hikky Z is a part of actuality, but you suggest that Hikky Z is ALSO actuality itself.

To say that Hikaru is a part of actuality, and is also COMPLETE actuality, is logically paradoxical. One cannot be ONLY the water in a glass, and be the glass itself, at the same time.

This is proven on the same grounds as professor Albert Einstein proved that it is impossible to be in two places at the same time.

You suggest that Hikaru is either lying, or that he does not know what he is.
Hikaru suggested in his previous post that you are either lying, or that you do not know what you are.

Much the same either way, no?

The problem with your statement being that you have not proven anything, merely repeated the phrase "false and misleading" enough times to make it SEEM that you are proving faults in Hikaru's logic, when your arguments are philosophically invalid, ill-formed, and unsound (and philosophers have quite precise definitions for the words "invalid," "ill-formed," and "unsound" when dealing with arguments. Hikaru is not simply calling your arguments bad names, he is suggesting that the propositions of your arguments do not support the conclusion, because it is possible for your propositions to be true and your conclusion to be false at the same time; thus making the argument "invalid" by philosophical definition).

Reality is one. Yes. You and I are not reality. Therefore, we are NOT One. We are actual. We are NOT actuality.

And your analogy about finding something right under your nose serves no purpose other than to sit there and look cute; it does not support your conclusion whatsoever.

Reality, as you have so perfectly pointed out for Hikaru (he thanks you for doing so), is *the TOTALITY of all things that are real*.

Hikaru is real. You are also real.

TOTALITY includes both of us, and everything more.

You cannot be a part of reality and ALL reality at the same time. This is merely an illusory paradox.

Perhaps you shifted in and out of attentiveness when watching the Matrix (if you have seen it)?

Just because you "see" a tree does not mean it is there. You may ACTUALLY be staring at the inside of the equivalent of a test-tube, but your brain percieves this to be a tree. Your PERCEPTION of the tree, though it is LIKELY actual, is NOT GUARANTEED to be actual.

Again with the "wrong and misleading," aye?

You claim to be reality. Hikaru has proven that you are not reality, by the definition that YOU have provided for him.

You are speaking with relativity to a single entity. You are saying that if Hikaru views reality (you) as false, then reality is false. And that if Hikaru sees reality (you) as true, then reality is true.

But Hikaru may believe reality to be true, when reality is actually false, as was already proven in the Matrix.

Just because Hikaru interprets reality to be true does not mean that reality is actually true.

So simply because you claim to be false, you are false? But you (as reality) have already argued that you are deceptive. If you are indeed deceptive, you could be lying, in which case your claim to be false could be false, and you would be true.

And vice versa for the second part of your statement.

The first part is true. Individuals can come to the same conclusion through different propositions. However, this does not mean that this conclusion is true by any means.

The second part is incoherent. The movie "A Beautiful Mind" portrays a schitzophrenic man who sees people that other people cannot see. However, because other people cannot see them, he truthfully thinks that they are not real. This leads him to ignore his "visions," which further reinforces the fact that they are not real.

He thinks that they are not real because other people cannot see them. You suggest that it is impossible to think that they are not real, even though other people cannot see them.

Last Hikaru checked, it WAS possible to disbelieve an illusion. Therefore, you CAN truly believe that something is not real.

Everything can NOT be both part of reality and be complete reality at the same time!

To be "part of" something means that you are separate from the "rest."
To be "completely" something means that you are NOT separate from the rest.

You *CANNOT* be separate and be identical at the same time! This is logically impossible, and the notion is nonsenical and to a point, even whimsical.

Again with the "false" and no proof? My good man, you must be a lexical MASTER to have repeated it so many times. Hats off.

But seriously ...

You have come to presuppose that Hikaru is false. This leads you to the conclusion that Hikaru is lying.

But what if Hikaru is NOT false? You have yet to prove this, as you have only repeated it mercilessly until it has essentially died twice over.

 

You do not learn about reality because of your experiences.
You learn about your INTERPRETATION of reality because of your experiences.

In the Matrix, Neo experienced many things before his "awakening," if you may call it that. Yet, NONE of that taught actuality. This is because his experiences were all false interpretations of reality that were fed to him through a tube. False interpretations of reality do not teach reality.

This statement is like saying that the false teaches the true. Again, this notion is unsound and paradoxical.

Correct interpretations of reality teach reality.
Reality itself *DOES NOT TEACH*.
It is not sentient. It cannot perform actions such as teaching.
It is subjective, you must act upon it in order to know what it is,
And by acting upon it,
There is already the chance that your interpretation is incorrect.

You are not reality and a subset of reality as well.

That is equivalent to saying that you are one car in a dealership lot, and you are ALSO the dealership lot itself.

This is logically impossible.

Furthermore, just because you claim that my statements teach falsehood and yours teach truth does not mean that this notion is true. You have not yet PROVEN that my statements teach falsehood and that yours teach truth. You are merely assuming that I am incorrect, without any sort of proof whatsoever.

Again with the "misleading" and "false?"

*GET SOME NEW MATERIAL*

And your statement that reality encompasses the past is incorrect,
As Hikaru will now prove.

If reality encompassed the past,
Then the past would be reality.

In the past, Adolf Hitler is alive.
In reality, Adolf Hitler is dead.

The past is NOT reality, and therefore, reality does not encompass the past.

Therefore, reality IS changing, but there is nothing that is "added" to reality to teach, reality merely changes.

You are again presupposing that you know reality.

Yet you cannot prove that you are reality.

Therefore, your entire argument, which is based around this presupposition, is unsound and unjustified.

As Hikaru said. You are a lexical master. Congratulations.

Backtracking now ...

Hmm.

Hikaru points out the fact that nearly half of your material is merely stating the exact same idea over and over again.

There. You are DIRECTLY contradicting yourself.

You claim to know reality and to not know reality.

You are clearly defeated.

Hikaru's proposition cannot be both right and wrong. It cannot be both true and false. It can either be true, or it can be false, but it cannot be both at the same time.

Your entire argument is filled with paradox and repetition.

You have no actual argument,
Only skill enough to turn words in your favour,
So as to make it sound like you are arguing,
When in fact you are inserting different variations
Of the same unproven propositions.

More specifically,

and

Hopefully?
By adding "hopefully" to your statement, you have left open the option that it IS possible that you cannot be taught these things.

You are offering two concepts that conflict directly:

The concept that "it is not impossible to teach these things"
And
The concept that "it may be impossible to teach these things"

Hikaru is not being illogical. You haven't proven him wrong; you've only been his catalyst to prove himself right.

You claim that he is wrong without proving that he is wrong; you are only offering the same beliefs that you have over and over again, without linking them to correctness or actuality.

And do not worry, you could not insult Hikaru if he chose not to allow you to.

The question here, is not "how much you desire," for you desire to have the correct amount applied to your food.

However, eyesight and body movements are not calibrated to automatically apply this correct amount every time.

Therefore, sometimes, you are left with too much, and sometimes too little.

But you DESIRED to have the correct amount.

Quite the point. Fulfillment is never permanent. Desire merely wastes one's time, as it seeks fulfillment that will eventually cease to be fulfillment, and leave you *right back where you started*.

=)

This is Hikaru's only comment.

... On second thought, Hikaru would like to add this notion:

The entire time, Kharakov has been criticizing Hikaru's views as false, and has been promoting that his views are true.

In order for Hikaru to prove that he is not false, he must prove that Kharakov is not true.

All of Hikaru's statements up until this point are merely defenses. Kharakov has been pursuing criticism (perhaps because he desires it?), but any counter-criticism that Hikaru uses is only used because it is Hikaru's one defense, as is counter-criticism in any argument.

 

Complimentary opposites.

The above statement is false. True/False are complimentary opposites as well. Notice the difference between my true statement and your false statement. Notice the relation between the two.

You have used this statement incorrectly. Read below:

I said "However there is a time when the desire for these things will lead someone to learn about them." Which is not at odds with the above statement. In addition, it was true for me, and it is true for many who follow the spiritual path. The desire to end hunger leads some people to eat. Some do a little crank. Some do a line. Some do whatever...

There can be heirarchies of desire.

Wrong. Desire to end boredom. Desire to know (curiosity). Pursuit implies intent and desire. There are these things called dictionaries that will help you understand the words you are writing.

Do you not understand that your imagination is but a small facet of the actual? This does not mean your imagination is not actual, what it means is that if you confuse your imagination with the actual, you do not see the actual. The sparkle of a diamond is not the diamond, however it does exist.

The entire first statement that included those words. That's how this started.

And I have said that your statement is foul and wrong. Bloated because it contained unnecessary embelishment (thees and thous, desirest, etc.), so I added my own (bloated) to bring light to the situation. Foul because it is a message of despair and wrong because it is incorrect. Offering your statement to someone starved for enlightenment is like offering maggot infested roadkill to someone who is starved for food.

Pessimism is spiritually foul.

Ok.

You used the word "might" which lends your statement ambiguity, however the overall tone of your statement is pessimistic (to far gone to save). You must read the rest of your first statement as well.

We were not talking about pessimists or optimists, we were talking about your message having a pessimistic (defeatest) tone.

The statement 'you can be saved' is true until the thing you are being saved from has happened to you, however the assertion "you cannot be saved" is untrue, because you never know what will happen until the very last moment has passed. Therefore the optimistic tone is correct in this instance, and the pessimistic tone is incorrect (which is fitting).

Until you understand oneness, you cannot correctly judge others to not be one with you. We are one, however, you do not understand how we are (yet).

Your experience that you thought that I was uncomfortable is a real experience. This experience is actual. The actual experience that you have is not the actual experience that I have (which should teach you something about reality, oneness, and individuality).

Umm, you left off the rest of your statement :

So you don't think this is a pessimistic statement. Assuming that people do not experience conciousness in its true form, etc.? Please look at your whole statement.

It does. Get a dictionary, reread my statement.

It is. Correct!!!!!!! Wooot!!!

Sure buddy, you know whats goin on then... Thanks for telling me that reality is not conscious. Are you conscious?

Actuality is much more than physical existence. Don't separate reality from components of it (driving force behind it, etc.). Reality is each component, everything you see, every thought you have, every physical thingy, etc. Gotta go.

Sorry, can't get to your other statements now. Maybe tomorrow or later, girlfriends in town, wants attention.

L8r, Kharakov

 

Embrace desire. Desire's what fuckin keeps the whole world turnin.

 

i rate love is what keeps the whole world turning, always has and always will. it is the alpha and the omeoga

 

You guys not have a bong? Hehe

 

I desire survival, albeit an instinctual desire. Survival is the driving force of all living creatures. To diminish desire is to diminish the will to live.

 

No shit.

Desire makes the rockin' world go 'round.

 

They are false and misleading. Someone with wisdom can see this. You obviously care about being correct, or you would not defend your ideas so strongly. When your ideas are correct and presented correctly, it is easier to defend them and judge opposing ideas. Your drive to be correct will lead you into wisdom.

Your imagination is part of reality. Reality placed the illusion there. There is no separation between your imagination and reality, just don't confuse the two.

Yes you can. Individuality and oneness are not diametrically opposed. They are a complimentary pair.

You do not normally percieve the complete whole. When you look at a part, you are still looking at the whole, you are just focused upon a part of the whole. You are not all of reality, but when I look at you I am still looking at actuality.

Please show me where you believe your claim to be true so I can correct whatever mistatements I might have made or correct your assumptions about what I have said.

So you claim I have not made a deductive argument, but an inductive argument. Whatever. Please show me what you speak of, instead of shifting the burden of proof to me as you have done.

Yup, except the last one, wanna see it, but gfriend keeps not wanting to rent it... blehjhhhh...

Your perception of the tree is actual. I did not say that the tree was not something else (data or whatever).

Do your claims that I am not reality come from the assumption that I refer to a part as the totality, when I simply mean that looking at a part you view the totality as well. You must learn to see the whole and the parts at the same time in order to judge correctly.

I like this movie .

To see this, you are required to see reality as a whole. When you are looking at a part, you are still looking at the whole as well.

Thanks .... nudge nudge, you know what I mean, you know what I mean

You are not false, however, many of your statements are because you base your arguments on incorrect assumptions (I might have too ).

Than the very universe would implode in a puff of illogic.

Now there is a nasty coughing stinky person sitting next to me in the library. Ahh, reality...

 

Umm, you claim to have learned nothing about reality through your experiences? Then maybe you should not argue against one who has. You are silly. Did you learn that reality can be deceiving when you watched the matrix? Coolness.

Reality has many layers, like an onion. So what? Learn about the layer you experience. It should teach you some fundamental stuff about reality. If you can't learn from what you experience, you ain't gonna learn from anything.

I gotta go, gotta pick the gfriend up from a haircut. Maybe finish this later.