human nature - inherently good or evil?

[Lunitik]

Passion can be like putting dye, paint or mud into clear water so you can easily see the currents/movement within the water without being in the water. But then it clouds the water and makes it difficult to see through the water when you are in the water. In this manner, passion can cloud an individual's mind, while highlighting the inner workings of the individual's mind to others.

I agree, but I am not sure how this is relevant? I am not recommending either love or hate, because this is even the lower form of love. It is another impotency of language that the directed love and totality of love both require use of the same word. The enlightened man does not direct his love at all, it is just so overflowing in him that it is spread to all around him, it is the usual situation though where behind love there is a current of hatred when it is directed. The obligations towards loved ones, no one else will anger us so easily. Hatred is simply pointless, it serves no purpose at all, and yet normally everyone hates someone that they must be around regularly - perhaps the most useless emotion there is.

 

[Saltmeister]

I tell you it is possible to not choose, because choosing like ego is a result of mind. Through the practice of meditation, this is achieved.

Now, you are perfectly correct that there is a choice to begin meditative practice. You are not choosing to war with mind though, you are not to engage in a battle with ego or anything else. Simply choose meditation and the rest takes care of itself.

This is as far as I will go with the psychology of "ego" because you are now getting into "higher plane concepts" and I have noticed that you seem particularly fond of higher plane concepts. I have little interest in higher plane concepts because they have little benefit for us in the earthly plane. The benefits of higher plane concepts are difficult to impossible to measure because higher plane concepts are about things we cannot see. You are fond of higher plane concepts and are therefore fond of things other people cannot see.

When you function of ego, you cannot do truly good acts

The question of what is "good" is subjective. People who fail to be satisfied with something "moderately good" and have to aim for "ideals" are obsessive and over-analyse the notion of goodness.

it is always something which will benefit you.

I don't see anything wrong with receiving benefits. I am, after all human. Humans need benefits to survive and sustain themselves. This is how things work in the earthly plane.

There is always a purpose, you don't simply act.

What is wrong with aiming toward the fulfilment of a purpose?

Meditation is simply taking time to sit in utter silence, doing absolutely nothing. Watching all that goes on around you, inside you, but identifying with none of it... just remaining a spectator.

It sounds like therapy. Silence is the way to allow your brain's chemistry to return to a stable balance in the midst of all the things going on in life.

Was Jesus humble, loving? He judged quite outwardly, aggressively. For me, this act is exactly hypocritical.

What you seem to be missing is that Jesus' teachings were not introduced into a social vacuum. Teachings about loving your neighbour, not being judgmental, self-righteous or hypocritical had little meaning without Jewish Law. Without Jewish Law, there is no need to judge and therefore you cannot be judgmental, self-righteous or hypocritical. This was not about spirituality, mysticism or enlightenment.

You haven't produced any convincing evidence that Jesus was an enlightenment guru and you do not seem to have done much to explore the Second Temple world. If you had, you might begin to understand how these teachings had a lot to do with Jewish Law.

Have you heard of Hillel and Shammai? Hillel and Shammai were the heads of two Pharisaic schools that had two radically different ways of thinking about Jewish Law. The former was the liberal/humanistic faction. The latter was the conservative/legalistic faction.

These two factions were in fierce opposition to each other. Many of Jesus' teachings reflected those of Hillel and it is quite likely that Jesus was actually a follower of Hillel. In other words, Jesus' teachings were unleashed into a highly political environment. Jesus was an advocate for one faction over another.

Jesus the Jew
TJ: Jesus was a rabbi on the Hillel side

There is at least one motivation for Jesus' "outburst." You labelling Jesus as "vengeful" is unhelpful and considering the highly political environment in which Jesus' ministry took place, blows it out of proportion. Jesus' behaviour and actions are consistent with other adherents of the Hillelite faction in their fierce opposition to the other side. I have little difficulty understanding why he responded in the way that he did. You wouldn't call the average person "vengeful" even if they had a sword in their hand. I doubt whether you would have called David vengeful even though he fought in so many wars. It's all because Jesus is so popular. You made Jesus seem worse than the average person.

There is however another motivation. Jesus wanted to be a martyr. He was deliberately provoking the opposing faction so that he would be killed, given to the Romans and crucified. The point of doing this, as we have seen in the last 2,000 years was to start a new religion. Jesus gave us, the Gentiles a religion. This was the purpose of his outburst.

You have stated some of his judgments to justify his actions, this is quite telling - clearly you love him so you do not want to see his flaws, you do not see him as a full person.

You clearly do not know me at all. I do not "love" Jesus. How can I possibly love him? I have never met him, unlike Peter. The best I can do is read books about him. Do Jews love their rabbis and sages? Do Muslims love Mohammed? Do scientists love Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein?

The point of Jesus' outburst was to start the journey that would lead to his martyrdom. He would be crucified and rise again. People would become so excited about what happened that they started a new religion that was about him. I was not there to see it happen and to be at the centre of it. I simply contemplate the sociological consequences of his life and sayings.

Jesus' teachings were an approach to Jewish Law. He was part of the system. It is not "I" who idealise Jesus. It is you. You are disappointed and heartbroken that he didn't live up to your ideals. I don't need a perfect Jesus. I don't require him to be flawless. What I want is a helpful way of thinking of him and your way of thinking wasn't helpful. It is you that doesn't see Jesus as a full person. You base your views on Jesus on the New Testament writings and not on the historical and social context. I have at least taken the time to examine the social and political environment in which Jesus lived to determine where he fit into that world and his "contribution."

I am more interested in Jesus' contribution to the world. Jesus was a contributor. Every culture has its heroes and contributors. The Jews had Moses, Abraham, David, Philo Judaeus, the rabbis and sages. The Greeks had Heracles, Daedalus, Theseus. They had their philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, etc. Contributors to the modern world are people like Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, etc.

Jesus gave the Gentiles a religion of their own. He was a contributor to interfaith.

Based on my observation of you on these forums, you seem so obsessed about higher plane concepts that anything less than your "higher plane idealisms" must be portrayed as inferior or barbaric and that is what leads you into labelling Jesus as "vengeful." It's like a bunch of extraterrestrials arriving here, looking around and saying, "Darn! What a bunch of savages!!!! Thank enlightenment we are not like them!!!!" If a bunch of extraterrestrials ever came here and tried to tell us how to live our lives, I would tell them to get off their high horse and go back into outer space where they came from.

A few weeks ago you said I had wrongly mistaken you for a "crazy mystic." You may not be as crazy about mysticism as I first thought, but you certainly seem crazy about higher plane concepts because you talk about meditation, truth and mystical onenesses and you seem quite interested in "psycho-analysing" people.

I for one do not want to be psycho-analysed on these forums. If I need counselling I will ask for a psychologist and I am not in the business of seeking counselling on these forums. I also do not want you to "psycho-analyse" Moses, Abraham, David and Jesus because I find it very unhelpful. I find it unhelpful because it is where you take an obsession with higher plane concepts a little too far. It actually seems like an insult to these people to try to "psycho-analyse" them and even disrespectful. This is not why we remember them. I would not think a biography about Isaac Newton would be written so people could "psycho-analyse" him.

Because what you said about me was inaccurate, by your own reasoning, you cannot be enlightened because you allowed your prejudices to get the better of you. When enlightened people judge people, they always have to be right. Because you were wrong, you cannot be enlightened.

Sorry, but you don't liberate by creating dependence.

It's relative. Jesus' followers were better off after he came into their lives. You could not have asked for anything better. I think that once again, your higher plane idealisms are getter the better of you here. Jesus' approach just wasn't good enough, so you had to put him down and say, "No, it wasn't good enough!!!! Jesus could have done better!!!!" You don't seem to have any concept of "good enough" that I can see. You seem to be so hard to please and satisfy.

The other thing is that Jesus didn't spend whole a lifetime there with his disciples. He died and his followers had to go on without him.

"Dependence" also implies "need," but what you think Jesus' followers needed is different to what they really needed. I am sure you would like to think that his followers needed to become enlightened. That probably wasn't what Jesus thought they needed and as far as Jesus' followers were concerned, Jesus' approach was successful. They got what they needed. Your view is just an overly pessimistic one.

You cannot taste his energy from a book, you cannot merge with his being if he is not there. You can learn plenty from a book, but you have gained nothing. This has to be understood of religion: mind is exactly the problem, and by learning you are strengthening it.

Why do I want his energy at all? I just want to understand his legacy. This is why I read books and articles from the Internet. This is how things work on the earthly plane. You seem to have given up on earthly experiences.

It's like using a microwave oven without learning how to light a fire with flint. Ok fine, I am a city-dweller and I live in a developed country. I am used to that kind of life. I just think you lose something when you pursue "more advanced" things whether it is "technology" or "higher plane experiences."

I am simply saying that the way he died, why he died is not useful at all other than to create a love for the man... it is an important device in the type of religion Christianity is, but it won't help you transcend.

The only reason why I started talking about "escaping the earthly plane" in my earlier discussions with you is the possibility of an imminent apocalypse. If there is no apocalypse, there is no need for whatever "enlightenment" you promote. We can go on living as we do now, chasing after earthly experiences for thousands of years. Even if there will be an apocalypse, I think earthly matters will still be important.

It's a bit like the Ancients in Stargate Atlantis TV series. They saw ascension as a way of escaping the Wraith. The Wraith were eating them alive and the only way out was to escape this world. Sorry for bringing science fiction into the discussion, but they are often quite helpful in seeing how these concepts may play out in the real world if they were true.

 

[Saltmeister]

I am beginning to see this is a futile activity, it is an interfaith forum yet everyone goes on trying to say what is better about their particular faith.

I hardly ever see that happening here. It tends to happen more on other forums, especially single-religion forums. We have our views, but views are not "religions" and "faiths." There is little point in me saying my "faith" is better than Thomas' faith because we both have the same one. But our ideology is different.

I actually think your statement here would apply more to Thomas because it tends to be Thomas who tends to say that Catholicism is right and everyone else is wrong (no offence).

Everyone else is an individual and isn't defending a particular "faith" or "church." We have our various views and ideologies and we will certainly say why we think a particular way of thinking is "better" than another, but that's not the same as "faith" or "church."

I have lost interest in promoting one faith over another. I no longer find such thinking helpful. I am more interested in "ideology" now.

I can show through any religious text what I am saying, yet because it is not exactly aligned to any particular group, all will dispute what is said.

Anyone can use a religious text to show how it supports their view, but their view may not be helpful. I think the reason why people dispute what you say is because what you say is not helpful. For example, promoting higher plane concepts when people aren't that interested in higher plane concepts and experiences is going to be quite patronising and condescending. If you start psycho-analysing people, you are going to offend them even more. This alienates them further.

I am bringing a synthesize to what I thought was a neutral forum, I am clearly mistaken.

Who said an interfaith forum was going to be neutral? If interfaith was an agenda that needed to be promoted, then interfaith wouldn't be very neutral.

Then, that is all interfaith is really about isn't it? It is about becoming cordial and understanding of others, it is not about realizing every difference you imagine is simply false. I do not understand why such people are on an interfaith forum though, they should be on a forum that is more closed minded - uhh, more specific.

I'm on an interfaith forum because I can't imagine what things might be like on a single-faith forum where if you're not part of the group and don't conform, you're out. I think we've been here long enough to sort out our differences. I think if you were part of a forum where everyone thinks the same way, you'd eventually get sick of it. Everybody gets tired of McDonalds eventually.

Are you disappointed that after so many years of being here that we're still arguing? I think the reason why we're still arguing is that we still haven't sorted everything out.

If you can help sort out the differences here, we might start accepting what you're saying, but I don't think you're going to change things. It's just another new member and life keeps going on as before.

The important thing, however, is that I've been here long enough to understand many of these differences. That doesn't mean that I never have fights here. My thinking has changed over the years and this causes new disagreements. The other thing that causes new disagreements is when a new member like you comes along and talks about things we've never really thought much about. We start arguing with this new member and trying to prove either that he's wrong, or ...... as I'd like to put it -- that his ideas aren't really that helpful.

That happens from time to time ......... you're not part of the club until you realise this.

Trust me when I say this. In a few months time, we won't be arguing with Lunitik anymore. It's going to be someone else. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is interfaith. We've been to the summit of Mt Everest and it wasn't all that interesting and now we're bored, you're a new member and we're arguing with you now.

A few years ago there was a member called Nick_A (if I remember correctly) and he was particularly obsessed with Simone Weil. Deja vu? He talked about interfaith too. Sadly, he was banned and I didn't think he was such a bad guy.

What is gained from becoming aware of many views? Only confusion!

You want consensus? Based on my recollection, you didn't like the idea of "crowd think."

My vision of interfaith is that things are discussed and the different faiths present how it is similar in their tradition, but instead it is always a clinging to what is different, like a crowbar wedging everything apart.

If you ask people to stop clinging to tradition, you are asking them to break tradition and that is a violation. You can't ask people to do something that would violate their tradition. Tradition brings people together. If you ask them to violate their tradition, you're destroying the community. That's why Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the Torah. He was not there to destroy the community.

If you violate tradition, people will not be particularly fond of your views. You have to show why your views are so valuable. Sometimes you have to use tradition itself to show why your views are so important. I don't think you've been using it properly. That's why so many people disagree. It's because of the improper use of tradition.

I for one am less interested in whether your views are actually true. Even if you're right and what you're saying is true, how does it actually help us? If it's not helpful, it isn't that valuable or meaningful. If it doesn't help the rest of us, the mystical experiences you had were for you and you alone. Maybe you experienced something wonderful, but it wasn't for the rest of us.

 

[Snoopy]

Ah yes, Nick_A. I recall he mentioned Plato's cave analogy once, maybe twice.

 

[Saltmeister]

Looks more like conflict to me, I have not come here to argue with everyone, I have come to try to show how there is nothing to argue about.

Arguing is what people do in the mundane world. This is the mundane world.

I have had much patience here, I have spent a couple months trying to communicate how every faith is teaching the same

Sorry, but I can't agree. There are so many conflicting concepts and practices and these conflicting concepts and practices are considered important. Your statement here is based on the assumption that the purpose of all religion is "enlightenment" and pursuit of higher planes of existence. I am quite sure they do not all point to "enlightenment" or "higher planes." Is this what you mean by every faith "teaching the same?"

Even if it were true that every faith teaches the same, you haven't really done much to reconcile the dozens, hundreds or thousands of conflicting concepts and practices. It's like everybody acknowledging the notion of human rights but disagreeing over everything else, which prevents them from travelling to different countries because they've been brought up to live under different laws.

So basically you're back to square one. Telling us every faith teaches the same hasn't really helped that much at all.

I am not preaching, I am not threatening anyone's current faiths - I can simply explain their own faiths devices so they can arrive through it.

You're not using these devices properly.

but I understand it as the writer will have, not how the mundane humans that have gained power decided it should be read.

Surely if you were enlightened, you would able to deal with the mundane world? It actually disturbs me that you would speak of "mundane humans" in a way to suggest that they are lesser than what you are and yet you are so incapable of convincing and persuading them that you are right.

There is very little interfaith dialog on the internet, I have looked. Mostly, everyone wants to keep to there own

People keeping to their own doesn't mean we can't have interfaith. I think you have a different concept of interfaith to what I have. Interfaith doesn't mean we no longer have differences. It just means that we start talking. That is better than no dialog at all. I just find that you're so hard to please and satisfy. You're such a pessimist. Things have to be so perfect and if there's something you don't like, you completely reject it. That to me isn't interfaith. Interfaith is about accepting, co-operating and harmonising. Your pessimism doesn't seem very accepting, co-operative or harmonising. It seems like an all-or-nothing approach.

I have no interest in that at all because for me individualism is holy... groups are what cause every evil.

Individualism can co-exist with collectivism. Groups are not all evil. That's a stereotype.

Again, then you have missed the point... I am not here to teach, I am here to cause others to transcend as I have.

Not everyone wants to transcend. Are you giving people options and alternatives here?

 

[Saltmeister]

Ah yes, Nick_A. I recall he mentioned Plato's cave analogy once, maybe twice.

Ah Snoopy, snooping around as usual. I would have liked to have seen Nick_A and Lunitik arguing with each other. I think that would be interesting to watch -- throw in some Simone Weil, Plato's cave, and secular/transcendent interfaith. If Nick_A were reading this now, he should sign up with a different username and start arguing with Lunitik. I would really like that old ghost resurrected. Let us hope Brian doesn't block his IP address.

 

[radarmark]

Yeah, Weil's metaxu and real hang up on G!d's absence in the world triggers automativ Cave-like adventures in neo-solipism. Kind the flip side of Lunitik's position (as I read it).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt

 

[seattlegal]

It is not a projection at all, love and hate are one... that level of passion which is part of hate is exactly the negative stream for which love is the positive. It is not a hypothesis, simply watch next time hate sprouts, remember that sensation and look at the next time you feel love.

Love and hate are one?

I agree, but I am not sure how this is relevant? I am not recommending either love or hate, because this is even the lower form of love. It is another impotency of language that the directed love and totality of love both require use of the same word. The enlightened man does not direct his love at all, it is just so overflowing in him that it is spread to all around him, it is the usual situation though where behind love there is a current of hatred when it is directed. The obligations towards loved ones, no one else will anger us so easily. Hatred is simply pointless, it serves no purpose at all, and yet normally everyone hates someone that they must be around regularly - perhaps the most useless emotion there is.

So love and hate are not one then? (This is where the relevance of my post comes in.)

 

[radarmark]

FWIW, there is a slight fudging of the law of the excluded middle here, oh, there is also the problem of at least one (half-way) rational being (me) disagrees so a contrafactual exists.

 

[luecy7]

You think you are permanent, and that all souls are permanent.

Fabrication. False. Why do you love to fabricate such falseness?

It is a device though, I go on saying the same: merge object and subject, other and self.

You can view a person as an object, but to me: another person is another subject. I see plenty of objects that you will fail to merge with, but you are welcome to try.

So you know yourself to be a barrier between object and subject, yet you uphold "God" and "I". This is exactly why you have not become enlightened if you could but know it. God is a concept, and you also have a concept that you refer to as I - it will be at the beginning of most thoughts you think.

Fabrication, fabrication, and fabrication. Are you a concept? Am I concept? God is not merely a concept, though it seems to you, as you claim it, this may be the case.

These are tricks of mind, they are the very nature of ego, it has to be transcended or you will remain mediocre.

I find that the tricks of God are superior... am I thus mediocre?

Your material form will disintegrate and provide fertilizer
True and False

We can see that it is true, we can dig up graves and see the process, what is false of it? Have you ever seen a graveyard that isn't plush with plants? There are other practices for what to do with the dead, you can burn the body, perhaps this is what you mean by false? Even here, though, that energy is reused in some way.

Science has shown that energy cannot be subtracted or added to the whole, it can only change form. To dispute something else is to dispute semantics, I merely say your physical body will be used.

You see the fertilizer. Do you see the entropy? If there were ever a single Joule of energy that has ever been reused, then there are many large energy consumptive legions of people who would really like to know about it.

What is fabricated in your view? What do you think provides us with life? We can build biological structures like ears and noses today, if we put a whole human body together in this way, do you think we could bring this creation to life? If no, what is missing?

You claim to know what provides me with life. Do you know who?

dust to dust
True

How do you know?

Because the enlightened Lunitik said it?

spirit to spirit
False

Why do you feel this is false? You do not believe in heaven? What exactly do you think heaven is? If it is a place, why have we never found it? I tell you I am sat in heaven at this very moment, how could it be? It is because I am currently experiencing the love of the whole, the oneness that will be each persons last experience.

Like many things, I think you have found heaven to suit your self. One person's heaven is another person's hell. I would say the duality of a place is like the dual use of a device: as a tool to help each other, or as a tool to do harm. As you say that you are experiencing love, I am happy for you, and I am in sheer disgust. I am disgusted because experiencing love is to be loving, and not necessarily to be loved. Similarly while a person may treasure their body more than the dust, or a place called heaven more than the dust, who treasures the spirit of love?

So you disagree with the trinity?

Yes and no. A thread in itself.

Your disagreement will be in your insistence that duality is valid though, in the ego's insistence that it will continue after death, that it will see its relatives and the like after death. It is purely fabrication but very appealing to our egos.

It definitely appears appealing to your ego to say 'our', and by extension: everyone.

 

[luecy7]

Love and hate are one?

The pattern is established: 'War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Lying is Truth. Evil is Good. Lunitik is God.'

I am glad someone responded to that, but you just know the word 'dual' is going to be in the reply. After all: It takes one to toy, and a duo to... Duet? Duel? Dao?

 

[seattlegal]

The pattern is established: 'War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Lying is Truth. Evil is Good. Lunitik is God.'

lol +1 for putting it so succinctly

 

[Snoopy]

Ah Snoopy, snooping around as usual. I would have liked to have seen Nick_A and Lunitik arguing with each other. I think that would be interesting to watch -- throw in some Simone Weil, Plato's cave, and secular/transcendent interfaith. If Nick_A were reading this now, he should sign up with a different username and start arguing with Lunitik. I would really like that old ghost resurrected. Let us hope Brian doesn't block his IP address.

I don't think there'd be room on the server.

I see Nick has been ploughing his furrow on another forum....and then got banned...

 

[Lunitik]

You want consensus? Based on my recollection, you didn't like the idea of "crowd think."

Consensus is not helpful either, now you are compromising between each individual view. If I were interested in consensus I might comment on the rest of your rambles for instance, but they are utterly a nonsense. What use is anyone going to get out of any of it? They are your theories and you consider them useful, it is because you have studied these topics and have attached to your conclusions.

In reality, you are discussing the past, something utterly dead, and thus there is no use in me taking on that information. Now consensus is impossible because I declare it all utterly pointless knowledge.

 

[Lunitik]

The pattern is established: 'War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Lying is Truth. Evil is Good. Lunitik is God.'

I am glad someone responded to that, but you just know the word 'dual' is going to be in the reply. After all: It takes one to toy, and a duo to... Duet? Duel? Dao?

You have missed my point...

What is peace without war? It is utterly meaningless, because they are utterly interrelated.

What we call freedom certainly is a slavery, it has secured us to a particular system - whether political or religion - and become as much a trap as any prison cell. Few experience true freedom...

Ignorance and strength are not related at all, and yet how will you fear if you are ignorant of any ramifications or risks?

Lies become truth if it reaches popular consensus, this is noticeable throughout human history...

Evil and good are both concepts, but then so is any duality. You consider yourself good, and yet you are currently mocking in this post. They cannot be separated at all because they depend on each other to know the other.

Duality is the conception that there is two, there is not. There is only one real being, the rest are simply expressions of that. In this way, I know myself to be God, yes.

 

[Lunitik]

So love and hate are not one then?

No, they are still one, the enlightened man simply sees the pointlessness of hate AND directed love.

 

[seattlegal]

You have missed my point...

What is peace without war? It is utterly meaningless, because they are utterly interrelated.

What we call freedom certainly is a slavery, it has secured us to a particular system - whether political or religion - and become as much a trap as any prison cell. Few experience true freedom...

Ignorance and strength are not related at all, and yet how will you fear if you are ignorant of any ramifications or risks?

Lies become truth if it reaches popular consensus, this is noticeable throughout human history...

Evil and good are both concepts, but then so is any duality. You consider yourself good, and yet you are currently mocking in this post. They cannot be separated at all because they depend on each other to know the other.

Duality is the conception that there is two, there is not. There is only one real being, the rest are simply expressions of that. In this way, I know myself to be God, yes.

Don't worry, we won't send you back to the Ministry of Love.

 

[Etu Malku]

No, they are still one, the enlightened man simply sees the pointlessness of hate AND directed love.

To practice Love and not Hate is to miss out on the fun . . . the One does not mean anything without the other, it eventually becomes destroyed.

The Yin Yang is such a great mandala for this concept

 

[luecy7]

To practice Love and not Hate is to miss out on the fun . . . the One does not mean anything without the other, it eventually becomes destroyed.

The Yin Yang is such a great mandala for this concept

If you do not practice beating, stealing, raping, and murdering people, you miss out on the fun???

 

[Etu Malku]

If you do not practice beating, stealing, raping, and murdering people, you miss out on the fun???

Wouldn't it depend on how far into each swing of the Hermetic pendulum you take it?

I think you are talking about social, time period morality here.
If our primitive ancestors didn't rape one another (I don't see there being much consensual sex) then We wouldn't be here now.

This is a tough scenario to wrap one's brain around, but I feel it to be important. Death cannot be truly understood without Life being experienced. Beating someone cannot be fully understood unless one is beaten, etc. Not that any of us wish to take this as far as that of course, but the experience demands this.

Which why my beliefs work in the subjective universe, a place where all of this CAN be experienced without being detrimental to another.

The horror of what you are asking is part of the objective universe, and cannot be experienced without detriment to another.