human nature - inherently good or evil?

[Lunitik]

In my view, as you use the word it is still a solo exercise. I can replace the word 'meditation' with the words 'doing drugs', or 'thinking sex'. You can do drugs in the middle of a packed dance floor, dancing with 3 girls at the same time, and I would still consider it a solo exercise. The dancing is the only part there that is not solo.

It is certainly an exercise in aloneness, you have still not explained your problem with this.

On a planet all by yourself, you could still meditate. If a person considers a word like love to be something that they could do on a planet all by themselves, then I think they have equally missed the point. A person can use the word 'love' to describe what they themselves like, admire, appreciate, or desire, instead of using the word to mean loving someone. For example: It is possible to love someone that you don't even love (like, admire, appreciate, desire). If love is a solo exercise to a person, or a feeling, then I will likewise renounce it as a solo exercise. The same goes for faith, trust, honesty, confessing, forgiving, patience... viewed and done correctly, in my opinion, these are not really solo exercises.

Then I simply say you have no idea what love is. For you, love is something targeted, there must be something there to direct it on. It only shows a deep dependence and fear of being alone in you. Without the capacity to love without an object, what you call love is merely infatuation and as such it will dry up. You will still cling and try to possess the other, but it is only because you view them as your property. It is impossible for a relationship to be healthy when both are dependent on the other, and if only one is independent they will simply leave because no one wants to be with such a person - everyone wants time to themselves, too much time together and you simply become sick of each other, it is inevitable.

I think the purpose of religion is often established and twisted by whomever is telling it, and then twisted by whomever is receiving it. You have said that the purpose is to re-legion, and to re-bind people. Perhaps, but I'd say only as individuals engage willingly.

Definitely, here is what I am realizing though:

Even on a site directed at religion, no one is actually interested in religion, they are interested in scholarly discussion about religion and fulfilling their curiosity but they are just wasting their time because there is nothing better they can come up with to do.

You seem frustrated that I disagree with you. You have my permission to call me whatever you wish, especially if you think it is true. Since you have routinely spoken against using the mind, and recommend essentially closing it via meditation, I am not sure whether this is a complement, or that you would instead prefer that I actually use my mind, and even have it open to reviewing your viewpoint. I have appreciated reading and thinking about your viewpoint.

It is not a view point at all, and what I say is utterly from honesty because to lie mind must come in - you have to think of the new story you are going to tell, allow imagination to race. I have said repeatedly, I am not here to discuss or debate, and yet you persist in doing so with me.

I have come to an interfaith forum because what I wish to share cannot be pinned to a particular faith, I assumed wrongly that people here would be open to something which embarrasses all spiritual paths. It is simply wrong on my part, and it is about time the experiment be terminated. You have appreciated it, I have felt I am utterly wasting my time consistently because nothing is changing, no one is experiencing anything through my words.

It is exactly because all here stay within the confines of their mediocre puny minds.

 

[Lunitik]

btw, that is not an insult, it is simply the nature of the beast... mind is limited, small, it deeply pains me how much people are contented with it, identified with it. If they knew, no one would allow such shackles, but they think it is them. Society goes on fueling this belief because all are shackled by it, they simply utilize it for their own sake, appeal to it to make you even more material. This is the nature of society, the systematic poisoning of every being, the creation of lemmings so the powerful can have everything. When you are trapped so much in yourself, how can you possibly see the real situation in the world? It is a perfect mind control but it isn't going to end any time soon. The poisoned actually fight to maintain their poison, mainlining it constantly, it is the most harmful drug man has ever discovered, and yet he has not realized the discovery still. Of course they want you to dream of the future, what you might create, who you might love, it is the same as reminding you of things in your past, it distracts you while they rob you of the present. The present is the gift from God, everything else is non-existential, find the real and you can experience freedom for the first time... otherwise you simply go on waiting for death to come and take you, creating activities that it might appear to come quicker. That is all religion is on this site, another mediocre activity where you compete about who knows more about someone elses experience because you don't have any of your own.

 

[IowaGuy]

As a Luciferian, I am greatly interested in Individualism and not wearing a mask....The person that is not an individual is a collective, the plaything of circumstance and expectation....This mask, he knows, is in keeping with his conscious intentions, and also meets the requirements and opinions of society.

OK, just to clarify, you're saying "wearing a mask" is the same thing as conforming to society? i.e. not a physical mask such as shaven/unshaven; suit & tie vs. sweatpants; but instead a mask of our true character?

So, if you're "on your best behaviour" when at your mother-in-law's house, or you watch your language to not curse while meeting with your kid's teacher, are these examples of "masks", conforming to meet the "requirements and opinions of society"?

I agree with your individualism/nonconformist views. But I also think it's possible and indeed beneficial (from a "my will be done" standpoint) to be able to temporarily conform to the requirements and opinions of soceity, yet keep our true individualist character.

As a Luciferian without a mask, would your boss/wife/child/in-law/friend/grandma all describe your character with equal accuracy?

 

[Lunitik]

Wearing a mask is hiding who you really are, society teaches us all kinds of etiquette's for different situations, and so it provides us with many masks...

Why will you need to "be on your best behavior" or "mind your language" though? What benefit is there to the reverse with others? If there is a part of you which you feel must be hidden, you should probably look at it more closely, can you express yourself without these necessities? If poor behavior and bad language are who you think you are, there is something very wrong.

In actuality, I might suggest that these things are the conformity, you are behaving a certain way around friends because you think it is expected. If it isn't so, why do you think you are embarrassed to express it with certain groups of people? You are allowing the other to change you, it is just another mask.

 

[IowaGuy]

The benefit to conforming to society's etiquette is it's more likely "my will be done" (which I understand to be one of Etu's Luciferianism creeds) than if one doesn't know how to "play by the rules" of society. I think it's possible to wear masks and follow etiquette in order that "my will be done", while at the same time, maintaining my true character.

Do you think Osho talked about drugs and sex in front of a local School Board, or in front of children?

Would you, Lunitik, call your kid's teacher (if you had children) a "closed minded fool", or tell them to "shut up"? (as you have called others on this forum) Or would you use such language at a community meeting where you were trying to educate others or pursuade them? Even though "fool" or "shut up" might be exactly what you were thinking at the time?

Actually, Lunitik, I think you personally might benefit from a little more "etiquette" or "mask wearing". Folks might accept you better (and therefore your ultimate message) if you learned how to soften the harsh edges of some of your words. Effective communication requires that we always consider our audience and how they receive our words along with our nonverbal communication.

 

[seattlegal]

The benefit to conforming to society's etiquette is it's more likely "my will be done" (which I understand to be one of Etu's Luciferianism creeds) than if one doesn't know how to "play by the rules" of society. I think it's possible to wear masks and follow etiquette in order that "my will be done", while at the same time, maintaining my true character.

Do you think Osho talked about drugs and sex in front of a local School Board, or in front of children?

Would you, Lunitik, call your kid's teacher (if you had children) a "closed minded fool", or tell them to "shut up"? (as you have called others on this forum) Or would you use such language at a community meeting where you were trying to educate others or pursuade them? Even though "fool" or "shut up" might be exactly what you were thinking at the time?

Actually, Lunitik, I think you personally might benefit from a little more "etiquette" or "mask wearing". Folks might accept you better (and therefore your ultimate message) if you learned how to soften the harsh edges of some of your words. Effective communication requires that we always consider our audience and how they receive our words along with our nonverbal communication.

Balance is in order...societal order is a sort of collective ritual--often without the individual mindfulness!

From the Ethics thread:

i typically cite Ch'an and Zen for such things simply due to the fact that in my own personal library i have more Ch'an/Zen books that talk about these things than others.

indeed, many of the Vajrayana and tantric lineages have beings that seem to be quite happy to flout the conventions of the Sangha.

...and... i suppose that i usually think of a particular story of a respected abbot of a monestary that was invited to a party hosted by a local noble and was turned away because he showed up in his normal monestary attire. he went back to the monestary, changed into his formal robes and returned to be admitted to the party. he took his place at the table then took his clothes off, put them on the chair and announced that the noble and guests clearly wanted to invite only his clothes since he was turned away at the door, turned and walked out leaving is clothes behind.

metta,

~v

LOL! Good for him!

pro·pri·e·ty/prəˈprīətē/Noun

1. The state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
2. The details or rules of behavior considered correct: "she's a great one for the proprieties"
​

Tao Te Ching 38

(Those who) possessed in highest degree the attributes (of the
Tao) did not (seek) to show them, and therefore they possessed them
(in fullest measure). (Those who) possessed in a lower degree those
attributes (sought how) not to lose them, and therefore they did not
possess them (in fullest measure).

(Those who) possessed in the highest degree those attributes did
nothing (with a purpose), and had no need to do anything. (Those who)
possessed them in a lower degree were (always) doing, and had need to
be so doing.

(Those who) possessed the highest benevolence were (always seeking)
to carry it out, and had no need to be doing so. (Those who)
possessed the highest righteousness were (always seeking) to carry it
out, and had need to be so doing.

(Those who) possessed the highest (sense of) propriety were (always
seeking) to show it, and when men did not respond to it, they bared
the arm and marched up to them.

Thus it was that when the Tao was lost, its attributes appeared;
when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; when benevolence
was lost, righteousness appeared; and when righteousness was lost, the proprieties appeared.

Now propriety is the attenuated form of leal-heartedness and good
faith, and is also the commencement of disorder; swift apprehension is (only) a flower of the Tao, and is the beginning of stupidity.

Thus it is that the Great man abides by what is solid, and eschews
what is flimsy; dwells with the fruit and not with the flower. It is
thus that he puts away the one and makes choice of the other.
​

 

[Lunitik]

The benefit to conforming to society's etiquette is it's more likely "my will be done" (which I understand to be one of Etu's Luciferianism creeds) than if one doesn't know how to "play by the rules" of society. I think it's possible to wear masks and follow etiquette in order that "my will be done", while at the same time, maintaining my true character.

Then you are saying that it is ok to manipulate people to get your own way instead of being absolutely authentic and risk not getting your way? Has Jesus conformed to Judaism, or Buddha to Brahminism? It is the very nature of true spirituality to rebel against the societal norms that you might be authentic to your own being. To relinquish that, for me there is no worse spiritual crime.

Do you think Osho talked about drugs and sex in front of a local School Board, or in front of children?

He has, yes, at Rajneesh Puram, there were many Children which attended his talks because they lived at the ashram in Oregon. For Osho, in fact, it is better that people be exposed to these things early so they can move onto something more mature earlier in life. Perversion and addiction exist because of societal stigmas for the most part, if young people can explore freely they will not become so obsessed. It is sort of a backwards rebellion, in reality both are natural curiosities.

Would you, Lunitik, call your kid's teacher (if you had children) a "closed minded fool", or tell them to "shut up"? (as you have called others on this forum) Or would you use such language at a community meeting where you were trying to educate others or pursuade them? Even though "fool" or "shut up" might be exactly what you were thinking at the time?

If it were warranted in the situation, why not? I would not want my child to have any sort of injustice against him/her, and if the teacher is attempting such a thing, definitely I would speak up. As for at a community event, again, I feel it would be more effective exactly because it would be more shocking. News is always fixated on the negative, I cannot remember the last time I saw a positive story making headlines. If you want to effect real change, you have to ruffle a few feathers, otherwise no one will notice at all.

Actually, Lunitik, I think you personally might benefit from a little more "etiquette" or "mask wearing". Folks might accept you better (and therefore your ultimate message) if you learned how to soften the harsh edges of some of your words. Effective communication requires that we always consider our audience and how they receive our words along with our nonverbal communication.

If I have to adjust my message for the person, it ceases to be my message. How can you effect real change when you are effectively attempting to have them agree? In that agreement, they are not agreeing with you, they are praising you for agreeing with them. It is not possible to cause any transformation through appealing to the persons ego, and that is exactly what causing them to agree does. You are confirming their conclusions, but those conclusions are mind based, they have experienced nothing of the real. Catering to the others stupidity is exactly the opposite of being authentic to your own being.

 

[Lunitik]

One of the worst aspects of society is how patronizing we are, it is utterly inauthentic and yet it seems to have become a virtue in our society. For me, it is exactly what you are suggesting everyone should do, cater to the other and thus keep them down - maintain your own superiority.

As an example, a young child of maybe 8 years old had wanted to kick the ball around with me after finishing a game of soccer this last Thursday. One of my friends said I was kicking the ball too hard, even though it was just passing back and forth. Children are sponges though, this child watched me and picked things up very quickly. I'd do a skill and immediately the child would try to emulate. If I had taken the friends advice, it would have been quite boring just tapping the ball back and forth until the child got bored, instead before my eyes there was a very real improvement in his play.

Which is better in your eyes? To play down to the kid or to try to raise the kid up? For me, I want to improve everyone I come in contact with, especially in the next generations, so I am going to be a little harder and see what happens. Obviously if the child was younger, you have to be more careful, and with his little sister I didn't even kick the ball hard enough to get it to her because she was maybe 4, and yet the delight in her eyes trying to kick it back to me was still a good feeling. Again, though, if she had shown a certain natural talent, I would have seen where the heights of that are even in the 4 year old. It is wrong to not test the other simply because you don't think they can take it...

 

[Etu Malku]

Wearing a mask is hiding who you really are, society teaches us all kinds of etiquette's for different situations, and so it provides us with many masks...

Why will you need to "be on your best behavior" or "mind your language" though? What benefit is there to the reverse with others? If there is a part of you which you feel must be hidden, you should probably look at it more closely, can you express yourself without these necessities? If poor behavior and bad language are who you think you are, there is something very wrong.

In actuality, I might suggest that these things are the conformity, you are behaving a certain way around friends because you think it is expected. If it isn't so, why do you think you are embarrassed to express it with certain groups of people? You are allowing the other to change you, it is just another mask.

I'm going to have to agree with Lunitik here, much to my amazement.

 

[Etu Malku]

The benefit to conforming to society's etiquette is it's more likely "my will be done" (which I understand to be one of Etu's Luciferianism creeds) than if one doesn't know how to "play by the rules" of society. I think it's possible to wear masks and follow etiquette in order that "my will be done", while at the same time, maintaining my true character.

Do you think Osho talked about drugs and sex in front of a local School Board, or in front of children?

Would you, Lunitik, call your kid's teacher (if you had children) a "closed minded fool", or tell them to "shut up"? (as you have called others on this forum) Or would you use such language at a community meeting where you were trying to educate others or pursuade them? Even though "fool" or "shut up" might be exactly what you were thinking at the time?

Actually, Lunitik, I think you personally might benefit from a little more "etiquette" or "mask wearing". Folks might accept you better (and therefore your ultimate message) if you learned how to soften the harsh edges of some of your words. Effective communication requires that we always consider our audience and how they receive our words along with our nonverbal communication.

I'll let Lunitik defend his statements, but let me explain mine in regards to this.

My statement of not wearing the psychological mask isn't necessarily concerned with the everyday conduct. But that is also manageable, in that I, personally wouldn't call my child's teacher a "closed minded fool" but if I thought it so, would confront them with this title in a very well mannered and diplomatic way, because I am well mannered (lol, there are legion of people online that would be raising an eyebrow here) and diplomatic.

But, that isn't the real crux of the Mask. The Mask is the lie to One's Self more importantly than any code of social conduct. We can all be crass and crude in manner and thought, none of us are perfect (not even Lunitik), yet we can rebuild ourselves, change our Self into the Being we wish to be. This is helped at the very least by realizing our Masks and working towards confronting them, why do we put this face on, is it really what I want to say, is it a conformity to what others have projected onto me and something I 'need' to be in order to 'feel' accepted, for instance.

Is that teacher really a 'closed minded fool' or is (s)he just not seeing things clearly on a particular subject? Can I correct this blindness or am I not educated enough on the subject to make my point? Perhaps I should be quiet right now? You get the point.

 

[Lunitik]

That is the crux of this issue, Etu, it is that all humans, through their social needs, want to be accepted. It is utterly backwards, we should respect those that are willing to stand up for themselves, but in that act, they may be attacking our stances. We must instead be concentrating on accepting ourselves, this is the basic lacking of people today. We do not know who we are, ego forms through what others project on us and it is why I speak so much against it. It is a fabricated concept of self, it depends utterly on the other, and thus insecurity arises if the messages differ from person to person.

This is why luecy bothers me so much, his statements are utterly directed at a deep conformity and dependency on the other. There is nothing else wrong with his statement, accept for how he chooses to justify them - it is perfectly good to want to help others, but to identify as that doer is simply an error. Everyone should investigate it: Who am I if I were alone on this planet? It will cause you to deeply consider who "I" is, and by and by you will discover what is beneath this wall of delusion. Then you experience for the first time something of your true nature, your original face, before then you have no idea who or what you are and that is what the true seeking entails. Once it is discovered, there is an utter transformation in your being, in your thought processes, everything about you takes on a new dimension - that is what many call enlightenment. It is not something which is mistakable, it is to give birth to your true self, before then it had only been a seed.

 

[Lunitik]

The experience itself is a transcendence of mind, it is an experience of no-mind, but of course you will need to think when the situation arises to do so. Now, mind is no longer the master though, you are not identified with mind, it is simply a tool to be utilized. You will have to use mind to recognize people, to find things you want, all kinds of things like this, it is an invaluable tool. I say much about ceasing the mind's constant motion, it is because most people are not in control of their mind, insanity exists in their head but outwardly they seem normal. We will argue with mind, we will project on all we encounter through the minds conclusions about certain things, we never simply observe existence in its raw beauty. Mind always wants to come in, to assert itself on all we encounter, possess the situation through its understandings, then we are always seeing only half of the situation. Worse, we will lash out in violence because of mind, for instance we see a beautiful flower, so we pick it to take it home but now it will shrivel, become totally ugly and then die within a few days - we could have simply returned to it later and again appreciated its true beauty whenever we wanted, now its beauty will not last for long. We are seeing and hearing what mind wants to perceive only, always our choices dictate what we experience of reality. We filter our being through mind because we think mind is our being, it is not so, but you will have to find what your true being is to truly recognize this fact.

 

[IowaGuy]

But, that isn't the real crux of the Mask. The Mask is the lie to One's Self more importantly than any code of social conduct....we can rebuild ourselves, change our Self into the Being we wish to be.

I agree with you here. But our "self" and social conduct are intertwined, are they not?, as humans are by nature social creatures.

why do we put this face on, is it really what I want to say, is it a conformity to what others have projected onto me and something I 'need' to be in order to 'feel' accepted, for instance.

Your drive for uncompromising individualness/nonconformity is in contrast to your creed of "my will be done", IMHO.

If you truly want your will to be done in society, you have to, on occasion, temporarily conform to society's etiquette and requirements. Otherwise, you will be dismissed as a Lunitik.

 

[IowaGuy]

Then you are saying that it is ok to manipulate people to get your own way instead of being absolutely authentic and risk not getting your way?

Depends what your goal is. I never advocated for manipulation. Etu argues for "my will be done". I'm saying, to get your will done you need to think about your audience and adjust your message/presentation accordingly. I think Buddha would agree with this as he did the same; a different message for different audience. Part of your message is your appearance, choice of words, tone of voice, etc. This is the part I don't think you understand yet.

A good example of the extremes we're considering here is MLKJ and Malcom X. IMHO, MLKJ was able to achieve more of his social justice goals as he was much more polished and professional in his public presentations and statements. Malcom X was much more brash and in your face and "shocking" (which you apparently value), which didn't set will with the American audience at large. Maybe both types of individuals are needed for social change, but ultimately "my will be done" is better accomplished with a little polish and etiquette, even if your true nature is brash and nonconformity.

If you're not concerned with "my will be done" or making an impact on your local community then, by all means, follow your own shocking path in life, there is nothing wrong with that.

I don't think there's anything mutually exclusive between being authentic to yourself and knowing how to properly act at a City Council meeting. You can be a nonconformist at heart but don't have to ram it down everyone's throat at a public meeting, that won't get you too far "in the real world" in my experience.

 

[Lunitik]

I agree with you here. But our "self" and social conduct are intertwined, are they not?, as humans are by nature social creatures.

You are incorrect, we are not social by nature, we are social by necessity. What is a society, though? It is a group of individuals, but over time the individual has been utterly suppressed by the crowd. The extreme of this is things like Communism, where the individual is utterly ignored for the group, but even in Capitalist societies being are punished for being truly individual.

Your drive for uncompromising individualness/nonconformity is in contrast to your creed of "my will be done", IMHO.

How can "my will be done" if you are doing for the society? I do not agree with the creed at all, but his statement is very consistent. If "my will be done", you first have to recognize the authentic "my". Now, ultimately, we are not separate from existence itself, if we have recognized this then "my" is perfectly good in my eyes. Etu will not agree with this though, since existence is another word for God in this context, and he seems utterly against this.

If you truly want your will to be done in society, you have to, on occasion, temporarily conform to society's etiquette and requirements. Otherwise, you will be dismissed as a Lunitik.

Conforming is the opposite of individualism, and if your emphasis is too much on conformity, ultimately you give up the individual and become just a persona, only personality, a character. You are assuming that all people are crude and obnoxious, is this really your perception of me though? I am blunt and direct, but rarely outright rude. I am unwilling to waver on that, and if it causes my will to not be done, if I am having to compromise in any way, my will has not been done. Do not place on the other anything you would not carry yourself, but why will you be burdened by another being direct and completely honest? It is only possible because my words have damaged your ego, yet this is exactly what I attempt to point out every time I do so: You exist as a fragile ego, let your being break through.

 

[Lunitik]

Depends what your goal is. I never advocated for manipulation. Etu argues for "my will be done". I'm saying, to get your will done you need to think about your audience and adjust your message/presentation accordingly. I think Buddha would agree with this as he did the same; a different message for different audience. Part of your message is your appearance, choice of words, tone of voice, etc. This is the part I don't think you understand yet.

The difference is in the purpose, Buddha has tried to cause stupid beliefs to be dropped, it is utterly out of compassion that he has lied. You are manipulating, you are trying to cause a group to conform to you by appealing to their ego's. It is utterly wrong to do this.

 

[IowaGuy]

That is the crux of this issue, Etu, it is that all humans, through their social needs, want to be accepted.

This is indeed the crux. All humans want to be accepted. That's why you'll get further in life if you don't call people "closed minded fools" or tell people to "shut up".

Many of us on this forum may not need external validation. But most of society at large does look for validation and acceptance from their peers.

"Playing nice" and using common courtesty and etiquette are what I'm advocating for. Your message will be better accepted by others, which you have said is what you're trying to do.

How do you think being "shocking" helps someone from a totally different frame of reference to accept your message? If anything, it just puts them on the defensive and they close down to any future messages from you after you belittle them or disrespect them.

 

[IowaGuy]

The difference is in the purpose, Buddha has tried to cause stupid beliefs to be dropped, it is utterly out of compassion that he has lied. You are manipulating, you are trying to cause a group to conform to you by appealing to their ego's. It is utterly wrong to do this.

You have it backwards. I'm not trying to get them to conform to me, I'm temporarily conforming to their expectations of societal norms (shaven, suit/tie, please/thanks, not insulting) in order that they better receive my message.

You apparently do not care if someone receives your message, you are so worried about being true to yourself, which is obvious from your posts on this forum.

 

[Lunitik]

This is indeed the crux. All humans want to be accepted. That's why you'll get further in life if you don't call people "closed minded fools" or tell people to "shut up".

I accept myself, I do not need acceptance from anyone else...

At the end of the day, I am stuck with me until the day I die, if you don't like me you can simply leave. I am utterly comfortable alone, and thus I do not need to satisfy your ego in an attempt to keep you around.

"Playing nice" and using common courtesty and etiquette are what I'm advocating for. Your message will be better accepted by others, which you have said is what you're trying to do.

Again, what does acceptance of my message do? Acceptance is a choice, and choice is of mind. I am not appealing to anyone's mind, I am speaking to your being and this is why your ego will be threatened.

How do you think being "shocking" helps someone from a totally different frame of reference to accept your message? If anything, it just puts them on the defensive and they close down to any future messages from you after you belittle them or disrespect them.

If they are on the defensive, they are going to pay close attention to my message in their attempts to refute it. If you agree, you will simply comment favorably and move on - it will not sink in. Again, acceptance or denial of my statements are not going to help, because both are choices and that is mind. It is always better to get a reaction though than to ease the other person.

 

[Lunitik]

You have it backwards. I'm not trying to get them to conform to me, I'm temporarily conforming to their expectations of societal norms (shaven, suit/tie, please/thanks, not insulting) in order that they better receive my message.

You have not looked at it rightly... what is the motivation behind your conformity? It is to have them agree with your point - it is a manipulation, you are feeding their ego that they might allow what you are suggesting more readily. Your motivation is utterly selfish, yet if your idea is truly beneficial to your community, why will it be rejected simply because of how it is delivered? If they do not accept good reasoning that will benefit them just on such petty things, it is better that they suffer.

You apparently do not care if someone receives your message, you are so worried about being true to yourself, which is obvious from your posts on this forum.

My message is a sharing of my self that you might find your self. Your basic argument is of morality, I say morality is utterly fraudulent, only what is done authentically from your being is a virtue. Morality is a conformity, it is a social construct that you comply with through mind, virtue comes from the experience of self, now everything you do will be good.