.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
.
We have an obligation to speaking truth. Right speech and right action (to borrow a phrase from Sacha Stone) are essential and the bare minimum IMHO.
What if choice is bound to balance (need/want); not to the choices of others (want vs not want)? What if nature doesn't speak truth; but offers sound towards perceiving senses? What if the conflict between true (want) versus false (not want) represents division caused among the many by the suggestions of the few?
If the many wouldn't first consent to believe suggested information to be truth; could the few wield lies upon them?
Go outside and wait...when will nature "speak" to you? While you're waiting; notice the need to "react" to thirst; hunger and lack of shelter.
What if ONE represents the bare minimum within ALL?
There are no lies in nature, that’s why lies never survive
Now apply the same to the proclamation of truth...nature doesn't define truth; that's why others can exploit those who do through suggestion of lies. Something doesn't exist because one calls it true (want) or false (not want); but because it's being moved by nature (need). We each represent a response to perceived movement (constant change); not to affixed states suggested to us (true vs false).
You seem to not be able to understand my post. Less is more so don’t try so hard. You can always just up or down vote.