How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?

[ken]

Clever monkey. Are you done?

Seriously I do not know what you were getting at when you wrote, "Are you too stupid to read?"

That is why I wrote and asked a clarifying question, "No, why?"

I was hoping you would help me out here. Did you want me to reply to your replies? Was there something I missed? Because you called me an "idjit", where you hoping I would respond to that? What is it exactly that you are referring to that required you to ask me if i was too stupid to read?

What have I missed?

[Dalek Prime]

I think you look too deeply for things that are already on the surface. My main point was, there is no shared consciousness. The rest is superfluous.

[ken]

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

There is no observer. There is ''observing'' known instantly in the very act of a thing known as it appears to no one.

But you are the one who consistently writes things like "the seer...".

Is a seer not an observer?

Depending where an observer is coming from this will effect what they are seeing.

A seer from the brain will not see what The Seer from the Mind will see.

The act of seeing and the thing seen is one action, the seeing cannot be separated from the thing seen, it's one unitary action. A thing appears only as it is seen and known instantly one with the seer knower. The seer and knower can never be seen or known because it is the seeing and knowing. There is no relationship.

Any relationship of object seen and known by subject is illusory...since the seer and knower cannot be seen or known by an object...the object is the known, the seen.

The seer from the brain only may not know what it is, BUT the Seer from the Mind already knows what It is. The seer from the brain is also unable to know because this seer only has a limited perspective to see from, whereas, the Seer from the Mind has unlimited sight. The seer's sight from the brain is blocked by preconceptions, by preconceived ideas, by prejudices, and the worst of all, by beliefs. The Seer's sight from the Mind is not blocked by absolutely any thing at all.

Try this one, imagine standing in between two mirrors that are facing each other. From the human body and its eyes the field of view is blocked by the physical brain. Now imagine if the human body could be taken away and now looking from only the brain, this would have to be done with the thoughts from inside. The field of view is also blocked by the brain, but also the knowledge stored within the brain is limited and thus can only see so far. Now imagine looking from the Mind only. Obviously the Mind is completely invisible and as far as we know non-physical but looking from the Mind there is nothing whatsoever stopping being able to see infinitely and eternally from the Mind. The Mind is limitless with absolutely nothing stopping Its ability to see in all and every direction and through every thing backwards and forwards in time and in space. The Mind is able to absolutely see and thus know absolutely. In fact if you were able to do this through imagination, then where do you think that imagination comes from? Imagination comes from the open MInd. The brain can not see forward into the future or see back into the past, other than what information or knowledge that has already been stored within it. The brain can not imagine. What can and does have that amazing ability of imagination, and thus IS what has allowed human beings to dream up and create ALL the things that they have created is from the Mind.

Again I will stop now because I could go on infinitely. There is probably as many different ways to explain this as there living brains. Finding the right way, for each brain to understand this, would leave some of them behind. Honestly not all can keep up. Hearing from each one where exactly they are getting left behind helps me to make this much clearer for that unique individual separate self.

[Dontaskme]

ken:Wrong. For reasons explained already. Of which you may or may not have read yet.

I may not have read, you are right. I can't keep up with you to be honest.

Now you know exactly how all those other people felt when they could not keep up with you.

Patience is needed when explaining what you are trying to explain.

Please explain what I am wrong about and why....but please keep it short and sweet using as few words as possible, so I am able to get the general gist without being bombarded by seemingly endless details.

If you had included your quote, which my above quote was in relation to, then I would know exactly how to explain what 'you' are wrong about and why what you said is wrong. BUT luckily I write in a way that I can work out exactly which one of the four of your quotes my above quote is in relation to.

Your exact quote that my quote is referring to in this reply is:

what the YOU is is just what it appears to be in the conception. sometimes it's a tree, or a bird or a bear or what ever it conceives itself to be as a concept........

After re-reading, you are NOT totally wrong. As you have also previously stated that the thinking and the thinker is the same thing and that the seer and the seen is also the same thing, and that the knowing and the known are one and the same. If that is what you still suggest, then that is true, and we are in agreement there. However, I also agree let us keep this as short and "sweet" as possible with as few words as possible.

Whenever I use a word in single quotation marks followed by a coma ' ', then the words after that word in italics is the definition I give for that word. For example, 'intelligence', is the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything, whereas, 'intellect', is only that what has already been grasp. As far as we know only human beings are the only intelligent species. Intelligence is what separates human beings from all other animals and species. Human beings also are the only animal that has a brain that is capable of collecting, storing and holding all the knowledge that has been learned, understood, and reasoned. I have to give definitions for the words I use so that the gist of every thing I write can and will be learnt, understood, and reasoned. Now lets see if you can understand what I am about to write and if not, then just ask me some clarifying questions:

There are as many 'you' in the world as there are human bodies. In short and sweet 'you', are thoughts. For the sake of this discussion thoughts come from within the brain and thoughts are related to thinking. Within each unique and individual human brain there are a set of unique individual thoughts. Sometimes known as the individual person.

You have to understand that within each and every unique and separate human body, and thus unique and separate brain, there is a completely unique and separate individual self. This 'self' is spelt with a little 's'. This self IS a unique and individual separate consciousness existing within a unique and individual separate human body.

This self is only one of about 7 billion characters and is only who a person thinks they are.

However, there is bigger 'Self', with a capital 'S'. in which all the 7 billion characters are connected with consciously. The Self comes from the Mind. This is how Oneness is possible. There is only One Mind but there is about 7 billion brains.

Is that understood and agreed with?

Back to the quote that I say is partly wrong. Because you are thoughts and as such thoughts are what is being thought, then whatever thinking is going on within a human body is actually who you are. So if a thought is 'I am a doctor', then that is who 'you', that thought is, but only to that individual separate self or any other individual separate self that sees and thinks that is true. A brain can only think from information that has been fed into it through the five senses, from the outside world. Thoughts are formed from gathered and stored in-form-ation. The brain then expels only what it thinks is true.

The Mind, however, because It is NOT separate from any other thing KNOWS what is true. The Mind sees ALL and thus knows ALL because It is ALL. The open Mind just naturally knows what is right. The Mind is always open but occasionally gets shut off by the brain.

If I do not stop now I will go on forever. I apologize for not keeping this "short and sweet", but without you asking me clarifying questions I do not know where and when to stop explaining.

That's if you are willing to reveal the right of my wrong, and that it's not some kind of secret or something?

If you are truly open, then what will be revealed is all of Life's, so called, mysteries.

The goal of what I will reveal is to create peace in harmony with and for everyone, so YES I am very willing to reveal the right of ALL wrong.

Thanks ken.. I already know all this, and understand everything you have said. Nothing new for me to read here. I already know direct seeing and knowing is beyond the mind, and is accessible to all who wish it. But just because I write differently to you doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm merely writing it as I see from my experience, how I'm seeing it.

Knowing does not operate in the mind. Knowing transcends both belief and faith. It is based on our experience of something. In this sense, we can say that experience just is. Can it be proved or disproved? No. It can go to more profound levels of knowing, but generally it is only ourselves who are a witness to it.When we know something to be true, just like you know what your name is, you have no need to prove or fight or coerce others into believing it too. Your knowing simply is. For when we know something to be true we are elevated to the plane of the most profound perception of reality. We all have the capacity to know or experience a truth, to engage with it directly and know it on a visceral level. Truth is not the province of the few but of the many.

[ken]

I think you look too deeply for things that are already on the surface. My main point was, there is no shared consciousness. The rest is superfluous.

Yes you are right. I do look too deeply for some things that may not be there, but that is because I do not like to miss any thing at all and I also do not like to assume anything at all also.

And, you are right if you are saying there being no apparent shared consciousness, with each and every unique individual separate self. However, if there were things that all these separate selves shared commonly, then there would be some parts of each individual consciousness self that is commonly shared equally. For example, each human being has had the exact same experience of being born or coming out of the womb. We each have gasped for life, through our first breath, we each have sort out liquid and nutrients from someone, and we have all sort out to be cared for or provided for from others. We all have a shared consciousness that without any of these four things, i.e., clean air, clean water, enough nutrients, and attention, then 'we', human beings, could not exist.

Although I agree with you wholeheartedly that in general there is no apparent shared consciousness, the amount of wars, fighting, disputes and/or ridiculing that goes between human beings is enough evidence of this, I disagree in full that there is no shared consciousness whatsoever.

What we have each commonly shared, through our five senses, IS what makes up common sense, and common sense, by its very nature, is what will guides us to what is right and what is wrong in life. The above four experiences is about the only things that we ALL have commonly shared, through our senses, and we ALL KNOW that we need those things and as such thus has actually become our shared consciousness. This shared consciousness, although so minute it has not been so apparent previously, will if followed actually be one guide that brings us into peace and happiness.

[ken]

I may not have read, you are right. I can't keep up with you to be honest.

Now you know exactly how all those other people felt when they could not keep up with you.

Patience is needed when explaining what you are trying to explain.

Please explain what I am wrong about and why....but please keep it short and sweet using as few words as possible, so I am able to get the general gist without being bombarded by seemingly endless details.

If you had included your quote, which my above quote was in relation to, then I would know exactly how to explain what 'you' are wrong about and why what you said is wrong. BUT luckily I write in a way that I can work out exactly which one of the four of your quotes my above quote is in relation to.

Your exact quote that my quote is referring to in this reply is:

what the YOU is is just what it appears to be in the conception. sometimes it's a tree, or a bird or a bear or what ever it conceives itself to be as a concept........

After re-reading, you are NOT totally wrong. As you have also previously stated that the thinking and the thinker is the same thing and that the seer and the seen is also the same thing, and that the knowing and the known are one and the same. If that is what you still suggest, then that is true, and we are in agreement there. However, I also agree let us keep this as short and "sweet" as possible with as few words as possible.

Whenever I use a word in single quotation marks followed by a coma ' ', then the words after that word in italics is the definition I give for that word. For example, 'intelligence', is the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything, whereas, 'intellect', is only that what has already been grasp. As far as we know only human beings are the only intelligent species. Intelligence is what separates human beings from all other animals and species. Human beings also are the only animal that has a brain that is capable of collecting, storing and holding all the knowledge that has been learned, understood, and reasoned. I have to give definitions for the words I use so that the gist of every thing I write can and will be learnt, understood, and reasoned. Now lets see if you can understand what I am about to write and if not, then just ask me some clarifying questions:

There are as many 'you' in the world as there are human bodies. In short and sweet 'you', are thoughts. For the sake of this discussion thoughts come from within the brain and thoughts are related to thinking. Within each unique and individual human brain there are a set of unique individual thoughts. Sometimes known as the individual person.

You have to understand that within each and every unique and separate human body, and thus unique and separate brain, there is a completely unique and separate individual self. This 'self' is spelt with a little 's'. This self IS a unique and individual separate consciousness existing within a unique and individual separate human body.

This self is only one of about 7 billion characters and is only who a person thinks they are.

However, there is bigger 'Self', with a capital 'S'. in which all the 7 billion characters are connected with consciously. The Self comes from the Mind. This is how Oneness is possible. There is only One Mind but there is about 7 billion brains.

Is that understood and agreed with?

Back to the quote that I say is partly wrong. Because you are thoughts and as such thoughts are what is being thought, then whatever thinking is going on within a human body is actually who you are. So if a thought is 'I am a doctor', then that is who 'you', that thought is, but only to that individual separate self or any other individual separate self that sees and thinks that is true. A brain can only think from information that has been fed into it through the five senses, from the outside world. Thoughts are formed from gathered and stored in-form-ation. The brain then expels only what it thinks is true.

The Mind, however, because It is NOT separate from any other thing KNOWS what is true. The Mind sees ALL and thus knows ALL because It is ALL. The open Mind just naturally knows what is right. The Mind is always open but occasionally gets shut off by the brain.

If I do not stop now I will go on forever. I apologize for not keeping this "short and sweet", but without you asking me clarifying questions I do not know where and when to stop explaining.

That's if you are willing to reveal the right of my wrong, and that it's not some kind of secret or something?

If you are truly open, then what will be revealed is all of Life's, so called, mysteries.

The goal of what I will reveal is to create peace in harmony with and for everyone, so YES I am very willing to reveal the right of ALL wrong.

Thanks ken.. I already know all this, and understand everything you have said. Nothing new for me to read here. I already know direct seeing and knowing is beyond the mind, and is accessible to all who wish it. But just because I write differently to you doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm merely writing it as I see from my experience, how I'm seeing it.

Granted, however, you say you know everything i have said and there is nothing new here for you, yet you then say direct seeing and knowing is beyond the mind. This contradicts what I wrote in the I say the Mind is the One and only thing that allows direct seeing and knowing.

My use of the word wrong may sound harsh but I am not saying how you are seeing anything is wrong, what I was meaning is in you not being able to back up what you are saying with clear direct definitions is wrong.

You can not say the above, "I already know direct seeing and knowing is beyond the mind", but when another asks you to clarify what is it you actually mean when you say 'mind' and if you do not give them a direct response, then that is wrong. You have to clear up what you are saying when asked what do you mean? Instead of just repeating and re-repeating.

Knowing does not operate in the mind.

Again you are saying knowing does not operate in the mind.

And again, what is the mind?

And if knowing does not operate in that thing, then where does knowing operate then?

You have to be able to answer these little things if you are going to say that I am not saying anything new for you yet you are contradicting what I am saying.

Knowing transcends both belief and faith.

I disagree, in that a belief will stop you from knowing.

I agree, in that if you stop believing, then knowing how knowing can transcend belief becomes obvious clear.

That is the reason I say you have the answers but you can not explain how you got them, and therefore you are unable to make yourself clearly understood .

It is based on our experience of something.

Not exactly correct. I could go on and on picking every one of your following sentences apart and showing where you are fully right, partly right and/or wrong. As well as fully able to explain each and every little part of what I say.

In this sense, we can say that experience just is. Can it be proved or disproved? No. It can go to more profound levels of knowing, but generally it is only ourselves who are a witness to it.When we know something to be true, just like you know what your name is, you have no need to prove or fight or coerce others into believing it too. Your knowing simply is. For when we know something to be true we are elevated to the plane of the most profound perception of reality. We all have the capacity to know or experience a truth, to engage with it directly and know it on a visceral level. Truth is not the province of the few but of the many.

Truth is ONLY known by ALL. Truth is certainly not known by just any number less than ALL. There is just way to many "mistakes" to point out in this one paragraph alone to go through all of them right now. You obviously are stuck behind your own beliefs. You have the innate knowing, the same as every one else has but you have only had a glimpse of It and as such are not able to explain It, in any clear detail whatsoever. In fact your language only turns others away.

[Dontaskme]

Granted, however, you say you know everything i have said and there is nothing new here for you, yet you then say direct seeing and knowing is beyond the mind. This contradicts what I wrote in the I say the Mind is the One and only thing that allows direct seeing and knowing.

My use of the word wrong may sound harsh but I am not saying how you are seeing anything is wrong, what I was meaning is in you not being able to back up what you are saying with clear direct definitions is wrong.

You can not say the above, "I already know direct seeing and knowing is beyond the mind", but when another asks you to clarify what is it you actually mean when you say 'mind' and if you do not give them a direct response, then that is wrong. You have to clear up what you are saying when asked what do you mean? Instead of just repeating and re-repeating.

To clarify.

The sense of separate self ''I'' ''me'' is that which believes it is the one seeing / observing something separate from itself in the thing observed.

Direct seeing and knowing is when the observer and observed merge from subject/object duality into one /nondual. This either happens to a person or it doesn't. When it does.. here it is known and seen that there is no separate observer apart from the thing seen...what remains is the pure witness or pure awareness.

[Dontaskme]

I think you look too deeply for things that are already on the surface. My main point was, there is no shared consciousness. The rest is superfluous.

There is shared awareness though,consciousness is an aspect of awareness, it comes and goes in awareness which is prior to consciousness, so in a sense you are right we don't all share the same consciousness, however, the light looking from your eye is the same light looking through mine...that is awareness. It is the witness of the conscious self.
We might be conscious of different things, have ideas about different things, but without fundamental awareness we would not be able to recognise or communicate with each other, we would all be going around ignoring each other absorbed totally in our own unique realities. And this is not how life operates...life operates as one unitary action...with conscious reactions.

Your body is different, your thoughts, feeling, emotions, beliefs, your culture, conditioning, are all different to others, but what's looking from your eye is the same one as every body else. That looker is one being the many.

That one arises when the inside subject and the outside object merge as one and nobody is witnessing and there is nothing to be witnessed. It is a pure mirror, mirroring nothing and everything as one.

[Dontaskme]

Truth is ONLY known by ALL. Truth is certainly not known by just any number less than ALL. There is just way to many "mistakes" to point out in this one paragraph alone to go through all of them right now. You obviously are stuck behind your own beliefs. You have the innate knowing, the same as every one else has but you have only had a glimpse of It and as such are not able to explain It, in any clear detail whatsoever. In fact your language only turns others away.

I wasn't trying to explain it in that last post, I was simply saying every one can reach direct seeing and knowing of the witness state.



And whether my language turns others away is for them to decide not you. What I said in my last post is correct, it doesn't matter that we cannot explain it in words,...words never compensate for direct seeing of the tacit self..aka the witness.
The merging into witness state can be reached by all without ever uttering a word....so what does it matter whether or not that person who has reached witness state can explain it or not? .....it's irrelevant. The witness state is in constant flow...words only obscure the flow, and I always tend to forget what's been said anyway as soon as it's spoken since it's past tense and dead....the flow is always alive and that's all that matters, that's all that is relevant.

[Dontaskme]

ken: That is the reason I say you have the answers but you can not explain how you got them, and therefore you are unable to make yourself clearly understood .

But this is never about whether other people understand what I say or not.

What matters is that I understand. How can you or others prove I do not understand - how can I prove to others that I do?

I understand that from belief to clarity is the realisation that there is nothing more to understand.

[Lacewing]

Truth is not the province of the few but of the many.

Is there an ultimate truth for all?

If so, can anyone know what it is?

Or might there be ever-evolving levels and facets of truth for each, never reaching the end (as the Moody Blues would say)?

[Dontaskme]

Truth is not the province of the few but of the many.

Is there an ultimate truth for all?

Can anyone know what it is?

Or might there be ever-evolving levels and facets of truth for each, never reaching the end (as the Moody Blues would say)?

The search for truth wouldn't even arise without the demand for it. Truth already stands with or without the demand for it. You are already timeless truth right now as aware aliveness. No human can create awareness, but it can discover it because it is it. The truth to be discovered is already here....Not really any facets of truth, truth is ever truth. The human who lives in time and space in it's search for timeless truth can be at different levels of discovering truth depending on their willingness to drop their sense of separate self, this can be done instantly and effortlessly in a moment or it can take until you are on your death bed...when separate self is dropped completely they are in ultimate truth that of the eternal witness....aka aware aliveness.

I say eternal because even a finite experience within awareness is equal to eternity.

[Dontaskme]

I say eternal because even a finite experience within awareness is equal to eternity.

You have never experienced the witness, because to experience the witness is go beyond everything into absolute nothingness and silence where there is no experience.Witnessing is not an experience. Witnessing is going beyond all experiences. Experiences are other than you; witnessing is your very being.
A finite experience, say the birth and death of Lacewing is a finite experience within your real self experiencing itself in finitely for eternity.

Experiences are finite...Experiencing is infinite.

[Lacewing]

Dontaskme, I wish you would just answer questions directly that are in response to what you've said... rather than flooding me with more concepts intertwined with yet more concepts and explanations... which seems like you just keep swirling things around and around, without acknowledging anything solid that you've said.

My point in asking you if YOU think there is an ultimate truth for all (as opposed to each), is because you seem to indicate that YOU know of such a thing? I'd like to know if you think there is an ultimate truth that applies to all, and if so, do you think that someone (such as yourself) can know what that is?

[Dalek Prime]

I think you look too deeply for things that are already on the surface. My main point was, there is no shared consciousness. The rest is superfluous.

There is shared awareness though,consciousness is an aspect of awareness, it comes and goes in awareness which is prior to consciousness, so in a sense you are right we don't all share the same consciousness, however, the light looking from your eye is the same light looking through mine...that is awareness. It is the witness of the conscious self.
We might be conscious of different things, have ideas about different things, but without fundamental awareness we would not be able to recognise or communicate with each other, we would all be going around ignoring each other absorbed totally in our own unique realities. And this is not how life operates...life operates as one unitary action...with conscious reactions.

Your body is different, your thoughts, feeling, emotions, beliefs, your culture, conditioning, are all different to others, but what's looking from your eye is the same one as every body else. That looker is one being the many.

That one arises when the inside subject and the outside object merge as one and nobody is witnessing and there is nothing to be witnessed. It is a pure mirror, mirroring nothing and everything as one.

The only thing I might agree on is that self-awareness is a higher level of consciousness, but it still is an aspect of the consciousness that precedes it. Think back to your remotest memory. It wasn't so much self-awareness, as fragmented consciousness. Self-awareness developed out of that.