Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[AlexW]

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:23 pm
'I' do.

I does not know anything, I is known, but not by I

Seems you are talking from two different perspectives (which will obviously lead to confusion).
Age: "I" know - obviously here "I" = consciousness/absolute
DAM: "I" knows nothing - obviously here "I" = a thought/concept
Better first agree what "I" stands for...

[Age]

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:23 pm
'I' do.

I does not know anything, I is known, but not by I

Seems you are talking from two different perspectives (which will obviously lead to confusion).
Age: "I" know - obviously here "I" = consciousness/absolute
DAM: "I" knows nothing - obviously here "I" = a thought/concept
Better first agree what "I" stands for...

Thank you

'I' is the True (nondual) Self
'you', 'me', 'i', 'person', et cetera is the individual self.
As i have been saying all along.

[Age]

Dontaskme wrote:
ALL images come from the same place the images in a nightly dream come from? so where is that? ..who the heck knows?

'I' do.

I does not know anything, I is known, but not by I



.

Then who/what is I known by exactly?

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:
ALL images come from the same place the images in a nightly dream come from? so where is that? ..who the heck knows?

'I' do.

I does not know anything, I is known, but not by I



.

Then who/what is I known by exactly?

In a nutshell the answer to your question is Not-Knowing I Consciousness.

I is of first order. (Not-Knowing I Consciousness)

Knowledge of I is secondary - ( I know ) pertains to an object of knowing, a conceptual KNOWN.

A concept KNOWN doesn't know anything ...it is relative to Absolute Knowing which is always and ever ONE...rendering all known knowledge of I an illusory appearance within the Absolute. There is only Absolute Knowing. Knowing is a Verb aka (Not-knowing I Consciousness)

All relative knowledge about the Absolute is absurd since there is only the Absolute relating to itself. Knowledge demands a knower. The knower is an illusory appearance within Nothing and Everything (Absolute) the only KNOWING there is.

An illusion can experience nothing. The illusion ('I' and everything else) is the experience.


Secondary knowledge is always couched within the first I Consciousness Not-Knowing.

So the answer to who /what knows I ? ...is Nothing and Everything.

Knower and Known are ONE in the same instant. There is no knower separate from what is known.

The 'I' that can be spoken of is merely one of the multitudinous sentient lenses through which All That Is aka Nothing and Everything aka the Absolute perceives itself.

Within some unknowable dynamic ..Nothing and Everything seems to indulge in the act of identifying itself as one of the lenses.

This identification creates a self referential loop, an apparent secondary reality, out of which a phantom emerges.

The phantom is purely illusory.

.

[Atla]

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:23 pm
'I' do.

I does not know anything, I is known, but not by I

Seems you are talking from two different perspectives (which will obviously lead to confusion).
Age: "I" know - obviously here "I" = consciousness/absolute
DAM: "I" knows nothing - obviously here "I" = a thought/concept
Better first agree what "I" stands for...

Thank you

'I' is the True (nondual) Self
'you', 'me', 'i', 'person', et cetera is the individual self.
As i have been saying all along.

Well there's your problem, "I" = individual self in English, unless we agree otherwise. If "You" want to talk from the "True Self"/"Absolute" (which is still a form of schizophrenic insanity btw), call it the "True Self"/"Absolute".

[Age]

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:23 pm
'I' do.


Seems you are talking from two different perspectives (which will obviously lead to confusion).
Age: "I" know - obviously here "I" = consciousness/absolute
DAM: "I" knows nothing - obviously here "I" = a thought/concept
Better first agree what "I" stands for...

Thank you

'I' is the True (nondual) Self
'you', 'me', 'i', 'person', et cetera is the individual self.
As i have been saying all along.

Well there's your problem, "I" = individual self in English, unless we agree otherwise.

'I' = True Self in english, unless we agree otherwise, it could be said. But that might be just as ridiculous to say that as it was to say what "you" did.

Absolutely any and EVERY word only equals whatever a person/people give to it.

There is NO absolute fixed any thing in "English". ALL words only mean whatever is placed on them by human beings. Meanings can and do change.

If "I" = individual self in english, then what does "we" equal?

If "You" want to talk from the "True Self"/"Absolute" (which is still a form of schizophrenic insanity btw), call it the "True Self"/"Absolute".

I have been doing that. Have "you" NOT recognized this yet?

OF COURSE if "you" were TRYING TO talk from the True Self, then that would be seen as insanity because "you" can NOT speak for the True Self, only the 'I', which is the True Self, can. i thought I made that clear to "you" already.

By the way who is the 'I' in the question 'Who am 'I'?'
Have "you" been able to work that one out yet?
Are "you" suggesting that 'I' am the individual self?

[Age]

I does not know anything, I is known, but not by I



.

Then who/what is I known by exactly?

In a nutshell the answer to your question is Not-Knowing I Consciousness.

I is of first order. (Not-Knowing I Consciousness)

Knowledge of I is secondary - ( I know ) pertains to an object of knowing, a conceptual KNOWN.

A concept KNOWN doesn't know anything ...it is relative to Absolute Knowing which is always and ever ONE...rendering all known knowledge of I an illusory appearance within the Absolute. There is only Absolute Knowing. Knowing is a Verb aka (Not-knowing I Consciousness)

All relative knowledge about the Absolute is absurd since there is only the Absolute relating to itself. Knowledge demands a knower. The knower is an illusory appearance within Nothing and Everything (Absolute) the only KNOWING there is.

An illusion can experience nothing. The illusion ('I' and everything else) is the experience.


Secondary knowledge is always couched within the first I Consciousness Not-Knowing.

So the answer to who /what knows I ? ...is Nothing and Everything.

That surely is one way of answering a question but also NOT having to answer the question at the same time.

NO further clarifying question could be posed to an answer of "Nothing and Everything". Absolutely EVERY thing has been included, although nothing was actually said.

Although "you" use the word 'everything' you also tell us that really there is 'no things'. EVERY one of these 'no things' that "you" talk about is really saying 'nothing' at all.

Knower and Known are ONE in the same instant. There is no knower separate from what is known.

How do "you" KNOW this?

The 'I' that can be spoken of is merely one of the multitudinous sentient lenses through which All That Is aka Nothing and Everything aka the Absolute perceives itself.

Within some unknowable dynamic ..Nothing and Everything seems to indulge in the act of identifying itself as one of the lenses.

This identification creates a self referential loop, an apparent secondary reality, out of which a phantom emerges.

The phantom is purely illusory.

.

If that is what "you" BELIEVE, then so be it.

[Atla]

'I' = True Self in english...

No, it's not. At least 99.9% of English speakers mean the individual self by "I". i can't believe you haven't figured this out.

only the 'I', which is the True Self, can. i thought I made that clear to "you" already...

Again: the True Self can't speak. you're just making that up

[Dontaskme]

NO further clarifying question could be posed to an answer of "Nothing and Everything". Absolutely EVERY thing has been included, although nothing was actually said.

So stop posing them then.

Questions only pertain to an imagined 'separate self' where there isn't one... Not-knowing I Consciousness already IS. It has no question.
If it did it would already have all the answers because it's the only knowing there is. There's no question without an answer. No answer without a question. The answer is already contained within the question and vice versa.

If that is what "you" BELIEVE, then so be it.

CONSCIOUSNESS doesn't have to believe it is to be Consciousness. Consciousness IS without doubt or error.

From belief to clarity.

.

[Dontaskme]

How do "you" KNOW this?

It's not a ''you'' that knows..the ''you'' is the knowing that cannot be known.

Again, who is posing the question?

All questions are relative.

The relative mind can ask only questions that relate to itself.

Relative questions about the Absolute are absurd.

There is only knowing...no one knows this.


.

[Age]

'I' = True Self in english...

No, it's not. At least 99.9% of English speakers mean the individual self by "I". i can't believe you haven't figured this out.

But I would go as far and say that the figure would be higher than 99.9% of adult english speakers would mean the 'individual self' when they say "I".

But even if EVERY one, besides just one, says some thing is true or right, then does that in and of itself MEAN that it is ACTUALLY true or right?

only the 'I', which is the True Self, can. i thought I made that clear to "you" already...

Again: the True Self can't speak. you're just making that up

If that is what you BELIEVE, then that is what it MUST BE.

For surely, you would NOT believe in some thing unless it was absolutely true and right, correct?

Let me know if I have gotten this wrong but "you" BELIEVE that the True Self can NOT speak, correct?

[Age]

How do "you" KNOW this?

It's not a ''you'' that knows..the ''you'' is the knowing that cannot be known.

Again, who is posing the question?

The individual self. Who else could?

All questions are relative.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

The relative mind can ask only questions that relate to itself.

An individual self can ask questions. But there is NO relative mind, to ask question. There is only One Mind, which is the True Self, in the spiritual sense. This One ask "you", the individual self, Truly OPEN clarifying questions. If "you" answer them or NOT, is another matter.

Relative questions about the Absolute are absurd.

Only to the individual, relative self.

There is only knowing...no one knows this.


.

Yet "dontaskme' THINKS they know ALL the answers.

[Atla]

But even if EVERY one, besides just one, says some thing is true or right, then does that in and of itself MEAN that it is ACTUALLY true or right?

i can't make sense of this sentence

If that is what you BELIEVE, then that is what it MUST BE.

i can't make sense of this sentence

For surely, you would NOT believe in some thing unless it was absolutely true and right, correct?

i can't make sense of this sentence

Let me know if I have gotten this wrong but "you" BELIEVE that the True Self can NOT speak, correct?

By belief you mean 100% certain belief, so stop insulting me

but yes, i've never seen the True Self speak, nor has anyone else ever seen it speak as far as i know

[Dontaskme]

How do "you" KNOW this?

It's not a ''you'' that knows..the ''you'' is the knowing that cannot be known.

Again, who is posing the question?

The individual self. Who else could?

The individual self doesn't exist except as a known concept in consciousness, the individual self is an idea in consciousness that already IS

If, there is a belief in a ''separate self'' posing a question then that belief is also a belief...it's an idea held and known only by consciousness, believing itself to exist separately from itself which IS always and only consciousness. In other words the idea there is a ''separate self'' is unreal it doesn't exit, it's just an idea within itself that IS without question.

If an imagined individual self can ask a question then that imagined self must already contain the answer to it's imagined question else the question would not arise...this demand to know knowledge makes no difference to Consciousness, as it is not concerned with knowledge, because it already knows that knowledge is just an illusory appearance of itself...consciousness being the only knowing there is.

All questions are relative.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative, to the observer.

There is no Observer. There is only Observing. Observing is one with itself, it is not in relationship with any thing other than itself which is all one. Not-A-Thing and Everything. There is no one Observing because there is no other than Observing itself.

Questions can only relate to itself...where there is no such relationship taking place...rather, it's no one asking itself, and no one asking itself will get no answer..because there is no one there to answer...there will only ever be questions no one is asking.

The relative mind can ask only questions that relate to itself.

An individual self can ask questions. But there is NO relative mind, to ask question. There is only One Mind, which is the True Self, in the spiritual sense. This One ask "you", the individual self, Truly OPEN clarifying questions. If "you" answer them or NOT, is another matter.

The individual self is an idea, the idea there is a ''separate self'' is an appearance of within consciousness...consciousness therefore is only asking itself, and if it's asking itself then it is the only one that will have the answer to it's own question.
There is no other source of knowledge but ''you''. And there is no ''you'' because there is no other than ''you''
You are SOURCE.

You is the Not-knowing Known.

There is only knowing...no one knows this.

Yet "dontaskme' THINKS they know ALL the answers.

There is no known knower. Knowing is one in the moment. All concepts are instantly known as and when they arise in consciousness one with the knowing, the only knowing there is...the character dontaskme is a known concept known by consciousness. Concepts don't have consciousness, consciousness has concepts .

That which is already known cannot know, for that would require consciousness to split in two into the knower and the known...consciousness is both knower and known in the same instantanous moment now ..all ONE..there is no split, except what the mind does using concept, the split is totally illusory.

Consciousness is non-physical..it doesn't have a physical body, no consciousness is inside a body ..the body is an illusory physical known concept within non-physical consciousness alone... all one.

.

[Belinda]

There is no known knower.

wrote DAM. Is this the same as existence precedes essence?