Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

[AlexW]

And when, and if, you investigate your own direct experience, even further, then you will come to understand and know, even more.

You stated in a previous post that "Thoughts are the only thing that I can be 100% truly sure of".
If you would have really investigated your experience you would find this to be untrue.
Or do you believe that if someone pinches your arm that this sensation was a thought?
Can a thought pinch you? Or can it only state "Someone pinched my arm! This hurts!"
Have a good look and see what is really happening.

Anyway, I don't mind if you believe you can "explain ALL-OF-THIS very simply and very easy, with WORDS, so that ALL-OF-THIS is FULLY understood by others". If you feel the urge, please go ahead, if not, this is fine too... but please keep in mind that whatever explanation you will give it is within the conceptual world/belief you have erected - and to me, this is ultimately not true (but neither is it false - descriptions simply do not apply, they are like a finger pointing to the moon, they are simply a finger, not the moon )

Saying things like; The only one 'thing' that exists is really 'not-a-thing' at all, just shows that 'you' do not Truly understand ALL-OF-THIS, just yet.

Investigate your experience and you will never, ever find a "thing". Why? Because you will find no borders, no separation at all, ever - thus all objects/things are simply conceptual entities, never directly experienced. Still you seem to believe things (or at least one thing) exists...
I don't mind if you do, but maybe, just maybe you are wrong... (and the conceptual framework that you have erected to "Truly understand ALL-OF-THIS" needs revision).
And even if there were only one thing then calling it a "thing" is simply misleading, it will not help anyone to "Truly understand ALL-OF-THIS".
So please tell me, why would you affix certain attributes (e.g. existence or non-existence) to something that is not a thing (that has no second, no opposite)? It makes no sense to me and is a misleading attempt of objectifying the non objective.

Anyway, I recommend you have a good look at what is actually experienced and what thought might state about the experience - but do it honestly and without the preconceived explanations you have already established and believe to be true.

See your point in regards to 'what' EXACTLY?

Is it even possible, to you, that I may well be years ahead of you, in that I already KNOW a way to 'describe' ALL-OF-THIS here, by 'conventional descriptions, which you propose can not even be explained by 'conventional descriptions'?

In regards to what I wrote:
Of course this doesn't mean that a statement may be right or wrong within the conceptual boundaries it has been made - if we work in the world of independently existing, separate objects then the statement 1+1=2 is certainly right, but we should also understand that ultimately even this simple equation is neither right nor is it wrong.

What don't you understand? I am happy to explain.

Also: Sure, everything can be explained using conventional description - but this doesn't mean that the description is correct. It may be correct according to the conceptual rules you have setup within your own system of belief, but it may be incorrect within another one (e.g. mine).
All I am saying is that ultimately ALL conceptual systems, within which we try to explain the non-conceptual, are neither true, nor are they false - simply because the non-conceptual, non-dual, absolute (whatever name you want to use) has no attributes, it has no limit and thus no place to fix a conceptual anchor (sorry, another metaphor - please let me know if you understand the meaning of it).

But maybe you believe that everything can not only be explained, but that that there is only ONE true/correct way of explaining something... Do you?

[surreptitious57]

Language is the conceptual means that is used to both identify and explain the non conceptual
In order for it to be effective everyone needs to have an understanding of how exactly it is used

While language itself is abstract it can explain much about observational reality through inter subjectivity
And so when a statement about said reality is unanimously accepted then it is taken to be objectively true

However not all statements are unanimously accepted and this is where ambiguity and confusion may arise
And language [ non mathematical ] is ambiguous and confusing simply because human beings themselves are

But this can be overcome at least in part if not in whole by striving to be as clear as possible when one is using language
There will probably always be some degree of ambiguity and confusion but there is always potential for improvement too

[AlexW]

Language is the conceptual means that is used to both identify and explain the non conceptual
In order for it to be effective everyone needs to have an understanding of how exactly it is used

While language itself is abstract it can explain much about observational reality through inter subjectivity
And so when a statement about said reality is unanimously accepted then it is taken to be objectively true

However not all statements are unanimously accepted and this is where ambiguity and confusion may arise
And language [ non mathematical ] is ambiguous and confusing simply because human beings themselves are

But this can be overcome at least in part if not in whole by striving to be as clear as possible when one is using language
There will probably always be some degree of ambiguity and confusion but there is always potential for improvement too

Yes, I agree (mostly).

First there is sensory perception, raw data is received/perceived and then analysed, similar to a pattern matching algorithm.
The algorithm finds known patterns, based on acquired knowledge, labels them and links them into the network of an established conceptual system.
The more we rely on this process the less do we realise that the basic data is actually non-dual, it contains no borders, it doesn't contain the information that one pattern is an apple, this pattern is a pear and this one a banana... these concepts are added via second stage processing... the same is true for the apparent self that perceives this stream of data... there is no self to be found anywhere in the original data, it is added because we have been told this is how we, a separate entity, perceives...
Now, when talking about this original stream of data, lets call it awareness, we are discussing it using our acquired, conditioned patterns - the ones that we have learned separate an apple from a pear - but we do not realise that we are talking about children of a barren mother (sorry for the metaphor) - Why? Because in awareness there are no separate objects, there is no perceiver, no perceived, only it... now this "it" has no qualities, you cant even say that it "exists"... this is what I am trying to get across... We can talk in our invented/acquired world of language and concepts as much as we want, but there really is nothing to say about something that has no attributes, no limits and no separate parts... yet, we still do and insist that we know the one true answer...

[Age]

The purpose of human beings which are many should not be mistaken for the purpose of the Universe

What are some or all of the many purposes of human beings

The purpose of the human being known as Age is to learn how to communicate better on this forum

But that is NOT the purpose of the human being, known as "age" small s. The purpose of EVERY human being is the EXACT SAME for each other.

The fact that the human being known as "age", small s, wants to learn how to communicate better, everywhere, and not just on this forum, is a reason why 'i', small i, am here, in this forum. The purpose for me, small m, being here, in this forum, is to learn how to communicate better is just a very individual thing, and so just a want of this human being, The purpose of human beings, collectively, however, or the purpose of being human is a completely other matter.

The purpose of the human being known as surreptitious57 is to acquire as much knowledge as he can

As much knowledge in regards to what exactly?

What we all individually WANT, that is; after our initial purpose, and want, has been swayed away from our original path, and we have been taken off the tracks of our true intended track, can be completely OPPOSING things.

[Dontaskme]

A tree is a physical thing and so its existence is real not imaginary
But if awareness is non physical then how can one know if it is real
As its existence cannot be demonstrated like the existence of a tree

Just answer this question first and then we can proceed .... Does a tree exist independent of a brain

Yes a tree does exist independent of a brain

The claim that a tree can exist without a brain and be known to exist is what (Awareness) is. The tree is a living life force functioning without a brain, this is what's known as the pure awareness state. This living life force does not require a brain to exist.

The tree doesn't know it's a tree, but there is definitely a functioning living life force perfectly present permeating as and through that tree. That's how awareness is known to be real too because the knower and the known are always in one perfect state in the same instant.

But since the tree needs no brain in order to exist, the tree is both real and unreal simultaneously, in other words it is and is not.
So the word REAL is purely a mental narrative, it's a concept arising in the pure awareness state and known by that state only.
There is no known without a knower and no knower without a known so the knower is both real and unreal in the same instant, they are the same one state...the stateless state.

The fact that a tree cannot be perceived without a brain to process it is just incidental

And yet the tree already exists prior to it being known, processed) so can you not see that the knowing of the tree is imposed upon what already is? the knowledge of the tree informs the reality of the tree as being both a thing and not-a thing appearing in awareness that pervades all knowledge.

That the tree can exist without a brain is known as duality, where the knower and the known ( apparently two ) are inseparable in the actual One with the knowing. There cannot be a knowing of something without there being something to be known.

That's what PURE AWARENESS is. It's both the subject and the object inclusive as ONE always here present and is all there is.

Life is presenting itself as one whole inseparable reality right here and now.
The brain cuts this into two halves, the knower and the known, but this cut is an illusion.

Brains braining are an artificial re-presentation (duality) of what is already presenting itself (nondual) all one all alone.

.

[Age]

So what evidence do you have that the Universe has no purpose at all

And what evidence do you have that the Universe will eventually die

I do not think that a non biological entity can be said to have a purpose

And what evidence do you have that the Universe is not a 'biological entity'?

Is the earth, to you, a 'biological entity'?

There are five possible ways for local cosmic expansion to end but only time will show which one that is

Is there actual 'evidence' that PROVES with 100% certainty that there is:
1. "cosmic expansion", at the 'local' boundary?
2. "cosmic expansion, beyond the 'local' boundary?
3. Is the 'local' boundary, or even beyond that, actually the Universe, Itself?

Local cosmic expansion is not the Universe however but merely the observable part of it that we can see

So, really whatever 'we', human beings, can actually observe is not really actually the Universe, Itself, and therefore whatever happens on what is essentially just a fraction of the whole, really may not give any actual clue at all as to what could happen to the whole, correct?

The entire Universe which includes the non observable part too cannot die because something always has to exist in some form

Thank you for this, but of course absolutely everything, besides two things, within the Universe, come into existence, exists, and then exits. Obviously, a fraction of the Universe, which is exactly just what a 'local' part of the Universe is, also comes into existence, exists, and will exist, too.

[Age]

Is it even possible to you that I may well be years ahead of you in that I already KNOW a way to describe ALL
OF THIS here by conventional descriptions which you propose can not even be explained by conventional descriptions

Well of course it is possible or else why would I bother to even read your posts here unless I could really learn from them
You should realise by now that the fact that I may not always agree with what you say does not mean I am closed minded
You seem to have all the answers whereas I have none at all so it is harder for me to know what they are or even if they can be known

Did you think my quoted response above was directed at 'you', "surreptitious57"?

[Dontaskme]

Thank you for this, but of course absolutely everything, besides two things, within the Universe, come into existence, exists, and then exits. Obviously, a fraction of the Universe, which is exactly just what a 'local' part of the Universe is, also comes into existence, exists, and will exist, too.

No 'thing'' comes IN TO the existence of the universe. The universe is unity all one.

''Things'' come OUT of what already IS already UNITY as a conceptualised known thing known to and by itself only.

In the same context: A wave does not come into an ocean. A wave comes OUT of the ocean it already is.

Coming into something implies it was outside of it. It is more correct to say things come out of itself, which is neither in nor out except as a concept of itself.

.

[Age]

And when, and if, you investigate your own direct experience, even further, then you will come to understand and know, even more.

You stated in a previous post that "Thoughts are the only thing that I can be 100% truly sure of".
If you would have really investigated your experience you would find this to be untrue.

So, if this is untrue, then what is true?

Or do you believe that if someone pinches your arm that this sensation was a thought?

I do not believe any thing. Are you able comprehend this?

Or is this untrue also?

Can a thought pinch you? Or can it only state "Someone pinched my arm! This hurts!"

Only the latter. That is why I said that the only thing that I can be truly sure of is the thoughts within this head. But you seemed to have completely misconstrued this, as well.

Have a good look and see what is really happening.

I have already, but, from your perspective, what is "really happening"?

Anyway, I don't mind if you believe you can "explain ALL-OF-THIS very simply and very easy, with WORDS, so that ALL-OF-THIS is FULLY understood by others". If you feel the urge, please go ahead, if not, this is fine too... but please keep in mind that whatever explanation you will give it is within the conceptual world/belief you have erected - and to me, this is ultimately not true (but neither is it false - descriptions simply do not apply, they are like a finger pointing to the moon, they are simply a finger, not the moon )

So, what is the 'moon'?

And this is obviously just the conceptual world/belief that you have erected, and/or you have just copied from what others have said.

Also, I do not believe any thing.

Saying things like; The only one 'thing' that exists is really 'not-a-thing' at all, just shows that 'you' do not Truly understand ALL-OF-THIS, just yet.

Investigate your experience and you will never, ever find a "thing".

But it was investigating my experiences Truly Honestly is how and why I found every thing I have that I have yet to explain fully.

Why? Because you will find no borders, no separation at all, ever - thus all objects/things are simply conceptual entities, never directly experienced. Still you seem to believe things (or at least one thing) exists...

Well, because you look at and see things from your own past experiences, you have completely misconstrued and taken out of context, what I have actually said and meant, and thus the reason why you are so confused and completely misunderstanding me here.

I don't mind if you do, but maybe, just maybe you are wrong... (and the conceptual framework that you have erected to "Truly understand ALL-OF-THIS" needs revision).

What do you believe is the thing or things that I believe exists?

You seem to like to talk about how what I say is untrue, but you are never actually are specific about what exactly that is, and you also do not actually then point out why what I say is untrue.

And even if there were only one thing then calling it a "thing" is simply misleading, it will not help anyone to "Truly understand ALL-OF-THIS".

So, does calling this 'thing' "not-a-thing" help others in Truly understanding?

So please tell me, why would you affix certain attributes (e.g. existence or non-existence) to something that is not a thing (that has no second, no opposite)?

Because OBVIOUSLY some 'thing' is NOT "not-a-thing".

Every you just called 'It' some 'thing'.

Are you able to see the contradictions in the way you phrase and say things here?

Also, just because you call this 'thing' "not-a-thing", then that does NOT mean that 'It' can not be explained much better, much more accurate, and much more Truly, with and through 'descriptive words'.

You can believe whatever you want to, but that will never make some 'thing' actually true, other than to your own self of course.

It makes no sense to me and is a misleading attempt of objectifying the non objective.

That is fair enough.

From your perspective, of course what I am saying would not make sense to you.

Anyway, I recommend you have a good look at what is actually experienced and what thought might state about the experience - but do it honestly and without the preconceived explanations you have already established and believe to be true.

You could not have a less understanding of me and what I have done even if you wanted to and tried to portray a more wrong understanding here.

Obviously you will continue on with this line of thinking, if you continue on the exact same way as you are now and have been.

By the way, why do you not start explaining what it is you believe I am missing here, and then start explaining what it is that you want me to see and understand here.

Instead of recommending to "others" to "take a good look at what is "actually" experienced", why do you not just tell us what is "actually experienced"?

How would you even know "what thought might state" occurs within this body, about absolutely ANY thing this body experiences?

What do you mean by "honestly"? For all you well know I may have been and are far more honest, than you ever are now.

Are you even able to consider that the views I have here now have come from not having any 'preconceived explanations', and I still look at things from a non 'preconceived' perspective. Remember it is 'you' who is believing and assuming things here. I do not like to assume absolutely any thing and I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing at all. So, how could I have 'preconceived explanations' now?

As for your, "you have already established and believe to be true", comment, this just shows how you have completely and utterly misunderstood me. But this is extremely explainable, this is because you obviously look at what I say from your already obtained thoughts only, and start making assumptions, based on your, past experiences, and then start believing those assumptions are true, before you even thought to remain open and just clarify what I am actually saying and meaning.

But, considering your past experiences, then what you are doing here is totally understandable.

See your point in regards to 'what' EXACTLY?

Is it even possible, to you, that I may well be years ahead of you, in that I already KNOW a way to 'describe' ALL-OF-THIS here, by 'conventional descriptions, which you propose can not even be explained by 'conventional descriptions'?

In regards to what I wrote:
Of course this doesn't mean that a statement may be right or wrong within the conceptual boundaries it has been made - if we work in the world of independently existing, separate objects then the statement 1+1=2 is certainly right, but we should also understand that ultimately even this simple equation is neither right nor is it wrong.

What don't you understand? I am happy to explain.

There is nothing in that that I do not understand.

Do you yet know why you did make such an assumption here, which, by the way, is obviously completely and utterly ridiculous, once again?

Do you yet know why you jumped to such a completely wrong conclusion?

Do you yet know why you believe things that could not be any further from the truth?

You want to use "duality" language but then expect that what you say is neither right nor wrong, or neither true nor false.

But you can not have it both ways.

Also: Sure, everything can be explained using conventional description - but this doesn't mean that the description is correct. It may be correct according to the conceptual rules you have setup within your own system of belief, but it may be incorrect within another one (e.g. mine).

You are SHOWING in the most significant of ways just how little you know of what I have been saying and meaning.

You appear to have absolutely no idea at all in regards to what I am saying and meaning.


All I am saying is that ultimately ALL conceptual systems, within which we try to explain the non-conceptual, are neither true, nor are they false - simply because the non-conceptual, non-dual, absolute (whatever name you want to use) has no attributes, it has no limit and thus no place to fix a conceptual anchor (sorry, another metaphor - please let me know if you understand the meaning of it).

I KNOW what you are 'trying to' say and explain. This is because I KNOW, with descriptive words, what you say can not be explained with descriptive words.

But OBVIOUSLY you can not say and explain what you are so desperately wanting to and 'trying to' say and explain, because if you could, and did, then this would be in complete contradiction of your obviously very strongly held onto firm beliefs.

But maybe you believe that everything can not only be explained, but that that there is only ONE true/correct way of explaining something... Do you?

NO.

If you had absolutely any understanding at all from what I have been saying, then you would already KNOW what my answer would be and so would not have made such an obviously absurd assumption, and ask such a ridiculous question here.

[Age]

Language is the conceptual means that is used to both identify and explain the non conceptual
In order for it to be effective everyone needs to have an understanding of how exactly it is used

While language itself is abstract it can explain much about observational reality through inter subjectivity
And so when a statement about said reality is unanimously accepted then it is taken to be objectively true

However not all statements are unanimously accepted and this is where ambiguity and confusion may arise
And language [ non mathematical ] is ambiguous and confusing simply because human beings themselves are

But this can be overcome at least in part if not in whole by striving to be as clear as possible when one is using language

But is it actually possible to be absolutely clear to absolutely every one, if when being as clear as possible?

Anyway, being as clear as possible certainly helps in understanding, and thus in helping preventing and stopping confusion, but just clarifying what the "other" is saying may just be equal in overcoming confusion and increasing understanding.

There will probably always be some degree of ambiguity and confusion but there is always potential for improvement too

But ALL ambiguity AND confusion can be completely overcome, and thus gotten rid of completely, very simply and very easily with just clarification.

[Age]

Language is the conceptual means that is used to both identify and explain the non conceptual
In order for it to be effective everyone needs to have an understanding of how exactly it is used

While language itself is abstract it can explain much about observational reality through inter subjectivity
And so when a statement about said reality is unanimously accepted then it is taken to be objectively true

However not all statements are unanimously accepted and this is where ambiguity and confusion may arise
And language [ non mathematical ] is ambiguous and confusing simply because human beings themselves are

But this can be overcome at least in part if not in whole by striving to be as clear as possible when one is using language
There will probably always be some degree of ambiguity and confusion but there is always potential for improvement too

Yes, I agree (mostly).

First there is sensory perception, raw data is received/perceived and then analysed, similar to a pattern matching algorithm.
The algorithm finds known patterns, based on acquired knowledge, labels them and links them into the network of an established conceptual system.
The more we rely on this process the less do we realise that the basic data is actually non-dual, it contains no borders, it doesn't contain the information that one pattern is an apple, this pattern is a pear and this one a banana... these concepts are added via second stage processing... the same is true for the apparent self that perceives this stream of data... there is no self to be found anywhere in the original data, it is added because we have been told this is how we, a separate entity, perceives...

If this is what 'you' do, then so be it. But seeing this in writings is WHY 'you' are assuming and believing things that are not even there, and so saying things that are so far from what is actually been said and meant.

Now, when talking about this original stream of data, lets call it awareness, we are discussing it using our acquired, conditioned patterns

EXACTLY like 'you' have here, by call 'It' "awareness".

- the ones that we have learned separate an apple from a pear - but we do not realise that we are talking about children of a barren mother (sorry for the metaphor) - Why? Because in awareness there are no separate objects, there is no perceiver, no perceived, only it... now this "it" has no qualities, you cant even say that it "exists"...

But when 'you' learn and understand more, then just maybe you will not be so fixed and believe so strongly that that some things can not be done.

Are 'you' aware of absolutely EVERY thing yet?

If not, then just maybe you will start to be Aware of more things. Things like what Awareness, Itself, actually already KNOWS and is AWARE of.

Are you OPEN to this at all? Or, is it the absolute FACT, to you, that forever more the "it", which "coincidentally" is continually becoming better understood, better known, and becoming more aware of, has NO "qualities", and could NEVER EVER be said to "exist"?

Do you actually really BELIEVE that you already KNOW ALL of the facts that could be known, and will forever more be known?

this is what I am trying to get across... We can talk in our invented/acquired world of language and concepts as much as we want, but there really is nothing to say about something that has no attributes, no limits and no separate parts... yet, we still do and insist that we know the one true answer...

LOL.

You are actually talking about 'you', the human being who actually BELIEVES they already KNOW all there is to know about "it". 'you' still do and still insist that you know the one true answer. The EVIDENCE of this can be clearly seen in your posts.

By saying, the "it" has no attributes, no limits, et cetera you are talking in your own invented/acquired world of language and concepts, as much as you want to. 'you' have also said quite a lot regarding the 'thing', which you 'describe' as having no attributes, et cetera.

[Age]

Thank you for this, but of course absolutely everything, besides two things, within the Universe, come into existence, exists, and then exits. Obviously, a fraction of the Universe, which is exactly just what a 'local' part of the Universe is, also comes into existence, exists, and will exist, too.

No 'thing'' comes IN TO the existence of the universe. The universe is unity all one.

"Another" one who wants to tell me that I am WRONG. Yet has never even thought to consider, from THEIR perspective, "Maybe if I asked them to clarify what they actually mean, then I would gain a better understanding of what they are saying and meaning". But, No, 'you' would NOT even consider this. This is because you BELIEVE you already KNOW ALL the answers, which you BELIEVE can not be explained with words. 'you' are just replacing the old preachers who say, "There are some things we can never know".

Listen to this and see if you can understand this; I KNOW EXACTLY what 'you' are 'trying to' say and I KNOW what message EXACTLY 'you are 'trying to' get across here. I even KNOW WHY 'you' are STUCK here where 'you' are.

Now, you want to say that "No 'thing' comes IN TO the existence of the Universe. The Universe is unity all one." So, WHY say the word "unity". The Universe is OBVIOUSLY just One. So, what exactly is there to "unify"? What IS "unity all one"?

''Things'' come OUT of what already IS already UNITY as a conceptualised known thing known to and by itself only.

OBVIOUSLY, in concept ONLY.

In the same context: A wave does not come into an ocean. A wave comes OUT of the ocean it already is.

OBVIOUSLY, in concept ONLY.

Coming into something implies it was outside of it.

"Comes OUT" implies it went outside of It.

Naming a "wave" or absolutely any "thing" implies separation.

Is there a an actual separate "wave" from the One?

If yes, then HOW?

If no, then WHY use the separate identify label "wave"?

The Universe is One.

Do you not yet understand this FACT?

It is more correct to say things come out of itself, which is neither in nor out except as a concept of itself.

.

So, 'you', the individual separate person, within an individual separate human body, which 'comes out of' (if you personally do not like the term 'comes in to') existence and exists now, wants to express 'your' own individual separate thoughts, which are in concept only, and use language that expresses absolute duality, and propose that it is okay for 'YOU' to do this, but if any one "ELSE" expresses any thing, then what they say is WRONG, but your solitary views, opinions, beliefs, assumptions, et cetera are what is RIGHT, and the one and only true knowledge of all things.

Are 'you', until that body can not talk nor write anymore, just going to continue on with this relentless SAME explaining of "stuff/non stuff"?

'you' want to appear as though you are years ahead in KNOWING of what "others", in the days of when this is being written, but you are just as far behind as they are.

When 'you' STOP BELIEVING and START opening up, and wanting to keep learning more, then you will be able to SEE that just maybe what you keep insisting is the truth, IS the actual Truth. BUT maybe you will have gained the actual language to be ABLE to EXPLAIN 'all-of-this', very simply and very easily indeed.

If you want to propose that what I say is wrong, because of the language I use, then am I allowed to point out all the times you also use the "wrong" language?

[Dontaskme]

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:18 am
this is what I am trying to get across... We can talk in our invented/acquired world of language and concepts as much as we want, but there really is nothing to say about something that has no attributes, no limits and no separate parts... yet, we still do and insist that we know the one true answer...

LOL.

You are actually talking about 'you', the human being who actually BELIEVES they already KNOW all there is to know about "it". 'you' still do and still insist that you know the one true answer. The EVIDENCE of this can be clearly seen in your posts.

NO, your response is an interpretation of what the bolded message is saying...with the added belief that the message is being expressed by a human being.

However, your response is not what is being expressed at all...your response to above message is totally off the mark and you really need to stop putting words into other peoples mouths. Words that are only your own interpretations of what's being conveyed and not what is actually being conveyed.

The reference point ''we'' is just a thought. But you already exist whether you think 'you' are or not, you ARE whether thought is present or not, otherwise thinking would be impossible.

The word ''me'' is an imaginary concept. It's just a word/thought. Please SEE that words are NOT a given in direct experience of which Alex explains.

Experience is not experienced by a human being or a 'you'. You is the experience. The human being or the 'you' is the experience. Experience is it's own one SOURCE.

Source/IT does you, you do not do IT. This is already and always so. No need to remember or forget, just as you do not have to remember to be present while reading these words and just as forgetting about being present does not erase the Presence that IS.

There is nothing to understand here. The only understanding is to understand there is nothing to understand. As knowledge aka concepts only ever point to the illusion that reality is non-conceptual appearing to be conceptual.

.

[Dontaskme]

When 'you' STOP BELIEVING and START opening up, and wanting to keep learning more, then you will be able to SEE that just maybe what you keep insisting is the truth, IS the actual Truth. BUT maybe you will have gained the actual language to be ABLE to EXPLAIN 'all-of-this', very simply and very easily indeed.

Maybe when you stop projecting your complete and utter bullshit responses in saying this can be explained via language - will you finally SEE the ultimate truth in that there isn't any truth to be found in language. Except what is imagined in this conception aka a language as it is conceived via the language itself appearing as knowledge. All Knowledge does is it indirectly points to the idea there is a KNOWN absolute knower which only serves to deviate away from actual DIRECT EXPERIENCE... making all known knowledge relative, aka mental constructs.
Therefore, language only serves to point to the illusion of an ABSOLUTE KNOWN TRUTH.. You already ARE the absolute truth prior to any language being superimposed upon it.

Obviously, of course, any so called imagined claimed truths about reality are imagined via the artifically placed imposisition of concepts, as there is actually zero availablity to the absolute truth as and through A CONCEPTUAL LANGUAGE because YOU already ARE THE ABSOLUTE prior to any concept of IT.

Only imagined fictions are KNOWN, not absolute truths. And that knowledge is fictionally the whole and only absolute truth that can be KNOWN as expressed via the use of language aka concepts..which is an appearance made of the absolute, by the absolute and for the absolute only.

.

[Dontaskme]

So, 'you', the individual separate person, within an individual separate human body, which 'comes out of' (if you personally do not like the term 'comes in to') existence and exists now, wants to express 'your' own individual separate thoughts, which are in concept only, and use language that expresses absolute duality, and propose that it is okay for 'YOU' to do this, but if any one "ELSE" expresses any thing, then what they say is WRONG, but your solitary views, opinions, beliefs, assumptions, et cetera are what is RIGHT, and the one and only true knowledge of all things.

Dont you see that your response is just another typical dumb ass idiotic same old response that you always give. Oh boy are your responses so predictable and so utterly just the samey samey old dull as dishwater boring and unintelligent responses.

Right or wrong is an assumptive belief that spontaneously arises as a known concept from it's own self created SOURCE

( including this statement expressing as and through the character ''donstaskme'' as well... don't you GET IT !!!!! ? )



That's what's being expressed here.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing your fucktarded responses to a subject that is very simply and easily understood non-verbally.

If you insist on believing the SOURCE of you can be explained using language then that's just your delusional perogative to do so, but don't force your fucktarted belief on to other people who are obviously more intelligent than you by expecting them to suck on your belief milking titty as if it was their belief too.

One simply cannot SEE what is being expressed here until one simply stops trying to decribe what is trying to be seen AS A SEEN THING via the use of language, when it's clearly NOT, when it's clearly any thing but conceptual because it's actually TACIT seeing.

Direct experience is auspicious seeing which is not comprehensible or expressible in words.

Words only point to it, which is where the confusion comes in because a word is never IT

If you insist otherwise then that is your BELIEF, the lie you have bought into. However, not everyone buys into the lie...so stop trying to put words, aka your belief milking tit into other people mouths expecting them to suck on it. Milk your own COW...or smell your own shit, whatever, but stop expecting other peoples way of SEEING THIS to be the EXACT same seeing as what yours is.



.