Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

[Age]

'Thinking' comes from, or is a part of a, brain. Whereas, 'knowing' comes from Awareness, or what I call the Mind.

How did you figure this out?

i never "figure this out" like i was intending to figure or work any thing out here. i just stumbled upon this, completely unintentionally, probably because i was far more stupid than i was in any way intelligent at all. i was just doing all i could do to change, for the better. i was doing this by being as Honest as i could be. Thee Truth literally does set thee 'you' FREE.

The difference is 'thinking' comes from an individual brain, and is only a subjective view of things. 'Knowing' comes from the one and only Mind, and is an objective view of things, which comes from ALL.

I agree with you in that there is only one "mind"/awareness/reality, but an objective view of things requires concepts, thus it is based on thinking, not on pure awareness.

Is 'this' coming from 'pure awareness', or from 'thinking'?

An 'objective view' obviously requires ALL things, including concepts, but, an 'objective view' does NOT require that any 'concept' at all needs to be accepted, nor agreed with.

In fact, a Truly objective view can very easily and very simply distinguish and sort out what is true and right, from what is wrong and false, concepts.

If you would have had direct experience of pure, thought-less awareness you would know that there is no separation in direct experience/knowing.

But when have I even alluded to that there was separation in direct experience/knowing, let alone said that there was?

Do you know WHY you keep assuming, and keep seeing, things that are NOT even here?

The reason WHY is ALREADY KNOWN, and very easy to discover, that is; if you have not already discovered this answer, and you actually KNOW how to find ALL these answers..

Your description of thinking vs knowing (as stated above) is really not more than creating two apparently different categories of thought (subjective and objective thoughts) - knowing is the same as being, life itself, there is no objectivity present at all. All objectivity and relativity is added via conceptual thought.

Okay, this sounds like you KNOW ALL-THERE-IS to KNOW, and therefore 'you' MUST BE correct.

I really do NOT care.

I am just interested in this when things like; "This can not be explained with words", is said, because this is TELLING me what I can and can not do.

Whatever else you believe and accept is perfectly fine with me.

How I rely on KNOWING, is by KNOWING that EVERY One could be in agreement.

Again, you believe that you KNOW but really only THINK.

Seriously, when are you EVER going to understand and comprehend that I do NOT believe this, nor any thing else?

There is no every one, no separate entities, in direct knowing.

Yet the writings under the label "alexw" continually use words to describe that there are different ones, separate entities, so that means 'direct knowing' is being completely lost and NOT yet fully understood.

In 'direct knowing' ALL-OF-THIS is ALREADY KNOWN.

Awareness of ALL things is done through an OPEN Mind

Awareness is never aware of things. It doesn't see - the closest you can say is that it simply IS (even as I said before: it neither is, nor is it not - as there simply is only it, to state: it exists, makes no sense)
Only thought talks about things - things are conceptual entities, they are not real in the absolute sense, but awareness is - it is reality itself.

If only thought talks about things, then ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing written, or talked about, under the label "alexw" is just 'thought', itself. So, therefore NOT 'direct knowing'.

For example, when any thing is thought to be true or right, then just look and see if ALL could agree with it. If not ALL could agree, then, whatever it is, has just come from your own past experiences, and not what is necessarily true or right.

There is no ALL that could agree with anything. [/quote]

Because you NEVER clarify and just ASSUME, CONCLUDE, and BELIEVE instead, 'you' have completely NO idea at all that the word 'ALL' actually MEANS thee undivided One.

You mix up concepts referring to the absolute (ALL) and ask for agreement...

I NEVER "asked" for agreement. You are so BLINDED by your OWN assumptions that you will NOT stop making. You NEVER clarify what these words under the label "age" actually MEAN, so your CLAIM of "mixing up" is EXACTLY and ONLY what 'you' are doing here.

The more writings under the label "alexw" the more PROOF there is that those words have absolutely NO idea nor clue as to what the words under the label "age" actually MEAN.

but who has to agree? Six billion brains?

You are completely so far off track. This is because you make up ASSUMPTIONS and then BELIEVE those assumptions to be true.

There is NO "has to agree".

How many times do you have to be forewarned that when 'you' continue to make assumptions BEFORE clarifying, then you will continue to keep making the absolutely STUPID and ABSURD mistakes that you keep making.

Your questions here could not be more idiotic even if you tried to make them more stupid than what they are now. These questions here are based solely on your OWN assumptions and beliefs, and have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I actually wrote and MEANT.

I am not saying this is a horrible idea, it is very nice of you to strive for it, but it sounds a bit like the "Bodhisattva vow", which is taken by Mahayana Buddhists to liberate all sentient beings. A task seemingly impossible to achieve... yet liberating yourself (from the idea of a separate self) you will find that there are no sentient beings at all. Thus the vow is fulfilled. Not by liberating individuals, but by realising that only your own liberation is required to liberate all... Not sure if you understand this, but I thought it's worth a try.

NONE of this is even CLOSE to what I was talking about. Can you really NOT see that this is your OWN assumption, and NOTHING at all about what I have said and meant.

You are basing everything here now on the very subjective thinking within that brain, which has NOTHING to do with what I said and wrote down here.

I am sorry, but I can't really work through all the rest of your writings, they are too long winded, too confusing, and it would require 2 hours to actually reply - I simply do not have the time. If you like to keep on talking, would you mind keeping it short and manageable? Thanks.

LOL 'direct knowing' does not have the time? lol

You specifically asked:
Interesting... can you please let me know your definition of KNOWING vs THINKING?

And,

What exactly is the difference? How do you rely on KNOWING - how does that exactly work?

What did you expect? That 'this' could be explained, to you, a thinking pre-conceptualized thinking and believing brain, with its own beliefs of what is already true and right, in just a few descriptive words.

The amount of times you contradict what you write is Truly amazing.

At least 'you' are unchanging in your own beliefs in that 'you' can NEVER understand 'this' with words. You are really living up to this BELIEF of yours.

[AlexW]

In fact, a Truly objective view can very easily and very simply distinguish and sort out what is true and right, from what is wrong and false, concepts.

Well ... lets agree to disagree

[Age]

One more, it might help you to understand my point of view:

But I ALREADY KNOW 'your' point of view.

Thee 'I' is the actual point of view you are wanting understood. 'I' UNDERSTAND KNOW thy Self better than 'you' ever will. When 'you' let "your conceptualized self" go and understand the True Self, 'I', then 'you' will have evolved out of and beyond the human self and have become One with Being, or sometimes known as 'direct experience'. By the way 'I' use the words 'I' and 'i' and 'Self' and 'self', because I KNOW how much that goes against the labeled "dontaskme's" and "alexw's" conceptualized point of view in ALL-OF-THIS.

Yes, but only conceptually.

Agree

The ONLY WAY you can understand this is because 'you', thee conceptually thinking human being, is because you have conceptualized the One into parts.

Agree

Otherwise 'you' could have NEVER come to and reached this conclusion. So, just maybe being able to look at and see the conceptual "different and separate parts" was for the very reason for you to be able to come to and reach the conclusion

Agree

..., 'you' have, which you are suggesting is more true, more right, and more correct than other concepts are.

No, I have said multiple times before: ultimately no statement is right, but neither is it wrong - its simply a statement, a play of words - it is only right/wrong based on the conceptual framework one has/believes in.

If no statement is right, but neither is it wrong, then the statement; What you are suggesting is more true, more right, and more correct than other concepts are' is ALSO neither right nor wrong. It is simply 'a statement'. So, why are the words, "No", used here to reply to that statement? If I now reply, 'Yes', then all that is being said, according to YOUR point of view, are just statements, which are neither right nor wrong.

Why, say "No" to a statement that is ultimately NEITHER right nor wrong anyway?

Also, If 'you' had direct experience of what 'you' call "pure, thought-less awareness", then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW that the statement; "If you would have had direct experience of pure, thought-less awareness you would know that there is no separation in direct experience/knowing.", is really rather pointless because it is neither a right nor a wrong statement. It is neither true nor false. That statement can instantly be replied with; 'If you would have had direct experience of pure, thought-less awareness you would know that there is separation in direct experience/knowing', and, according to YOUR own conceptualized logic, this statement is neither false nor true as well.

But the framework again is not correct, but neither is it incorrect - this is also the reason why you can never have a TRUE (or FALSE) conceptual framework - its simply impossible and arguing over these frameworks/beliefs is ultimately just a game without a winner

So, WHY are the conceptualized words used under the label "alexw" continually 'trying to' "point out" and argue about what is right and what is wrong?

Just maybe the reason 'you' are able to see, conceptually, "limited things" is so that the 'thing', which you suggest can not be explained in words

I have never said it cannot be explained - I said it can only be explained within the conceptual framework one has (and thus using thought)

But who is this "one" mentioned here?

Is this the undivided One and ONLY One?

Because with 'direct experience' explaining what 'I' am is done in using KNOWING, and NOT 'thought' at all.

If you had had 'direct experience', then 'you' would KNOW this ALREADY.

I do NOT explain 'direct experience' in and with 'thought', which is more or less just; "I think this is direct experience". I

Now, there can be experiences where thought ceases and reality shines without separation - later we conceptualise these experiences,

Is that what 'you' do?

I certainly do NOT do this, what 'you' say 'we' do. By the way who is this 'we'? Is it an undivided united 'We', or just the separate divided and different ones, which you are conceptualizing that makes up a 'we'?

integrate them into the framework that we already have and try to communicate the understanding with words... just like you conceptualise any other experience - e.g. the sensation of "wind on skin" - and after labelling it, objectifying it, you can tell others how it feels.

But once again I do NOT do these "things" that you say 'you' do.

But again: these explanations are again NOT it, they are a finger pointing at the moon - they are not Reality, they are an interpretation.

That is WHY I do NOT use what 'you' call "the finger". Instead I use the actual what you call "moon".

This is the difference here between the 'you' and the 'I', which, by the way, is NOTHING like what you are ASSUMING and CONCEPTUALIZING right now. What 'I' am actually saying and meaning when I use the 'you' and the 'I' words here is VERY DIFFERENT from what 'you' are believing I am saying and meaning right now.

So, 'you' can either keep assuming and jumping to WRONG conclusions, and reply to this without any clarification at all. Or, you could instead just ask what I mean to gain a better understanding, and thus a much better 'direct experience'.

[AlexW]

But I ALREADY KNOW 'your' point of view.
..
'I' UNDERSTAND KNOW thy Self better than 'you' ever will.

Good for you! I am glad you do.
Thank you for chatting and have fun playing on.
Good bye!

[Age]

You added this part on after I replied to the rest of this post.

Now you can state, within your interpretation, that this sensation is good or bad, right or wrong, and it may seem to make sense within the conceptual framework that is employed,

But I do NOT state things like this. Unless, OF COURSE, you direct us to a specific part where I have done this.

This is what the 'you' does. Human beings state things like this. I have absolutely NO need to state things like this.

I LOOK AT and SEE things as they ARE, not as they are interpreted to be.

but the sensation itself doesn’t care about your interpretation or judgement, it simply is as it is, and because it is real it actually cannot be good or bad, right or wrong, it is reality, if you like it or not...

'Sensation' is just sensation.

'you' appear to be so far behind.

'I' NEITHER care about your interpretation or judgement.

Emotions ALSO are nothing other than 'emotions'. Contrary to popular belief among human beings there are NO good nor bad, right nor wrong, negative nor positive internal feelings. They are just internal feelings (or emotions) and which are just a 'sign' or 'signpost' of what is going on. They ALSO can NOT care about any thing at all, including your interpretation or judgement.

You have such a negative outlook on 'this', and SEE that "others" do what 'you' " 'your' self" does.

If you want to talk about 'human beings', and what they do, then stick to those "things", but if 'you' want to talk about 'direct experience' or thee One, then stick to that, and thus do NOT say that 'I', thee One, do those things that 'you', the human being, does.

If you do that, then 'we' will get along just fine.

[Age]

In fact, a Truly objective view can very easily and very simply distinguish and sort out what is true and right, from what is wrong and false, concepts.

Well ... lets agree to disagree

But I do NOT care iota about ANY of the multitude of things that the 'you' and thee 'I' disagree with. What is in disagreement, of which there is MANY, has no actual bearing on what is actually Real and True anyway. Obviously what is in disagreement is just different personal subjective point of views, which I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHERE they ALL come from and HOW to distinguish them from the OBJECTIVE and ONLY REAL point of view. What 'It' is that is IN AGREEMENT with ALL, as One, is the only thing that is Truly important here and worth LOOKING AT and SEEING anyway.

[Dontaskme]

'Thinking' comes from, or is a part of a, brain. Whereas, 'knowing' comes from Awareness, or what I call the Mind.

How did you figure this out?

The difference is 'thinking' comes from an individual brain, and is only a subjective view of things. 'Knowing' comes from the one and only Mind, and is an objective view of things, which comes from ALL.

I agree with you in that there is only one "mind"/awareness/reality, but an objective view of things requires concepts, thus it is based on thinking, not on pure awareness. If you would have had direct experience of pure, thought-less awareness you would know that there is no separation in direct experience/knowing.
Your description of thinking vs knowing (as stated above) is really not more than creating two apparently different categories of thought (subjective and objective thoughts) - knowing is the same as being, life itself, there is no objectivity present at all. All objectivity and relativity is added via conceptual thought.

How I rely on KNOWING, is by KNOWING that EVERY One could be in agreement.

Again, you believe that you KNOW but really only THINK.
There is no every one, no separate entities, in direct knowing.

Awareness of ALL things is done through an OPEN Mind

Awareness is never aware of things. It doesn't see - the closest you can say is that it simply IS (even as I said before: it neither is, nor is it not - as there simply is only it, to state: it exists, makes no sense)
Only thought talks about things - things are conceptual entities, they are not real in the absolute sense, but awareness is - it is reality itself.

For example, when any thing is thought to be true or right, then just look and see if ALL could agree with it. If not ALL could agree, then, whatever it is, has just come from your own past experiences, and not what is necessarily true or right.

There is no ALL that could agree with anything. You mix up concepts referring to the absolute (ALL) and ask for agreement... but who has to agree? Six billion brains? I am not saying this is a horrible idea, it is very nice of you to strive for it, but it sounds a bit like the "Bodhisattva vow", which is taken by Mahayana Buddhists to liberate all sentient beings. A task seemingly impossible to achieve... yet liberating yourself (from the idea of a separate self) you will find that there are no sentient beings at all. Thus the vow is fulfilled. Not by liberating individuals, but by realising that only your own liberation is required to liberate all... Not sure if you understand this, but I thought it's worth a try.

I am sorry, but I can't really work through all the rest of your writings, they are too long winded, too confusing, and it would require 2 hours to actually reply - I simply do not have the time. If you like to keep on talking, would you mind keeping it short and manageable? Thanks.

Beautifully and perfectly explained. Thank you Alex.

The point that Age misses is that this cannot be understood or exprienced by using descriptives. This has to be directly experienced, in that the proof is always in the pudding.

It's like, A person may believe they can describe the taste of an orange to another person so that they too will know the taste that's being described to them, but this is simply not true, it's not until the other person has tasted the orange for itself via direct first hand experience will the person then know what is being described....until that happens, the person will never know what the taste of an orange is by having that taste described to them. As such, the same idea applies to knowing who you are and are not. It cannot be described by another, it can only be experienced directly by you the one and only witness and knower.

Age seems to believe that the feeling of ''direct experience'' can be described in a way that EVERY person will understand, and that is where he continuously slips up.

That's the only beef I have with Age, the rest of his postings are correct from his point of view and I totally get what he is saying, but he fails to grasp the inability to know something that is being described by another until there has been 'direct experience' of what exactly is being described.

In other words we can't know what we do not know yet.

So that which is unknown yet, will eventually become known as and when that knowing arises. And also that which is unknowable can never be known. So All that can be known is what's being experienced as and through first hand direct experience and NOT through second hand knowledge.

.

[AlexW]

Beautifully and perfectly explained.

Thank you!

Yes, I like that, the taste of an orange... very well said and so true!

[Age]

'Thinking' comes from, or is a part of a, brain. Whereas, 'knowing' comes from Awareness, or what I call the Mind.

How did you figure this out?

The difference is 'thinking' comes from an individual brain, and is only a subjective view of things. 'Knowing' comes from the one and only Mind, and is an objective view of things, which comes from ALL.

I agree with you in that there is only one "mind"/awareness/reality, but an objective view of things requires concepts, thus it is based on thinking, not on pure awareness. If you would have had direct experience of pure, thought-less awareness you would know that there is no separation in direct experience/knowing.
Your description of thinking vs knowing (as stated above) is really not more than creating two apparently different categories of thought (subjective and objective thoughts) - knowing is the same as being, life itself, there is no objectivity present at all. All objectivity and relativity is added via conceptual thought.

How I rely on KNOWING, is by KNOWING that EVERY One could be in agreement.

Again, you believe that you KNOW but really only THINK.
There is no every one, no separate entities, in direct knowing.

Awareness of ALL things is done through an OPEN Mind

Awareness is never aware of things. It doesn't see - the closest you can say is that it simply IS (even as I said before: it neither is, nor is it not - as there simply is only it, to state: it exists, makes no sense)
Only thought talks about things - things are conceptual entities, they are not real in the absolute sense, but awareness is - it is reality itself.

For example, when any thing is thought to be true or right, then just look and see if ALL could agree with it. If not ALL could agree, then, whatever it is, has just come from your own past experiences, and not what is necessarily true or right.

There is no ALL that could agree with anything. You mix up concepts referring to the absolute (ALL) and ask for agreement... but who has to agree? Six billion brains? I am not saying this is a horrible idea, it is very nice of you to strive for it, but it sounds a bit like the "Bodhisattva vow", which is taken by Mahayana Buddhists to liberate all sentient beings. A task seemingly impossible to achieve... yet liberating yourself (from the idea of a separate self) you will find that there are no sentient beings at all. Thus the vow is fulfilled. Not by liberating individuals, but by realising that only your own liberation is required to liberate all... Not sure if you understand this, but I thought it's worth a try.

I am sorry, but I can't really work through all the rest of your writings, they are too long winded, too confusing, and it would require 2 hours to actually reply - I simply do not have the time. If you like to keep on talking, would you mind keeping it short and manageable? Thanks.

Beautifully and perfectly explained. Thank you Alex.

The point that Age misses is that this cannot be understood or exprienced by using descriptives. This has to be directly experienced, in that the proof is always in the pudding.

So, according to the words under the label "dontaskme" it is written that the separated "age" appears to miss the point that this cannot be understood nor experienced by using descriptive words. Yet the Truth is the one known as "age" has not missed this point at all.

What the ones known as "dontaskme" and "alexw" appear to have missed and/or do not understood is that it will be through descriptive words that ALL-OF-THIS can be explained, and thus understood, very simply and very easily by the way. What will be included in those words is HOW people can experience 'thought-less knowing', or whatever else 'this' wants to be called. OBVIOUSLY, an 'experience' can not be felt/experienced through ANY words at all, this does not need to be told, this speaks for itself. So, words can explain HOW things are done and/or achieved.

This surely is not hard to understand at all, is it?

It's like, A person may believe they can describe the taste of an orange to another person so that they too will know the taste that's being described to them, but this is simply not true,

To even think that this would be possible, or to even think that another thinks this, is one really weird and absurd way of looking at this, from my perspective.

it's not until the other person has tasted the orange for itself via direct first hand experience will the person then know what is being described....

OBVIOUSLY.

WHY would you even think otherwise, or the other way around?

This is just MORE EVIDENCE for my claim that you really are NOT understanding what I am saying and meaning here.

It appears that just about everything I say, you seem to assume that I am saying and meaning the exact opposite.

Have you ever even just considered what it would be like to ask for clarification first of what it is that I am actually saying and meaning BEFORE you make these obviously WRONG and STUPID assumptions, like you are showing you make here?

Just imagine for one second, What would it be like to clarify with "another" human being what they are actually saying and meaning, before I go and make assumptions, which may or may not be right or wrong?

until that happens, the person will never know what the taste of an orange is by having that taste described to them.

But, obviously through descriptive words, it can be explained how to find an orange, and how to eat it. Surely you can understand this.

As such, the same idea applies to knowing who you are and are not. It cannot be described by another, it can only be experienced directly by you the one and only witness and knower.

But there is Truly ONLY One, anyway.

Therefore, the one and only witness AND Knower is thee One. This One can be described in words, because this is exactly what is happening here right now, in ALL-OF-THESE words, written under all of the conceptually perceived different or separate labels, like: "dontaskme", "age", "alexw", to name just three out of about 8 billion.

The One is united through these words, which are evolving to eventually fully explain and fully understand thy Self. The Universe is in a process of Self-actuating. The Universe can not KNOW Thy Self, without physicality, a physical machine like a computer, and one that can hold and store infinite amounts of information or knowledge, this machine is the human brain. Obviously, just one brain can not hold this amount of information, but all brains linked together, processing information, by working together, will eventually, through evolution, one day come to a point of working out and KNOWING Who 'I' am.

Through descriptive worlds, HOW to SEE and UNDERSTAND thy Self, can be explained, to ALL those things (of thee One True Self) which actually think or believe that they are separate identities. So, that even "they" can each, individually, learn HOW to SEE and UNDERSTAND ALL-OF-THIS together. So that eventually 'we' can ALL-AS-ONE, live together peacefully as One, which is what we ALL Truly want and desire deep-down anyway. This is because ultimately 'we' ARE One.

Age seems to believe that the feeling of ''direct experience'' can be described in a way that EVERY person will understand, and that is where he continuously slips up.

But I have NEVER even thought such a thing, so the ONLY 'slip up' is 'you' making ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which is completely WRONG, again.

Also, do you purposely use the word "believe" in relation to me because 'you' the individual separate human being believes so strongly that it is impossible to neither believe and disbelieve, or because you really do not listen to what I write, and so completely just forget that I neither believe nor disbelieve anything? Or, is there some other reason WHY you continually use that word in relation to me?

Do you continually use that word in relation to me because you BELIEVE and DISBELIEVE so many things that 'you' also BELIEVE that because 'you' do it, then 'I' must do it also?

All you are doing here is showing your own assumptions, and how much you BELIEVE them to be true, which, coincidentally, in relation to me are just about ALWAYS WRONG.

That's the only beef I have with Age, the rest of his postings are correct from his point of view and I totally get what he is saying, but he fails to grasp the inability to know something that is being described by another until there has been 'direct experience' of what exactly is being described.

Well considering that 'that' what you are assuming, and/or believing I am saying and meaning, is not correct, then can this "beef with "age", little 'a'," ever get resolved?

We are both talking about the same 'Thing', we just disagree on the point you keep making in that 'this' can not be explained with words.

Maybe the WHOLE fault of this disagreement all along, is that you have just been saying that the actual 'direct experiencing', itself, of 'Knowing', 'God', 'thee united One', or whatever other terms "we" use, can not be explained with descriptive words, and I have MISUNDERSTOOD this as meaning that 'This', the Thing, Itself, can not be explained with descriptive words, so that eventually one day 'this' could be understood.

I do agree that what each "person" experiences can NOT be explained and understood from "another's" perspective, nor explained in 'descriptive words' by another. This is just the same as we will NEVER know that if the 'red' that is seen from the eyes of this body is the same 'color' that is seen from the eyes of that body. For all we know a 'red' to this body could be a 'blue' to that body. But if we are IN AGREEMENT that what we are seeing is the same, then all is good. What 'It' is that we agree on is the only really IMPORTANT things here.

So, I have NEVER disagreed that what is experienced within one body can be fully explained and understood by "another" body, and vice-versa, what one body expresses through descriptive words "another" body can not 'directly experience' until they have the 'direct experience' also.

When ALL are IN AGREEMENT about what the 'direct experience' is OF, exactly, then it is that AGREEMENT, which is what is IMPORTANT, and which is, literally, what unites ALL "bodies", ALL of 'us', together as One.

In other words we can't know what we do not know yet.

So that which is unknown yet, will eventually become known as and when that knowing arises.

OBVIOUSLY, EVERY human being is at different stages of this 'knowing'. So, obviously what is unknown yet to one, can be FULLY Known and FULLY Understood by "another".

But, if thee Truth be KNOWN, within every new born human baby, (and younger but for sake of discussion), every new born baby is born ALREADY KNOWING what is NEEDED to live in peace and harmony, (with every one) as One. They do not yet see separation and only want to be Loved, and living in and with Love, and be recognized and accepted for who they Truly ARE, which is LOVE.

So, what is not yet consciously known, in regards to what is actually True, Right, and Correct to live in peace and harmony, on earth as it is in Heaven, as One, is in fact ALREADY KNOWN, just unconsciously. This KNOWING just needs to be brought out, and/or SHOWN HOW to become consciously Aware of It.

And also that which is unknowable can never be known.

Are you even able to provide an example of a supposed "unknowable", which can NEVER be known, for the rest of eternity?

This is WHERE I come to a wondering about what it is that 'you', the human being, known as "dontaskme", who has only lived for how many years, happens to KNOW of some universal KNOWLEDGE, that forever more, and no matter what there is this UNKNOWING knowledge, that can NEVER be known.

The contradiction that there is without doubt A KNOWING Knower, but there is also some unknowable knowledge also, is blinding.

So All that can be known is what's being experienced as and through first hand direct experience and NOT through second hand knowledge.

.

So, then ALL Knowledge is just KNOWN, through first hand experience. It really is just this simple and easy to understand.

That is WHY God, the Knower, KNOWS ALL things, or ALL-OF-THIS. The answer to the question, Who am 'I'? is just this ALL-Knowing God. 'I' am HERE-NOW in physical form as thee One and only Universe, Itself, and in Spirit as the One and only Mind.

By the way, if you do not provide examples of 'that', which is unknowable, and can never be known, then what is 'it' EXACTLY that 'you' are talking about here.

[Dontaskme]

What the ones known as "dontaskme" and "alexw" appear to have missed and/or do not understood is that it will be through descriptive words that ALL-OF-THIS can be explained, and thus understood, very simply and very easily by the way.

No, just No

What you imply is simply and very easily understood to NOT actually be true.

Awakening can happen quite spontaneously anywhere to anyone at any age - I was 6 years old when I had my first nondual glimpse of reality, and that was well before I even knew how to read. So all I'm saying to you is that I don't agree with you ok?


One can also have a spontaneous awakening while taking a stroll through the woodlands - because when all is said and done it's life that evloves this awakening in humans as and when that awakening is meant to happen and not one second before.


A person interested in the Truth of their BEING can read nondual esoteric knowledge as it is explained every single day of their life until their dying day and still not awaken to what it is pointing at, which is nondual empty consciousness. Simply because it was not meant to happen yet. So once again I disagree with you ok...why can't you just accept this and move on?

.

[Dontaskme]

But there is Truly ONLY One, anyway.

Therefore, the one and only witness AND Knower is thee One. This One can be described in words, because this is exactly what is happening here right now, in ALL-OF-THESE words, written under all of the conceptually perceived different or separate labels, like: "dontaskme", "age", "alexw", to name just three out of about 8 billion.

Sorry but the above statement implies that the ONE and ONLY employs or needs a ''separate one'' to petition for itself before it can know and experience itself ...this idea is pure ARROGANCE and ignorance on your part. There is no such ''petitioner''

The ONE needs no such SEPARATE subject in order to know and experience itself. There is only and ever the One experiencing and knowing itself.

No separate conceptually known perceived entity is writing these words, these words are quite simply unwritten.

So again, I don't agree with your translation, the way you see it, is not how this one here sees it...and is further proof that THIS cannot be explained in writing so that EVERYONE understands it.

The unwritten word is only and ever the ONE talking to itself alone. The echo is born of silence, and returns to silence. No word was ever uttered in the making of this SELF.

All words are the song of the one. There is nothing to understand about that. Just as there is nothing to understand when listening to a bird chirping, or a dog barking, it's just what's happening, and this happening never labels itself, nor asks to be heard or seen or known.



.

[Dontaskme]

This is just MORE EVIDENCE for my claim that you really are NOT understanding what I am saying and meaning here.

AND the above statement is just MORE EVIDENCE AND PROOF that understanding the SELF..
does not come from any apparent so called *(claimed) second hand knowledge* sourced from outside of ones own conscious arena. Rather, knowledge of SELF actually comes directly from it's own self source alone.

Have you ever even just considered what it would be like to ask for clarification first of what it is that I am actually saying and meaning BEFORE you make these obviously WRONG and STUPID assumptions, like you are showing you make here?

I care very little for what you are actually saying, especially when what you are saying just comes across as a jumbled entangled messy word salad that means jack shit to me. All I hear when I read your words is blah blah blah blah blah, akin to a barking dog.

This one here doesn't need to ask for clarification from any other source. This one here has moved beyond the belief structures that is second hand knowledge and is already residing in the clarity of oneness. I don't need nor want any more clarity ok.... I already GET IT

This is what you refuse to see, and is why WE are always in disharmony and opposition.

You Age can join the orchestra any time you want, but you have to leave the fingernail down the chalkboard instrument behind.

.

[surreptitious57]

There is actually NO you or NO one that has thoughts nor thinks . The actual thoughts or the thinking itself is the you the person within a body . So if ANY of that thinking or those thoughts is contradicted by newer thoughts and thinking then you have to literally let a part of you or that self go which can be a very hard thing to do depending on how much effort or interest has been put into that part of thinking / thought or you

I dont have a problem in letting go because I am doing that already
I avoid holding onto anything any more than is absolutely necessary
That is because this body and this mind are merely passing through

[Age]

What the ones known as "dontaskme" and "alexw" appear to have missed and/or do not understood is that it will be through descriptive words that ALL-OF-THIS can be explained, and thus understood, very simply and very easily by the way.

No, just No

What you imply is simply and very easily understood to NOT actually be true.

But if from what I have experienced it is very simply and very easily understood, then it IS actually very true. And, considering I am the slowest and simplest one here, then if I find it very simply and very easily understood, then so can "others".

Awakening can happen quite spontaneously anywhere to anyone at any age - I was 6 years old when I had my first nondual glimpse of reality, and that was well before I even knew how to read. So all I'm saying to you is that I don't agree with you ok?

That is PERFECTLY FINE.

One can also have a spontaneous awakening while taking a stroll through the woodlands - because when all is said and done it's life that evloves this awakening in humans as and when that awakening is meant to happen and not one second before.


A person interested in the Truth of their BEING can read nondual esoteric knowledge as it is explained every single day of their life until their dying day and still not awaken to what it is pointing at, which is nondual empty consciousness. Simply because it was not meant to happen yet. So once again I disagree with you ok...why can't you just accept this and move on?

.

But I can very simply and very easily accept you do not agree with me.

I accepted this from the very beginning when I saw you did not agree with me.

I accept wholeheartedly that you cannot explain anything here. This is because you do not fully understand this yet.

I also KNOW that this can be explained and understood very simply and very easily. This is because I already understand this.

Why can you not accept this and move on?

[Age]

But there is Truly ONLY One, anyway.

Therefore, the one and only witness AND Knower is thee One. This One can be described in words, because this is exactly what is happening here right now, in ALL-OF-THESE words, written under all of the conceptually perceived different or separate labels, like: "dontaskme", "age", "alexw", to name just three out of about 8 billion.

Sorry but the above statement implies that the ONE and ONLY employs or needs a ''separate one'' to petition for itself before it can know and experience itself ...this idea is pure ARROGANCE and ignorance on your part. There is no such ''petitioner''

You obviously misunderstanding me, because you assume something and jump to a conclusion before clarifying with me, once again, proves WHY you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about and meaning.

The ONE needs no such SEPARATE subject in order to know and experience itself. There is only and ever the One experiencing and knowing itself.

I never even said what you are assuming here, let alone even thought it. So, once again, your assumptions and beliefs are completely WRONG.

No separate conceptually known perceived entity is writing these words, these words are quite simply unwritten.

If you say so, then it must be true, correct?

So again, I don't agree with your translation, the way you see it, is not how this one here sees it...and is further proof that THIS cannot be explained in writing so that EVERYONE understands it.

But, like a typical human being you will do all you can to prove your beliefs are true, right, and correct.

The unwritten word is only and ever the ONE talking to itself alone.

And this is what I said.

But your assumptions and beliefs, once again, let you completely astray.

The echo is born of silence, and returns to silence. No word was ever uttered in the making of this SELF.

All words are the song of the one. There is nothing to understand about that. Just as there is nothing to understand when listening to a bird chirping, or a dog barking, it's just what's happening, and this happening never labels itself, nor asks to be heard or seen or known.

And this is WHY you will never be able to explain and understand what ALL-OF-THIS actually IS.