Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

[surreptitious57]

I have no need to be heard and understood here in this forum

Those who read your words need to understand what you are saying though
Otherwise there is no point in them trying to understand you at all is there

[Walker]

I have no need to be heard and understood here in this forum

Those who read your words need to understand what you are saying though
Otherwise there is no point in them trying to understand you at all is there

When the words move from inside the skin to outside the skin they become independent conceptual entities. Meaning is not the sole province of the originator.

For example, last night the POTUS delivered his SOTU speech. Immediately afterwards, the Speaker of the House (third in line to the presidency) made a big show of tearing up her written copy of the speech. It’s the talk of the town.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppoElx09wFk

The Speaker of the House will explain her meaning in doing so, but many witnesses will see a different meaning.

For example, when it happened the white-haired gentleman standing next to her said he thought she might be tearing up the constitution.

[Age]

I understand this. But I have never been talking about "JOY", nor have I ever been talking about explaining JOY.

Do you understand this?

Also, do you understand that people can talk about JOY and "other" people can KNOW what they are talking about?

If you do not understand this, then the reason people can and do KNOW what "others" are talking about, like when talking about JOY is because ALL people have and share common experiences.

So, ALL-OF-THIS can be and is very simple to explain, and just as easy to understand. That is once I KNEW HOW to explain ALL-OF-THIS. Explaining what JOY is has never been about any thing discussed here. But, anyway, JOY is an internal feeling or emotion.

You still don't understand what I am saying do you?

As long as there is the belief in ''OTHERS'' who KNOW the concept of JOY because they have shared common experiences of JOY....then this whole subject is getting off track again...

The point being made here....Is that YOU only KNOW JOY because You know it...that's ALL YOU CAN KNOW.
So it cannot be a shared experience of ''others''. YOU cannot possibly KNOW if others share the experience...BECAUSE 'others' are just a thought in YOU. The experience of JOY can only be KNOWn to happen in YOU.... These so called shared experiences are projections of YOU, they do not exist outside of YOU.

Getting back on track...The whole premise of this THREAD is about the WHO OR WHAT is the EXPERIENCING of BEINGNESS?

And so all I'm saying ...is that which is BEING, which is blindingly self evident... cannot THEN explain or describe in words what BEINGNESS IS...

Why? because in doing so imposes ANOTHER BEING in the form of a concept on top of what is already BEINGNESS...which IS already silently present and prior to any description or explanation imposed upon it.

So how does SILENT BEINGNESS describe and explain itself? and why would it need to do that, when there is no thing actually explaining or describing itself?

...except what is BELIEVED ?

And so this is what I am saying here, and since you have repeatedly claimed you have no beliefs, then who or what is this ''other'' that can describe and explain SILENT BEINGNESS? ...except a conceptual belief, that is just an illusion anyway.?





.

Me

[Age]

I have no need to be heard and understood here, in this forum.

You can only hear and understand YOU anyway. So any NEED is a need that doesn't need to BE

You simply cannot expect others to be able to hear and understand YOU, because there is no other except what you project from you.

You cannot get outside of you into your projected other, and expect your projection to know what you are talking about, by asking it to clarify for you something that you only believe and think is MISSING...so just who and what are these others that can clarify for you?...when you are only talking to your own projections.. what you only think and BELIEVE to be outside of you when it's all YOU.

So why do you have this excessive obssession of asking for clarification from others that don't exist except as projections of you, just who or what are you talking to? ... who are these ''others'' except a BELIEF that you claim to DO NOT HAVE.

Why is there an obssession to continually drive yourself round the twist getting ever and more entangled in your own net of words trying to explain what cannot be explained...words that just confuse the actual point of this whole topic that is being discussed here. Which is...who or what is it that is trying to explain and describe itself when it doesn't NEED TO?

And yes, it's an oxymoron when trying to explain in words what cannot be explained in words.

And that's what is being discussed here, so I ask you again, please keep on topic.

.

I have no need and no belief.for absolutely any thing.

I already know all there is to know, including who and what I am.

Knowing I can explain and understand ALL-OF-THIS with words is all there is to know.

[Age]

I apologize profusely for not adding the words to me to absolutely EVERY sentence I make. But I have said previously that ABSOLUTELY
EVERY thing I say and write here in this forum is from my perspective only and so absolutely EVERY thing I say and write here is to me

The problem from my perspective is that you speak from a definitive position - that of someone who knows the absolute truth
So when you are expressing an opinion it can be hard to know if it is just an opinion or the absolute truth
And as you want to communicate better then it might be something you should bear in mind from now on

Okay.

[Age]

I have no need to be heard and understood here in this forum

Those who read your words need to understand what you are saying though

Why?

In all seriousness, why would any person 'need' to understand what it is that I am saying?

Otherwise there is no point in them trying to understand you at all is there

I do not see any point in any one 'trying to' understand.

Obviously, if any one was truly wondering what I am saying and truly interested in understanding what I am saying, then they would simply just ask me a series of clarifying question until they truly understood me. .

[Dontaskme]

I already know all there is to know, including who and what I am.

I AM ..IS.. the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER ... that CANNOT be known or understood by a HUMAN BEING....is that correct?




.

[Age]

I already know all there is to know, including who and what I am.

I AM ..IS.. the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER ... that CANNOT be known or understood by a HUMAN BEING....is that correct?




.

Now, there is a few different ways to look at this.

1. Are you asking the question; is that correct;
To 'me', the human being? Or,
To 'Me' the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER, also known as Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, and many other names?

2. Either way, are you asking that question to me or Me in relation to my or My views, or in relation to 'you', that one known as "dontaskme", and your views?

3. Do 'you' have personal subjective views or Truly objective views here?

After you answer those clarifying questions, then, are you aware that what is written through the hands of a human body, and thus through a HUMAN BEING, are words proposing that; 'I' is the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER but that cannot be known nor understood by a HUMAN BEING, and that this contradiction of terms is being proposed in a forum, with the clarifying question also being asked in a forum, which is frequented by HUMAN BEINGS?

In other words are you proposing, and asking, the above to HUMAN BEINGS or to the One and ONLY KNOWER and UNDERSTANDER, which 'you' just defined and explained with words, but which you also BELIEVE and INSIST CANNOT be known nor understood by HUMAN BEINGS?

Do 'you' SEE the contradiction in defining, explaining, and proposing that some 'thing' IS [using the descriptive and explaining words] 'KNOWER' and 'UNDERSTANDER' but then immediately after expressing that the 'thing' which you just described and explained with descriptive and defining words CANNOT be explained and understood with any words, including descriptive and defining words?

[Dontaskme]

I already know all there is to know, including who and what I am.

I AM ..IS.. the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER ... that CANNOT be known or understood by a HUMAN BEING....is that correct?




.

Now, there is a few different ways to look at this.

1. Are you asking the question; is that correct;
To 'me', the human being? Or,
To 'Me' the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER, also known as Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, and many other names?

But you are just answering my question with more questions, evading the answer.

So the question would be...Why would the KNOWING/UNDERSTANDING I ....who already knows all there is to know, including who and what I am

Then why would IT need to ask a question at all? why wouldn't I already know and understand what I am asking?

.

[Age]

I AM ..IS.. the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER ... that CANNOT be known or understood by a HUMAN BEING....is that correct?




.

Now, there is a few different ways to look at this.

1. Are you asking the question; is that correct;
To 'me', the human being? Or,
To 'Me' the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER, also known as Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, and many other names?

But you are just answering my question with more questions, evading the answer.

So the question would be...Why would the KNOWING/UNDERSTANDING I ....who already knows all there is to know, including who and what I am

Then why would IT need to ask a question at all? why wouldn't I already know and understand what I am asking?
.

And you are just answering my question with more questions. Are you evading the answer, or just clarifying?

Did you forget I do not 'need' to ask a question at all?

I already do know and understand what I am asking.

Who is the one asking why would I not already know and understand what I am asking?

[Dontaskme]

Now, there is a few different ways to look at this.

1. Are you asking the question; is that correct;
To 'me', the human being? Or,
To 'Me' the KNOWER and the UNDERSTANDER, also known as Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, and many other names?

But you are just answering my question with more questions, evading the answer.

So the question would be...Why would the KNOWING/UNDERSTANDING I ....who already knows all there is to know, including who and what I am

Then why would IT need to ask a question at all? why wouldn't I already know and understand what I am asking?
.

And you are just answering my question with more questions. Are you evading the answer, or just clarifying?

Did you forget I do not 'need' to ask a question at all?

I already do know and understand what I am asking.

Who is the one asking why would I not already know and understand what I am asking?

The answer to a question is already within the question.

A question can only arise to the sense of a separate self where no such self exists.

Although the sense of separate self does exist as an idea KNOWN by the all knowing ONE.

There is only that ONE.

[Age]

But you are just answering my question with more questions, evading the answer.

So the question would be...Why would the KNOWING/UNDERSTANDING I ....who already knows all there is to know, including who and what I am

Then why would IT need to ask a question at all? why wouldn't I already know and understand what I am asking?
.

And you are just answering my question with more questions. Are you evading the answer, or just clarifying?

Did you forget I do not 'need' to ask a question at all?

I already do know and understand what I am asking.

Who is the one asking why would I not already know and understand what I am asking?

The answer to a question is already within the question.

Where is the answer within the following question which is said to already be within this question, 'Who am 'I'?'

A question can only arise to the sense of a separate self where no such self exists.

So, there is no need to say this.

This is already KNOWN.

Although the sense of separate self does exist as an idea KNOWN by the all knowing ONE.

So, again, why is that ONE telling Itself what It already KNOWS?

There is only that ONE.

I already KNOW. This is because 'I' am this ONE.

'I' also already KNOW 'Who 'I' am'.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme:
The answer to a question is already within the question.

Where is the answer within the following question which is said to already be within this question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Question: 'Who am 'I'?'
Answer is within the question 'Who am 'I'?' ....which is.... I AM who am I

A question can only arise to the sense of a separate self where no such self exists.

So, there is no need to say this.

This is already KNOWN.

And is why THIS KNOWN cannot be put into words...for that which is KNOWN aka a concept ...knows nothing.
There is nothing no thing knowing itself.

Although the sense of separate self does exist as an idea KNOWN by the all knowing ONE.

So, again, why is that ONE telling Itself what It already KNOWS?

Because there is an awareness of ''thought'' as every thought that arises is known in the instant that thought arises.
The space between thoughts allow for thoughts to be KNOWN

There is only that ONE.

I already KNOW. This is because 'I' am this ONE.

'I' also already KNOW 'Who 'I' am'.

The 'who' is the known I AM


.

[Age]

Dontaskme:
The answer to a question is already within the question.

Where is the answer within the following question which is said to already be within this question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Question: 'Who am 'I'?'
Answer is within the question 'Who am 'I'?' ....which is.... I AM who am I

'you' can use whatever answer 'you' like. But, thee One 'I' already KNOWS EXACTLY who (and what) 'I' am.

Also, all 'you' did was just ask another question, which 'you' would have to 'try to' "justify" your previous propositions and beliefs.

A question can only arise to the sense of a separate self where no such self exists.

So, there is no need to say this.

This is already KNOWN.

And is why THIS KNOWN cannot be put into words...

But it CAN BE put into words

The very proof, FACT and Truth of this is seen here, in words.

for that which is KNOWN aka a concept ...knows nothing.
There is nothing no thing knowing itself.

Once again MORE PROOF that THIS KNOWN can be put into words.

'you' just call 'It' "nothing".
If there is nothing no thing knowing itself, then 'it' is knowing its self as "nothing" ("no thing") here now, in words.

Although the sense of separate self does exist as an idea KNOWN by the all knowing ONE.

So, again, why is that ONE telling Itself what It already KNOWS?

Because there is an awareness of ''thought'' as every thought that arises is known in the instant that thought arises.
The space between thoughts allow for thoughts to be KNOWN

The question was not answered. Why is One telling Its own Self what It already KNOWS?

In other words, I want 'you' to work out and come to understand fully WHY 'I', thee One and only ONE, use human beings to talk to My Self?

Maybe if you just try for once, to STOP assuming what is being said here, under the label "age", and just look at what the questions ask, as they actually are actually written, in words, and just answer only the question posed in the most simplest straightforward open and honest way, and do not try to answer what you presume is being said and asked. If you try that, then let us see what happens?

There is only that ONE.

I already KNOW. This is because 'I' am this ONE.

'I' also already KNOW 'Who 'I' am'.

The 'who' is the known I AM


.

So, to 'you', 'who' is thee one and only One known I AM?

'I' ALREADY KNOW, let us see if 'you' also know.

See, it is only when the 'you' ALREADY KNOWS who 'I' am, is when this, and ALL-OF-THIS, can be explained and understood in words, very simply and very easily, by the way.

[Dontaskme]

There are no words to describe Oneness fully. Oneness is referred to as ''THIS'' or ''ISNESS'' and is as close as we can get to defining Oneness using language.

Oneness is just another word for Infinity. So how can the whole of infinity that is constantly changing from moment to moment be put into words - defining the constant flux of Infinity Oneness is to freeze frame the flow.

So again I'd rather stick with my personal bone of contention which informs Oneness cannot be touched by words in no way shape or form.

Oneness is realising a unity that goes beyond the physical Universe. Therefore Oneness is beyond the ability of the limited finite human brain and mind to understand it using words.

Believe what you want Age with your limited brains capacity to understand infinity. But don't expect other people also with the capacity to think about this subject to be obliged to go along with your personal limited non-belief from the perspective of your brain which will one day be dead.

Again, Oneness cannot be a finite experience, it can only be realised not spoken. No other person is obliged to go along with 'MY' idea either.

So I guess it's check mate for this face off.

.