Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:10 am IC...you’ve informed me nobody else ever saw through my eyes...and yet you’ve just informed me of some experiences that form and shape who and what I am.....so how can you know or see my being....when there is nobody else looking through my eyes?
I only described the experiences common to every human being...being born, growing up, going places...those are things every human being does. So it took no special knowledge for me to point them out to you.

But you're still talking to me, and about the nature of reality.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:34 am
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:10 am IC...you’ve informed me nobody else ever saw through my eyes...and yet you’ve just informed me of some experiences that form and shape who and what I am.....so how can you know or see my being....when there is nobody else looking through my eyes?
I only described the experiences common to every human being...being born, growing up, going places...those are things every human being does. So it took no special knowledge for me to point them out to you.

But you're still talking to me, and about the nature of reality.
IC. ..do you ever read my posts?
I read all of yours and reply with a response to the data that appears within me. I am only re-sponding, and re-acting to a data that is happening here in my sense of being....I have no knowledge of any thing outside of my being here...except what data informs here....ok?

A question to the one who goes by the name of IC :arrow: Who told you, that you are human?

When you are originally without knowledge? Prior to knowledge, you are essentially not a thing, no thing, nothing...and every thing as a concept known when that concept arises in you that is without knowledge.

Do you understand that it is not known who or what knows all concepts, because the knower cannot exist as the conceptual object it knows...for one very good reason...that which is known...knows nothing.

The concept ''human'' is a fake representational model imposed as and through identification with thought, because evolution tells a different story, it shows the human model started life in the ocean as a fish.

Now, does a fish know it's a fish, probably not.
So who told you you are a human? remember, you had no knowledge of yourself even existing as a baby. So who told you you exist? you might say your parents told you you were a human. But then who told your parents? and who told them, and before them?

Who was the very first human?
And when did a human first become human, what was the exact moment of transition when the not-knowing you became the known?

See where this is going IC ...your entire life you have lived a lie of who and what you are. Behind the lie lay the truth of who you are, which is YOU ARE and that's all that can be known...the rest is an imagined story, that is believed to be real.

That you are prior to any knowledge known, is pure not-knowing reality, which does not require a belief to be what it is, for what it is believed to be, is not what it is.

“All models are wrong, but some are useful” is a famous quote often attributed to the British statistician George E. P. Box. Thus, the idea of this quote is that every single model will be wrong...George Box.

This quote ties in very nicely with the sense that reality is totally seamless, in the context no thing can know itself, the constant flow and flux of life has no room for any apparent pause for thought...there is apparent thought which implies a thinker, but no thinker has ever been SEEN, only thoughts are seen as concepts known by the only knowing there is...which is unknowable.

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:34 am
But you're still talking to me, and about the nature of reality.
And so you are just going to believe that story..right?

Just like you are going to believe the story in the bible to be gods word.

Beliefs are a fiction upon the real IC...they are the dream of separation where there is none.

You believe in god because a word informs you of such ...the proof of god is in the book right? ..no, wrong, the word is just a symbolic representation of an idea, an image of the imageless.

Every thing apparently known, including the knower, is an idea...what is an idea? ... I have absolutely no idea.
Belinda
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
But you're still talking to me, and about the nature of reality.
Facets of infinite Brahman can communicate.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 13319
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by attofishpi »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:30 am Immanuel Can wrote:
But you're still talking to me, and about the nature of reality.
Facets of infinite Brahman can communicate.
..dudes that get so fat and need to wear bras have all sorts of 'infinite' facets with which to communicate (i'd imagine).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:07 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:34 am
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:10 am IC...you’ve informed me nobody else ever saw through my eyes...and yet you’ve just informed me of some experiences that form and shape who and what I am.....so how can you know or see my being....when there is nobody else looking through my eyes?
I only described the experiences common to every human being...being born, growing up, going places...those are things every human being does. So it took no special knowledge for me to point them out to you.

But you're still talking to me, and about the nature of reality.
IC. ..do you ever read my posts?
Yes. But I also stay on track when I find something that's important to point out. I can be difficult to deflect.
Who told you, that you are human?
That's a deflection. It asks me to answer for something I never said.

It is true I am human, but I did not point it out on this occasion.
The concept ''human'' is a fake representational model imposed as and through identification with thought, because evolution tells a different story, it shows the human model started life in the ocean as a fish.
So you say.

But there are bigger problems with your question. It's not just that you're still talking to a "me" you perceive to exist, but also that you are now claiming there is a stable "reality" in which things like Evolution are being asserted as facts...things such as "evolution."

That means you're a very long way from your claim, "All is one." Instead, "all" is at least three, judging by your actions.

But I'm curious: why do you never respond to the observation that your theory and your present conduct contradict one another?

Is it because you can't? :shock:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:09 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:34 am
But you're still talking to me, and about the nature of reality.
And so you are just going to believe that story..right?
So you don't want me to believe the "story" you're selling me, you're saying? That's an odd thing to want.

Don't you think your "all is one" theory is true? Aren't you trying to get me to believe it?

But if you are, you're being inconsistent again. What does the "great oneness" care what I "believe"? And since, according to you, I'm already part of that great oneness, what does it matter whether I believe or not? :shock:

Again, what you're doing doesn't fit with your own declared theory.

So no, I don't "believe that story." You're continually giving me every reason to doubt it, actually, since even you don't act as if it's true.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

IC...thanks for the discussion, it’s clear we don’t understand each other.

Nonduality is not a theory nor is it a religion.

That’s all folks.

🤐
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:08 pm IC...thanks for the discussion, it’s clear we don’t understand each other.
You're most welcome.

But I don't think that's so "clear" at all. I think we have a pretty good idea of what each other is saying, actually. At least, I feel very clear on it.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:11 pm I think we have a pretty good idea of what each other is saying, actually. At least, I feel very clear on it.
Ok, that's fine. We can proceed :D I'd like to ask you what is the idea..that you are clear we are both pretty clear on regarding what we are saying to each other? ....would you clarify what the idea is with me again thanks?

.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:11 pm I think we have a pretty good idea of what each other is saying, actually. At least, I feel very clear on it.
Ok, that's fine. We can proceed :D I'd like to ask you what is the idea..that you are clear we are both pretty clear on regarding what we are saying to each other? ....would you clarify what the idea is with me again thanks?
Sure.

What you're saying is the most simple of all ideas: "all is one." In fact, it's almost impossible to misunderstand a claim like that. (It's also quite impossible to believe it, but let that be as it may.)
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:16 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:11 pm I think we have a pretty good idea of what each other is saying, actually. At least, I feel very clear on it.
Ok, that's fine. We can proceed :D I'd like to ask you what is the idea..that you are clear we are both pretty clear on regarding what we are saying to each other? ....would you clarify what the idea is with me again thanks?
Sure.

What you're saying is the most simple of all ideas: "all is one." In fact, it's almost impossible to misunderstand a claim like that. (It's also quite impossible to believe it, but let that be as it may.)
Ok great, thats something we can both agree on then...is that what god means to you?

I see god as just everything all at once one without a second...and that even god is a mystery to god itself....what you think?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:16 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:26 pm

Ok, that's fine. We can proceed :D I'd like to ask you what is the idea..that you are clear we are both pretty clear on regarding what we are saying to each other? ....would you clarify what the idea is with me again thanks?
Sure.

What you're saying is the most simple of all ideas: "all is one." In fact, it's almost impossible to misunderstand a claim like that. (It's also quite impossible to believe it, but let that be as it may.)
Ok great, thats something we can both agree on then...is that what god means to you?
Umm... :shock:

Are we "agreed" that what you said is "all is one"? Or are you agreeing with me that "all is one" is "impossible to believe," as I said? :?

We'd better clear that up first.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16929
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:41 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:16 pm
Sure.

What you're saying is the most simple of all ideas: "all is one." In fact, it's almost impossible to misunderstand a claim like that. (It's also quite impossible to believe it, but let that be as it may.)
Ok great, thats something we can both agree on then...is that what god means to you?
Umm... :shock:

Are we "agreed" that what you said is "all is one"? Or are you agreeing with me that "all is one" is "impossible to believe," as I said? :?

We'd better clear that up first.
Oh sorry IC

Yeah I agree it’s a simple idea, and for me it’s not impossible at all...but I know you’ve said to me that you do not believe it.

So I believe...but you don’t...

Ok so, a question for you...can the knower of knowledge be known?

I’m thinking the answer is no....the knower cannot be known...I cannot know the knower 🤔
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:03 pm Ok so, a question for you...can the knower of knowledge be known?
What do you mean "be known"?

At least intuitively, you seem to know yourself. You seem to believe I'm here as well, and you seem to be convinced there's a world in which you can perform actions such as typing on a keyboard or reading off a screen. All of that is premised on knowledge of a kind.

Is that what you mean? I suspect not, but I'll await your answer.
Post Reply