The Fundamental Model of Reality

[Fairy]

The 'neutral self' is simply existence, the world, why do you personify it?

The personification just happens to appear all by itself within existence itself, appearances are happening all by itself. It is existence itself that is simply aware of personification happening as an appearance, as if there is a sense of doership, like I am aware I am personifying this awareness to be a separate object to myself. There is no awareness in the separate self, because it's simply an appearance already being awared by the neutral one. The sense of there being Separate selves have no existence apart from the nondual pure neutral awareness itself, which is all of existence as a whole.

No offense, but imo this wording just sounds like the typical misguided beginner nondualism. Both the Hindus and the Buddhists often make the mistake of ascribing a special status to awareness. It's a secondary dualism smuggled back in, it's not 'pure' nondualism.

The pure nondual self doesn't have qualities like awareness. It's not a big entity that's 'aware of itself'. It's not a being in any sense of the world, unless proven so. The pure nondual self is simply existence itself, the world, it's simply existence itself that people keep conflating with awareness.

Awaraness as in self-awareness is a typical feature of the human mind, it's also part of existence just like rocks are. Most people reach self-awareness in early childhood.

Known concepts aside, no concept is ever aware of itself as a 'big entity'. Concepts are simply being awared, there is simply existence aware of itself, else no concept would ever be known. without known concepts there would simply be a state of not-knowing, not-being, which is never the experience of the human mind. The human mind is a concept known by something else that cannot be negated or experienced to not exist.

All you are doing is just replacing one concept for another. You replace awareness with existence.

So what is aware existence is, then? Who is saying existence exists?

[Atla]

The personification just happens to appear all by itself within existence itself, appearances are happening all by itself. It is existence itself that is simply aware of personification happening as an appearance, as if there is a sense of doership, like I am aware I am personifying this awareness to be a separate object to myself. There is no awareness in the separate self, because it's simply an appearance already being awared by the neutral one. The sense of there being Separate selves have no existence apart from the nondual pure neutral awareness itself, which is all of existence as a whole.

No offense, but imo this wording just sounds like the typical misguided beginner nondualism. Both the Hindus and the Buddhists often make the mistake of ascribing a special status to awareness. It's a secondary dualism smuggled back in, it's not 'pure' nondualism.

The pure nondual self doesn't have qualities like awareness. It's not a big entity that's 'aware of itself'. It's not a being in any sense of the world, unless proven so. The pure nondual self is simply existence itself, the world, it's simply existence itself that people keep conflating with awareness.

Awaraness as in self-awareness is a typical feature of the human mind, it's also part of existence just like rocks are. Most people reach self-awareness in early childhood.

Known concepts aside, no concept is ever aware of itself as a 'big entity'. Concepts are simply being awared, there is simply existence aware of itself, else no concept would ever be known. without known concepts there would simply be a state of not-knowing, not-being, which is never the experience of the human mind. The human mind is a concept known by something else that cannot be negated or experienced to not exist.

All you are doing is just replacing one concept for another. You replace awareness with existence.

So what is aware existence is, then? Who is saying existence exists?

'aware of existence', 'known concepts' etc. are dualities. You are asking dualistic questions. I'm a nondualist.

[Age]

We already talked about your one mind idea,

LOL "atla". you outright and absolutely rejected that idea, which by the way you have never even 'looked into' nor 'discussed' at all, because of your pre-existing belief that 'you', and others, have what you call 'your own minds'.

I have not even begun to, really, talk about the idea, and Fact, that there is only One Mind, with you.

where you couldn't argue for it at all, and have now forgotten that it happened.

This here is another prime example of what happens when people, in the 'olden day's, were absolutely closed off to any 'new idea'. This one here is showing, exactly, how people 'misbehaved' when told of the 'new idea' that, actually, it is the earth that revolves around the sun.

People, just like "atla", instantly rejected 'the idea', solely based on absolutely nothing at all except for their own already obtained and 'currently' held on pre-existing beliefs.

If a 'new idea' did not align with one's 'current' belief, then the 'new idea' was instantly dismissed, never 'looked into', never 'discussed', and just outright rejected, completely and absolutely.

The Mind is OPEN to any and every thing. The brain, however, through the 'belief-system' can be shut-closed, and locked solid.

You were too afraid to face that you are delusional and ran away. Also, you're the dualist, not me.

This is how absolutely closed and blind here.

Also, let 'us' not forget that the one who was just trying to express that, 'Actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun', and not the other way around, which you all believe is true, was also 'the one' who was continually accused of being 'delusional'.

And, as for 'me' 'running away' "atla", why do you make this claim and accusation, here? Obviously, well to some anyway, 'I' am the one who is still here.

Furthermore, as to 'your claim' that 'I' am a "dualist", this proves that 'you', obviously, still have absolutely no idea nor clue as to who and what 'you' human beings are, exactly, nor to who and what 'I' am, exactly.

By the way, 'you' believe, absolutely, that there are many minds', but then go on to also, contradictory, claim that 'you' are not a "dualist".

The hypocrisy and contradictions from this one continue.

Age is so remarkably ignorant that she thinks that the "one mind" is a new idea. That alone says it all.

This one believes, absolutely, that it has 'a mind', and that there are many of these mind things. Which, says it all.

Also, I have never ever even thought that the One Mind was a new idea. And, there is absolutely nothing at all in what I have said here to suggest this at all.

"atla" is living proof how absolutely closed human beings can become once ''a belief' has set into 'one's own psyche'.

Also, it has absolutely nothing here, which it could use, and so resorts to an absolute attempt at deception to try and wiggle its way out of here.

[Age]

What do you mean by 'metaphysical philosophy', and, if only the one who asks the question is the one able to answer the question, the will you answer the question/a here, for 'us'?

If no, then why not?

Metaphysical philosophy is pointing to the one who is beyond the separate sense of I which is the personal self.

Here is another one who has been indoctrinated to believe that there is no 'I'.

When people have been taught this what was actually meant is that there is no actual separated 'self', as in there is no separated 'self, little 's', as in a 'human self'. There are no 'i's', little 'i'.

However, there is One 'I', which just means or refers to the One and only 'Self', or also known as, Life, Universe, or Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, SAGE, or any of those other words that point to 'that', what you human beings have not yet work out and uncovered, exactly.

There is An 'I'.

And, the human or personal 'selves' that 'you' human beings think 'you' are, are the actual things that when one tells another that there is no separated 'i', then they are referring to you little 'i's' and not the One and only 'I'.

This 'I', the True One, and only True Self, is, literally, a non separated One, as there is no other, but 'I'.

It's the realisation of one's nondual nature, the neutral self, the one who is non-reactive to thought. The one who is aware of thought, but is not the thought, the nameless one so to speak.

But this One, and as I express this One in capitals, is not nameless at all. In just about all cultures 'I' have been given one name, at least. In some cultures you human beings have given 'I' many names.

And, 'you' are exactly Right that 'I' do no react to 'thought', which by the way is what 'you' people are, exactly. And, 'I' also, exactly like you said and claimed are very, very aware of 'thought', and human beings, but whereas 'you' are 'thought/thinking' 'I' am 'knowing', instead.

Or, as 'you' most probably would prefer 'this' expressed, the 'I' is 'knowing'.

[Iwannaplato]

This one believes, absolutely, that it has 'a mind', and that there are many of these mind things. Which, says it all.

Who or what is the 'this one' you are referring to? I don't mean the name "atla". I mean, what are you talking about. Aren't you interacting with the 'Mind' ? You referring him as 'this one'. As if it is somehow separate from the rest of 'Mind' . Could you expand on who/what this one is in relation to 'Mind' ?

[Iwannaplato]

What do you mean by 'metaphysical philosophy', and, if only the one who asks the question is the one able to answer the question, the will you answer the question/a here, for 'us'?

If no, then why not?

Metaphysical philosophy is pointing to the one who is beyond the separate sense of I which is the personal self.

Here is another one who has been indoctrinated to believe that there is no 'I'.

When people have been taught this what was actually meant is that there is no actual separated 'self', as in there is no separated 'self, little 's', as in a 'human self'. There are no 'i's', little 'i'.

However, there is One 'I', which just means or refers to the One and only 'Self', or also known as, Life, Universe, or Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, SAGE, or any of those other words that point to 'that', what you human beings have not yet work out and uncovered, exactly.

There is An 'I'.

And, the human or personal 'selves' that 'you' human beings think 'you' are, are the actual things that when one tells another that there is no separated 'i', then they are referring to you little 'i's' and not the One and only 'I'.

This 'I', the True One, and only True Self, is, literally, a non separated One, as there is no other, but 'I'.

It's the realisation of one's nondual nature, the neutral self, the one who is non-reactive to thought. The one who is aware of thought, but is not the thought, the nameless one so to speak.

But this One, and as I express this One in capitals, is not nameless at all. In just about all cultures 'I' have been given one name, at least. In some cultures you human beings have given 'I' many names.

And, 'you' are exactly Right that 'I' do no react to 'thought', which by the way is what 'you' people are, exactly. And, 'I' also, exactly like you said and claimed are very, very aware of 'thought', and human beings, but whereas 'you' are 'thought/thinking' 'I' am 'knowing', instead.

Or, as 'you' most probably would prefer 'this' expressed, the 'I' is 'knowing'.

I didn't say what appears as quote of mine above.

[Fairy]

'aware of existence', 'known concepts' etc. are dualities. You are asking dualistic questions. I'm a nondualist.

No, you are not a nondualist, that's the whole point of the discussion. To show that using concepts, concepts pointing to the non-conceptual existence.

Continue if you want to, but I'm in no mood to play mind games with you.

[Fairy]

What do you mean by 'metaphysical philosophy', and, if only the one who asks the question is the one able to answer the question, the will you answer the question/a here, for 'us'?

If no, then why not?

Metaphysical philosophy is pointing to the one who is beyond the separate sense of I which is the personal self.

Here is another one who has been indoctrinated to believe that there is no 'I'.

When people have been taught this what was actually meant is that there is no actual separated 'self', as in there is no separated 'self, little 's', as in a 'human self'. There are no 'i's', little 'i'.

However, there is One 'I', which just means or refers to the One and only 'Self', or also known as, Life, Universe, or Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, SAGE, or any of those other words that point to 'that', what you human beings have not yet work out and uncovered, exactly.

There is An 'I'.

And, the human or personal 'selves' that 'you' human beings think 'you' are, are the actual things that when one tells another that there is no separated 'i', then they are referring to you little 'i's' and not the One and only 'I'.

This 'I', the True One, and only True Self, is, literally, a non separated One, as there is no other, but 'I'.

It's the realisation of one's nondual nature, the neutral self, the one who is non-reactive to thought. The one who is aware of thought, but is not the thought, the nameless one so to speak.

But this One, and as I express this One in capitals, is not nameless at all. In just about all cultures 'I' have been given one name, at least. In some cultures you human beings have given 'I' many names.

And, 'you' are exactly Right that 'I' do no react to 'thought', which by the way is what 'you' people are, exactly. And, 'I' also, exactly like you said and claimed are very, very aware of 'thought', and human beings, but whereas 'you' are 'thought/thinking' 'I' am 'knowing', instead.

Or, as 'you' most probably would prefer 'this' expressed, the 'I' is 'knowing'.

Please feel free to say it your way, as I will say it my way. And neither of us need ever to compromise what we are saying to each other, since that may only obscure and cause discordance in this discussion. We do not have to agree, because agreements are when both people get what neither of them wanted.

It's different that's all, you say it your way, I say it my way, that's all we are doing.

[Atla]

'aware of existence', 'known concepts' etc. are dualities. You are asking dualistic questions. I'm a nondualist.

No, you are not a nondualist, that's the whole point of the discussion. To show that using concepts, concepts pointing to the non-conceptual existence.

Continue if you want to, but I'm in no mood to play mind games with you.

I'm playing mind games? Explain how 'The human mind is a concept known by something else that cannot be negated or experienced to not exist.' isn't an inverted dualism for example.

[Age]

If I am correct, there has been a saying, 'One, with thought'.

Yes, one with thought is correct. There is always here the one who is aware of thought

Could you please separate 'the One' from 'one' in whatever way you like.

See, 'one' could be referring to you human beings.

I just use 'One' and 'one' to distinguish between the two very different things. One is 'aware of' thoughts, and all things. Whereas, one is, literally, just 'thought', (and 'emotion'), itself.

If you separate the two different things in whatever words you would like to choose and use, then this will make distinguishing who/what you are referring to so much simpler and easier here, for the readers.

that can ascertain the difference between itself as being first and foremost the neutral one, who is aware of thought, but does not say or claim to be the one who is aware aware of thought, which is an illusory duality.

So, you are now trying to claim that you human beings can say or claim things, and this is okay. But, if the One says or claims things, then 'this' is an illusion and duality, itself.

Why do you individual human beings think that you are above the one and only One?

That's the difference, the difference being the neutral one does not claim it is the one who is talking and walking.

Why do you believe that you 'know' what the One does, or does not do?

The ego of the human being never ceases to surprise.

Only the sense of I am a separate one is the one who claims to be the talking and walking doing one.

Yes, only you human beings say and claim that you are separate ones, and are the only ones claiming to be the talking ones here.

And, because you older ones are, essentially, always talking/thinking, you very rarely, if ever, get to listen to and hear the actual only One who is deep within all of 'you'.

And, who is the One guiding and teaching you what is actually True and Right, in Life.

If you older human beings would only stop, and listen, then you also would 'know' how to find and see the actual Truths, in Life, as well.

But saying there needs to be a sense of I am a separate one for things to happen is false, because everything that is happening, is happening completely by itself, and you are that happening.

If 'you' only used the little 'i', instead of the big 'I', or some other thing, to differentiate between the one and only One, True Self, from you human beings who have a sense of 'self' and a sense of a 'separated i', then it would be so much easier and simpler to following 'you' here.

Once 'you', also, know the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then 'you' will far better understand why the distinguishing words here needs to be expressed.

It feels like there is an I person that is breathing, walking and talking, and doing things, but that's all functioning by itself, that is the proper self.

'you' use a capital letter and word for 'you', people, which you are implying do not actually exist, but then use a small 's' in 'self' to refer to the 'proper One'.

When the illusory 'self' is referring to and is 'you', human beings, and the capital letter 'I' is referring to the one and only True, or Real and proper, Self, which there is only One of and which is eternal and which is aware/conscious of all things, and thus 'knows' all things, then 'you' will be somewhat closer to not come across so confusing.

[Harbal]

This one believes, absolutely, that it has 'a mind', and that there are many of these mind things. Which, says it all.

Also, I have never ever even thought that the One Mind was a new idea. And, there is absolutely nothing at all in what I have said here to suggest this at all.

"atla" is living proof how absolutely closed human beings can become once ''a belief' has set into 'one's own psyche'.

So there is only one mind, but many individual psyches?

[Age]

Does a new born human baby have thought?

If no, then it can still function, correct?

Or, if a human baby does have thought, then what language are those thoughts in?

The baby is the thought, that the neutral one is being aware of, the thought I am a baby is a false claim, because the one who is aware of being a baby does not need to make the claim I am a baby in order to exist, it already exists whether the thought I am a baby or not appears.

Could 'you' PLEASE answer the actual question that 'I' posed, and asked 'you' here, instead of some made up by 'you' only question.

Does a new born human baby have 'thought'? Or, within a new born human body is there 'thought'?

If no, then that body is still functioning, correct?

But, if within that new born human body there is 'thought', then what language is 'that thought' in, exactly?

PLEASE focus on 'the words', only, in the questions, only, and then please answer in response to 'those words', only.

(What you are trying to say and explain here is, already, absolutely fully understood, and 'known').

The one who is aware of the thought I am a baby, never claims to be the one aware of the baby thought.

To me, there is no new born human body, which inside of there are 'thoughts' like, 'I am a baby'.

And, for absolutely anyone to think there is, is an absolute absurdity 'to think'.

The baby is always the neutral one who is functioning all by itself without the need to claim it is the one who is functioning as and through the baby, which is just a thought appearing in the neutral one, but is not that one.

Why do you people who have been 'taught' some 'nondualist teachings' speak in such a way that to others can come across as extremely perplexing?

To show and prove this let 'us' start with:

What do 'you' mean or refer to by 'baby', exactly?

Lest 'us' start here, before 'I' move on to the rest of your sentence here.

[Atla]

This one believes, absolutely, that it has 'a mind', and that there are many of these mind things. Which, says it all.

Also, I have never ever even thought that the One Mind was a new idea. And, there is absolutely nothing at all in what I have said here to suggest this at all.

"atla" is living proof how absolutely closed human beings can become once ''a belief' has set into 'one's own psyche'.

So there is only one mind, but many individual psyches?

Yes Age thinks that there are many brains but only one shared mind, or something like that. It's pretty dumb.

[Fairy]

'aware of existence', 'known concepts' etc. are dualities. You are asking dualistic questions. I'm a nondualist.

No, you are not a nondualist, that's the whole point of the discussion. To show that using concepts, concepts pointing to the non-conceptual existence.

Continue if you want to, but I'm in no mood to play mind games with you.

I'm playing mind games? Explain how 'The human mind is a concept known by something else that cannot be negated or experienced to not exist.' isn't an inverted dualism for example.

There is something aware of the mind and it's known concepts. That something is who you are, but you cannot know this something, because you are this something.
To know this something, you would have to split into two, into a knower and known. That's not happening, as knowing is inseparable from that which is known, the apparent duality that is the aware knowing of concepts, is actually, not dual, it is an illusory appearance, in what is ultimately nondual existence, appearing as duality.

[Age]

The word 'Reality', Itself, is not necessarily in relation to what is happening and occurring 'now'.

Obviously, what is occurring and happening 'here, now', is what is 'really' happening, and occurring, 'now'. But, when the word 'Reality' means or is referring to 'what is possible', or 'what could happen and occur', then 'this' fits in, perfectly, with what actually is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life.

And, if absolutely any one has any doubts about what I have just said, here, then let 'us' 'discuss.

As for the Real Universe, in which you human beings are in, what 'That' is, fundamentally, made up of, and how 'It', fundamentally, works, then 'this' can be 'delved into', 'looked at', and 'discussed', as well. And, until the actual Truth is uncovered and/or revealed.