The Fundamental Model of Reality

[Age]

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.

"myself" is an absolute oxymoron and/or fallacy'. So, why was 'Existence', Itself, (capital 'E') previously not aware of this irrefutable Fact when those words came from 'that body'?

There is no awareness in the separate self,

There is, but it is just in the small 'a' 'awareness' sense. Which is relatively nothing compared to big 'A' 'Awareness', Itself.

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.

Why were 'you', individual human beings, in the days when this was being written keep using such confusing wording and language?

Work this out, and then you can better explain "your" 'selves'.

[Fairy]

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'?

This one here cannot answer that for the one there.

The one there would need to answer it's own question. That's the only one where ''absolute'' answers are sourced.

But if you prefer to look outside of the one you are for answers, then you might want to question where did that one get it's answers from, and the answer to that question would be from their own self, the one asking the question.

If you continue to seek for answers outside of your one self, then you will enter the realm of belief, you would either believe or not believe the answers that are coming from outside, external to your own one self innate knowing.

[Atla]

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.

And I repeat that that's the starter nondualism, with an inverted dualism smuggled back into it. It's like the antechamber to 'real' nondualism. It's nondualism version 0.5. It's like the limbo before the real thing. We found the nondual horse and tried to hop onto its back, but fell off the other side with one leg still in the stirrup.

As far as I can tell every nondualist has to go through this stage but like 80% get stuck here. Because the above is also more or les just a device, used to get people to understand the general view of nondualism, but it's supposed to be taken even less literally than people first think.

So I repeat: eventually the 'something aware of the mind and it's known concepts' device turns out to be an inverted dualism too on a deeper level, and once we collapse this dualism too, is when we arrive at nondualism version 1.0.

[Fairy]

There is no awareness in the separate self,

There is, but it is just in the small 'a' 'awareness' sense. Which is relatively nothing compared to big 'A' 'Awareness', Itself.

This one here does not see it like that.

This one here, sees the separate self as an illusory appearance within the real self, the pure neutral self. This real self is aware of the separate self as an illusion only. Relativity does not exist apart from the absolute, there is only the absolute, and you are that, there is no relation there, no divide, no separation, only apparently, only as a mentally imaged projection, a mind trick, which is a trickless trick. There is nothing in an image, it is empty to the core, the same way the image of a face in a photograph is empty. And yet this emptiness does appear as if it's full, full of itself, that's the trickless trick the projector projecting a self sustaining feedback loop upon itself.

[Age]

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.

LOL The one who believes, absolutely, that there are many minds, and who continually insists that there are many, many minds', and many, many people with their own personal minds, is not trying to imply that it knows so-called 'pure nondualism'.

The pure nondual self doesn't have qualities like awareness.

And, 'you' know 'this' how, exactly?

Is this what 'your mind' is telling 'you', or what 'you' are telling 'your mind'?

And, for one claiming that the so-called 'pure one' does not have 'awareness', while probably at the same time believing that it has awareness, could not be more dualistic in thought and more hypocritical and contradictory as well.

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.

LOL

So, this one believes that there is no One Thing, nor Being, that is aware of It 'Self', unless this is proven. But, this one is so 'unaware' of itself that it still does not yet realize that while something is being believed to be true, then anything opposing that belief cannot be proven, well to 'that one' anyway.

The pure nondual self is simply existence itself, the world, it's simply existence itself that people keep conflating with awareness.

So, let 'us' run with 'this idea' that 'existence', itself, is 'a self'. Why not use 'self' in two different ways that so when 'you' talk about 'self' there is no confusion between 'existence', itself, and 'you', human beings, "yourselves"?

Of course you do not have to, but do not be surprised that you keep conflating things and still are confused about things here. Also, do not get surprised why what you say and claim her gets so, so misunderstood.

Awaraness as in self-awareness is a typical feature of the human mind,

LOL Coming from the ones who do not yet 'know', 'Who 'I' am', saying and claiming that 'self-awareness is a typical feature of the human mind is absolutely hilarious to read, here.

'you' human beings, in the days when this is being written, are so lacking in 'self-awareness' you do not even know who and what you human beings, "yourselves", are yet.

it's also part of existence just like rocks are. Most people reach self-awareness in early childhood.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, who and what are 'you', exactly, the 'self' known as "atla", here?

Show, and prove, to 'us' that 'you' have reached the 'self-awareness' stage "atla".

And, please do not think that noticing a human body in a mirror, as in the Wrongly termed 'self-reflection', has absolutely anything at all to do with actual 'self-awareness', itself.

If 'you' do not explain what stage you have actually got in 'self-awareness', then do not be surprised at all that others will just see straight past and through you False and deceiving ways here.

[Fairy]

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.

And I repeat that that's the starter nondualism, with an inverted dualism smuggled back into it. It's like the antechamber to 'real' nondualism. It's nondualism version 0.5. It's like the limbo before the real thing. We found the nondual horse and tried to hop onto its back, but fell off the other side with one leg still in the stirrup.

As far as I can tell every nondualist has to go through this stage but like 80% get stuck here. Because the above is also more or les just a device, used to get people to understand the general view of nondualism, but it's supposed to be taken even less literally than people first think.

So I repeat: eventually the 'something aware of the mind and it's known concepts' device turns out to be an inverted dualism too on a deeper level, and once we collapse this dualism too, is when we arrive at nondualism version 1.0.

To claim you are a nondualist is dualism. It's back to mind game territory. That's not what is being pointed to. What is being pointed to is that which is aware of the mind, not the mind itself. What's being pointed to is nondual neutral awareness that does not need the sense of a separate I self to be.

That being is the natural nondual state of existence, and it's aware of itself, but only as and through concepts known, that in and of themselves have no awareness, because they are simply illusory things within what is not illusory, namely pure awareness/ existence.

[Age]

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.

Here 'we' have another one who believes that there is a 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?

And, once again, these human beings, in the days when this is being written, are 'back', to where they always end up here in these discussions. That is; absolutely lost and confused, and fighting each other over what they individually already believe is true.

[Atla]

To claim you are a nondualist is dualism. It's back to mind game territory.

No, it's how I get information across on a philosophy forum.

That's not what is being pointed to. What is being pointed to is that which is aware of the mind, not the mind itself. What's being pointed to is nondual neutral awareness that does not need the sense of a separate I self to be.

That being is the natural nondual state of existence, and it's aware of itself, but only as and through concepts known, that in and of themselves have no awareness, because they are simply illusory things within what is not illusory, namely pure awareness/ existence.

Prove it if you can. Until then self-awareness and existence are not to be mixed the way you do it.

[Age]

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.

So, to the separate and individual human being one, here known as "atla", and the one who believes, absolutely, that it has 'a mind' of which there are very many, now says and claims that the answer to, and thus the 'I' in, 'the question', 'Who am 'I'?' is 'nondualist'.

So, for everyone else, 'the answer' to that claimed 'age old question' has finally been discovered and revealed.

So, if anyone asks, 'Who am 'I'?' all 'you' have to tell them is 'nondualist'.

Also, 'this one' has still not yet learned there is no such things as 'nondualists'. For, if there were, then there would also be 'other things', like for example, 'dualists'. And, obviously, if there are 'other things', then there is not 'nondualism'.

[Age]

You are asking dualistic questions. I'm a nondualist.

you speak in 'dualist' terms. So, asking you 'dualistic' questions sounds very reasonable, to say the least.

[Atla]

You are asking dualistic questions. I'm a nondualist.

you speak in 'dualist' terms. So, asking you 'dualistic' questions sounds very reasonable, to say the least.

It's telling Age that all these years, you could never tell that I'm a nondualist who has merely re-adopted the use of dualistic language to a high degree. And yet you're the one who wants to preach some nondual insights to me.

[Iwannaplato]

You are asking dualistic questions. I'm a nondualist.

you speak in 'dualist' terms. So, asking you 'dualistic' questions sounds very reasonable, to say the least.

It's telling Age that all these years, you could never tell that I'm a nondualist who has merely re-adopted the use of dualistic language to a high degree. And yet you're the one who wants to preach some nondual insights to me.

At some point you struck a nerve or at many points.

[Age]

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?

'The one' that I was replying to.

Which is made up of a visible human body, and, invisible thoughts and emotions.

The 'who' is the invisible part. Whereas, the 'what' is the visible part.

I don't mean the name "atla".

I never 'talk to' names anyway, nor ever assume nor believe that names can do any thing themselves anyway, except, of course, just place a label on some thing, or on 'its', like a 'placard' if one likes.

I mean, what are you talking about.

'I' am talking to a human being. And, if you are on asking about the 'what', then, to me, the 'what' refers to the visible part, or what I also use the name or label 'human' to refer to, exactly.

Aren't you interacting with the 'Mind' ?

If, and when, 'I' can get past the 'thoughts', 'assumptions', and 'beliefs' that get in the way', then 'I' am directly interacting with the Mind.

Which, by the way, is who the word 'I' refers to, exactly, in the question who am 'I'? 'I' therefore am interacting with 'Self'.

But, again, only when 'I' can get past all of the distorted and False 'thinking', 'presumptions', and 'beliefs' within human bodies.

You referring him as 'this one'.

Yes. And, 'I' have been doing this for quite a while now, in this forum.

Are 'you' just noticing this 'now', or are 'you' trying to get to some thing, which 'you' hopefully could use 'against me' here in some way?

As if it is somehow separate from the rest of 'Mind' .

Well as soon as 'you' used the 'you' word, 'you' have made 'a separation'. As, obviously, the word 'you' means or refers to some other thing.

The word 'Mind' just means or refers to the One Thing, which is invisible that is within all things, but which is not necessarily all physical things, themselves.

Could you expand on who/what this one is in relation to 'Mind' ?

As explained above, 'the one' I was referring to is 'the person', which is the invisible thoughts, and emotions, within a visible human body.

The 'who' is, again, 'the person', or 'the being', in the phrase and term 'human being'. And, the 'what' is 'the body', or the visible human body part, in the phrase and term 'human being'.

So, there are visible 'human bodies', which is 'what' 'you', humans, are (the 'what' part). And, there are invisible persons, within human bodies, which are 'who' 'you', beings, are (the 'who' part). you, 'people', the 'who', are the invisible thoughts within, and, 'you', humans, the 'what', are the visible human bodies.

Now, who and what 'this one', which is just 'the one' who has the name and label "atla" placed upon it, is in relation to the Mind, exactly, will only be fully understood when the Mind, Itself, is fully understood.

The word 'Mind' just means or refers to the invisible part, within all human bodies, which has allowed all human beings, individually and collectively, to be able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.

As the saying goes, 'With an open mind you can learn any thing'. And, it is from the ability to learn any thing, which is what has put human beings way, way ahead of absolutely any known other animals, intelligent-wise. There is also the saying, 'When you put the Mind to it, you can do and accomplish any thing', as well. And, when one just looks at what human beings have actually done and accomplished, then this is proven to be True.

Now, how 'you', human beings, are in relation to the Mind. Human beings 'think' things. Whereas, through the Mind things are 'known', instead. When 'one' 'looks at' and 'sees' things, through the (Truly open) Mind, then there are no distortions, pre-existing views, beliefs, presumptions, which affect 'the view'. However, when 'one' 'looks at' and 'sees' things from the already existing 'thoughts', views, beliefs, opinions, et cetera, that is; through "one's own 'self'", then 'the view' is distorted by what the body has already experienced, and thus what 'those experiences' have already instilled within the brain and within 'thought'.

Again, from the one known here as "age", the writer here, what is to be relayed, exactly as it is, is getting 'distorted', 'clouded', or 'blurred' by the pre-gained thoughts within this body of 'this writer'.

Although what is to be expressed is absolutely crystal clear, within 'this one', 'me' not knowing, for sure, what experiences other bodies have had, and so not knowing, for sure, what exactly thoughts, view, opinions, et cetera within other bodies makes it harder to explain to each and every one of 'you', readers, here so that all of you can 'see', and understand, what 'it' that 'I' am expressing through 'this writer'.

But, it is these sorts of clarifying questions, which you asked here "iwannaplot". how eventually all will be expressed, and thus revealed, through every body.

Which is also why I ask so many clarifying questions, to 'others'. After all, the answers and Truths, to and in Life, is within every body. So, Truth can only come from every one. Again, through and from what 'it' is that is in agreement, and in acceptance, with every one.

What is not in agreement are unnecessary, or just different personal truths only, which are of no real significance in regards to Life, and living, Itself.

This has probably not justified any thing to you, but with far more clarifying questions asked, to me, I 'know' that every thing can be, and will be, justified, to you.

[Age]

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.

I apologize. I was, obviously, not concentrating, at all, on what I was doing here.

[Age]

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.

This might be true for you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written. But, this is certainly not necessarily true, at all, for the rest of 'us'.

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

But, obviously, when you are using the exact same word when talking about two completely different things, then do not be to surprised that not just others get confused or cannot follow you, but also that even 'you' get confused and/or cannot follow 'you', either.