Triune or Nondual God 🤔

[Fairy]

Yet another wrong-way driver!

“If you don’t change direction, you may end up where your heading” - Lao Tzu


There’s only one direction, follow your own lead - Fairy

[Self-Lightening]

Yet another wrong-way driver!

“If you don’t change direction, you may end up where your heading” - Lao Tzu

There’s only one direction, follow your own lead - Fairy

Tell that to Age, for it was him I was paraphrasing there. He seems to regard everyone who is not going in his direction—which I doubt is following his own lead, by the way—as a wrong-way driver.

[promethean75]

"as a wrong-way driver...."

... down Saully's Street

For those who haven't seen the movie we never produced, the scene is set in Amsterdam. It's dusk. A light blanket of mist has descended upon the city. Saully (Self-Lightening) walks briskly down a dimly lit cobblestone road in the red light district, ignoring the chatter of the street vendors and prostitutes soliciting his business. He carries a dark leather case of books, papers, and writing implements. They watch him quickly pass, the silhouette of his black cloak fading from sight as he finally vanishes around the corner.

[Fairy]

Yet another wrong-way driver!

“If you don’t change direction, you may end up where your heading” - Lao Tzu

There’s only one direction, follow your own lead - Fairy

Tell that to Age, for it was him I was paraphrasing there. He seems to regard everyone who is not going in his direction—which I doubt is following his own lead, by the way—as a wrong-way driver.

Age is only wanting people to see a certain way, namely, the right way. The true way, the I am the truth and the light, and the life way. Most people get distracted and steer off course.

If there's only one direction, which there is. Seeing is always one directional, and the one eyed eye is king. I personally, as of yet, have never been able to see backwards. Looking backwards, is like looking at dead stuff. When everyone is facing the right way, in the same direction, we all see the same things. We all see the pure aliveness of being, not the dead and buried stuff, that's all behind us now.

I see through Age, I see a very loving person, we are both transparent people, only transparent people can see each other, and recognise the pure love in each other as being each and the other all along, along the great way back to where we started, to truth.

[Age]

Well, the only such "Truth" is the following, though I'm quite sure it's not what you mean:

"Nothing is easier to perceive than reality's emptiness.

Why do 'you', the one known here as "self-lightening", believe, absolutely, that this is the only Truth?

I didn't say I believed it absolutely. It's just that, as Neumann says there, "[n]othing is easier to perceive". In fact, as he exclaims in the same book,

"What is clearer than the impossibility of experiencing anything but experiences!" (Neumann, Liberalism, page 35.)

The question, then, is whether those experiences are experiences of something (and by someone) or not. They may be, or they may not.

Why is this even a question, to you?

Of course, and irrefutably, if there is an experience, then there is some thing/some one.

And, especially considering all of the, perceived, things 'before you'?

What perceived things? All "I" know are "perceptions", impressions, experiences.

So,.there is,.at least, One Thing, which is known here as, again, (the) 'I'.

Genuine philosophy or science is the realization that nothing, no divine or natural order, endows anything with a non-arbitrary being, an identity not subject to radical change at any moment.

So, if any other 'view', besides the one/s "self-lightening" has, then 'those views' are not so-called 'genuine philosophy nor science', right?

"Heidegger's 'Age of the World-View' rightly notes that 'world view' understood scientifically 'does not mean a view of the world, but the world understood as a view (or picture).[']" (op.cit., page 3.)

you seem to have some.sort of disillusionment here that if some particular so or so said some particular thing, then what 'that one' said must be absolutely true and/or right.

Anyway, I also view a 'world view' not as a view of the world, earth, itself.

There is nothing in (or behind or above) things to make them more than empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them. Reality and everything in it is nothing but empty impressions, experiences, bigotries, dreams whose dreamer is himself a dream." (Harry Neumann, "What is Bigotry?")

If 'you' say and believe so, then this is the one and Only, real and true, view, here, right?

See above.

What for? There is nothing 'above' that clarifies what you mean here, exactly.

Yes and no.

Okay. Would you like to elaborate on this, or do you believe that this will suffice how it 'stands', here?

Yes.

LOL

This was a very common response among the adult population, back in those very, very 'olden days' when this was being written. That is; I would ask them an 'or' question, and they would would respond presuming or believing that I knew which part of the 'or' that they were responding to, exactly.

Or, they just did not know what they were doing.

Or, they were just, purposely, being misleading and/or deceptive.

Do 'you' believe that there is not only One Mind, only?

I do tend to believe that, yes. "I" am one mind, "you" are another, and there is no overarching one.

Okay, so who and/what am 'I', exactly?

I thought that when I asked you to clarify what you actually meant when you said and wrote, 'any of us', above here, and that when you replied that it meant; 'that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'.

But, I must of been mistaken, right?

Yes. "I" know that the mind "I" am—'am', not 'have', hence the scare quotes—exists. The question is whether other minds exist.

But, there is no question, as far as 'I' am concerned. See, once what the actual Truth has been seen, and thus is fully understood, and known, then there are no more questions. Well relating to 'that' anyway.

Well this is obviously impossible, ant thus False.

You mean, it's impossible that there are none?

Why did you presume, and then believe, that this is what I mean?

Well, what I meant there is that there may be no I, no thing, no substance. "Something" certainly exists, even if it's just a—single—hallucination.

How could there may be no 'I' if there is known to be something, certainly, existing?

The word and term 'myself' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in term, and thus is self-refuting.

So the terms "my" and "self" contradict each other? Please explain.

Because the word 'my' implies ownership. And, who or what, exactly, could 'own' a 'self'?

Okay. But, one has to start off with the actual Truth, to end up with the actual Truth.

No, that's just your circular reasoning—typical of a believer.

Supposedly, 'typical of a believer' of 'what' exactly?

Also, if you are not starting off, from the very beginning, with an actual.irrefutabke Truth, then how are you ever going to 'know' what is, actually, 'True' later on?

you do, by the way, appear to have misinterpreted and misunderstood what I am actually saying, and meaning, here.

Why, to 'you', would this be so-called 'most improbable', exactly?

Because then someone, and in fact you of all people, would have to have had a divine revelation.

1. What do you mean by, 'you of all people', here, exactly?

2. A so-called 'divine revelation' could only happen and occur if there was some 'divine' thing existing, right?

3. Do you find it 'most improbable' that one could 'come-by-chance' to a 'divine revelation' or to 'divine revelations'?

I do believe people have had experiences that they—and/or their followers—have interpreted that way, but that's just interpretation, not revelation.

So, what is 'revelation', to 'you', exactly?

Where is 'back there', exactly?

Back where it's reasoned that, because a predicate requires a subject, an experience requires an experiencer. It doesn't. It merely requires the idea of an experiencer (and an experienced, for that matter).

An 'ideal' by who and/or what, exactly?

And, how did you come-to-obtain the absolute irrefutable Truth here?

Was it by 'divine revelation', or by some other way?

If it was the latter, then how and what way was that way, exactly?

Did 'you' inform 'us' before what so-called 'scare quotes' mean, or denote to, exactly, to 'you', when used, 'by you'?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

But, if no, then will you 'now'?

Nope.

Here 'we' have another one who will just not clarify.

But, 'now' 'we' are 'back to' 'you' explaining to 'us' how it could be logically and physically possible for a 'concoction' or 'hallucination' to exist, exactly, if there was no other thing existing?

No, because there's no need to explain that whatsoever.

Or, because it is just an absolute impossibility to explain Accurately and Correctly how some thing that is both theoretically and empirically impossible to exist could exist.

Some times the actual Truth just had to be presented, for some people to comprehend and understand 'It', fully.

As seen here, once more, lying and/or deception will just not work.

Okay. This is just another one, to add to the continually growing list.

Yet another wrong-way driver!

What are you even on about, here now?

[Age]

Yet another wrong-way driver!

“If you don’t change direction, you may end up where your heading” - Lao Tzu

There’s only one direction, follow your own lead - Fairy

Tell that to Age, for it was him I was paraphrasing there. He seems to regard everyone who is not going in his direction—which I doubt is following his own lead, by the way—as a wrong-way driver.

Well have you human beings ended up where you want and desire to be and/or ended up with 'the answers' that you have been searching and looking for?

Or, in the days when this is being written, are you adult human beings, still, pondering and wondering if there is 'more' HERE?

[Self-Lightening]

Why do 'you', the one known here as "self-lightening", believe, absolutely, that this is the only Truth?

I didn't say I believed it absolutely. It's just that, as Neumann says there, "[n]othing is easier to perceive". In fact, as he exclaims in the same book,

"What is clearer than the impossibility of experiencing anything but experiences!" (Neumann, Liberalism, page 35.)

The question, then, is whether those experiences are experiences of something (and by someone) or not. They may be, or they may not.

Why is this even a question, to you?

Of course, and irrefutably, if there is an experience, then there is some thing/some one.

You keep telling yourself that.

And, especially considering all of the, perceived, things 'before you'?

What perceived things? All "I" know are "perceptions", impressions, experiences.

So,.there is,.at least, One Thing, which is known here as, again, (the) 'I'.

No, not the "I" (hence the quotes), but so-called perceptions, i.e. impressions, experiences.

So, if any other 'view', besides the one/s "self-lightening" has, then 'those views' are not so-called 'genuine philosophy nor science', right?

"Heidegger's 'Age of the World-View' rightly notes that 'world view' understood scientifically 'does not mean a view of the world, but the world understood as a view (or picture).[']" (op.cit., page 3.)

you seem to have some.sort of disillusionment here that if some particular so or so said some particular thing, then what 'that one' said must be absolutely true and/or right.

Nope, they just said it before me and probably as well as I could say it myself.

Anyway, I also view a 'world view' not as a view of the world, earth, itself.

Really? The world is not just earth, though. But are you sure a view must not be a view of something?..

If 'you' say and believe so, then this is the one and Only, real and true, view, here, right?

See above.

What for? There is nothing 'above' that clarifies what you mean here, exactly.

Not to you, apparently.

Okay. Would you like to elaborate on this, or do you believe that this will suffice how it 'stands', here?

Yes.

LOL

This was a very common response among the adult population, back in those very, very 'olden days' when this was being written. That is; I would ask them an 'or' question, and they would would respond presuming or believing that I knew which part of the 'or' that they were responding to, exactly.

Or, they just did not know what they were doing.

Or, they were just, purposely, being misleading and/or deceptive.

Do 'you' believe that there is not only One Mind, only?

I do tend to believe that, yes. "I" am one mind, "you" are another, and there is no overarching one.

Okay, so who and/what am 'I', exactly?

One body among an enormous—and changing—number of other bodies.

I thought that when I asked you to clarify what you actually meant when you said and wrote, 'any of us', above here, and that when you replied that it meant; 'that 'the One' is perceiving, (guessing, or concocting), that there is more than just 'this One'.

But, I must of been mistaken, right?

Yes. "I" know that the mind "I" am—'am', not 'have', hence the scare quotes—exists. The question is whether other minds exist.

But, there is no question, as far as 'I' am concerned. See, once what the actual Truth has been seen, and thus is fully understood, and known, then there are no more questions. Well relating to 'that' anyway.

If you say so (grammatical errors notwithstanding).

Well this is obviously impossible, ant thus False.

You mean, it's impossible that there are none?

Why did you presume, and then believe, that this is what I mean?

Because you keep going on about the "One", and do so in conversations with others.

Well, what I meant there is that there may be no I, no thing, no substance. "Something" certainly exists, even if it's just a—single—hallucination.

How could there may be no 'I' if there is known to be something, certainly, existing?

Because what "is known to be something, certainly, existing" is not an "I".

The word and term 'myself' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in term, and thus is self-refuting.

So the terms "my" and "self" contradict each other? Please explain.

Because the word 'my' implies ownership. And, who or what, exactly, could 'own' a 'self'?

As I said, caught in a web of language.

Okay. But, one has to start off with the actual Truth, to end up with the actual Truth.

No, that's just your circular reasoning—typical of a believer.

Supposedly, 'typical of a believer' of 'what' exactly?

Also, if you are not starting off, from the very beginning, with an actual.irrefutabke Truth, then how are you ever going to 'know' what is, actually, 'True' later on?

By discovering it, duh. Know relatively, that is. Never absolutely. Hence philosophia, not sophia.

you do, by the way, appear to have misinterpreted and misunderstood what I am actually saying, and meaning, here.

Why, to 'you', would this be so-called 'most improbable', exactly?

Because then someone, and in fact you of all people, would have to have had a divine revelation.

1. What do you mean by, 'you of all people', here, exactly?

2. A so-called 'divine revelation' could only happen and occur if there was some 'divine' thing existing, right?

3. Do you find it 'most improbable' that one could 'come-by-chance' to a 'divine revelation' or to 'divine revelations'?

I do believe people have had experiences that they—and/or their followers—have interpreted that way, but that's just interpretation, not revelation.

So, what is 'revelation', to 'you', exactly?

It's when what's experienced is essentially the same as the experience thereof.

Where is 'back there', exactly?

Back where it's reasoned that, because a predicate requires a subject, an experience requires an experiencer. It doesn't. It merely requires the idea of an experiencer (and an experienced, for that matter).

An 'ideal' by who and/or what, exactly?

"Idea", not "ideal". Neither term requires a "by", though.

And, how did you come-to-obtain the absolute irrefutable Truth here?

Was it by 'divine revelation', or by some other way?

If it was the latter, then how and what way was that way, exactly?

Did 'you' inform 'us' before what so-called 'scare quotes' mean, or denote to, exactly, to 'you', when used, 'by you'?

If yes, then where and when, exactly?

But, if no, then will you 'now'?

Nope.

Here 'we' have another one who will just not clarify.

But, 'now' 'we' are 'back to' 'you' explaining to 'us' how it could be logically and physically possible for a 'concoction' or 'hallucination' to exist, exactly, if there was no other thing existing?

No, because there's no need to explain that whatsoever.

Or, because it is just an absolute impossibility to explain Accurately and Correctly how some thing that is both theoretically and empirically impossible to exist could exist.

Some times the actual Truth just had to be presented, for some people to comprehend and understand 'It', fully.

As seen here, once more, lying and/or deception will just not work.

Okay. This is just another one, to add to the continually growing list.

Yet another wrong-way driver! :mrgreen:

What are you even on about, here now?

You.

[Self-Lightening]

“If you don’t change direction, you may end up where your heading” - Lao Tzu

There’s only one direction, follow your own lead - Fairy

Tell that to Age, for it was him I was paraphrasing there. He seems to regard everyone who is not going in his direction—which I doubt is following his own lead, by the way—as a wrong-way driver.

Well have you human beings ended up where you want and desire to be and/or ended up with 'the answers' that you have been searching and looking for?

Or, in the days when this is being written, are you adult human beings, still, pondering and wondering if there is 'more' HERE?

Are you by any chance Ecmandu?

[Age]

I didn't say I believed it absolutely. It's just that, as Neumann says there, "[n]othing is easier to perceive". In fact, as he exclaims in the same book,

"What is clearer than the impossibility of experiencing anything but experiences!" (Neumann, Liberalism, page 35.)

The question, then, is whether those experiences are experiences of something (and by someone) or not. They may be, or they may not.

Why is this even a question, to you?

Of course, and irrefutably, if there is an experience, then there is some thing/some one.

You keep telling yourself that.

Okay. But, it is also some thing that just cannot be refuted, by any one, obviously.

So,.there is,.at least, One Thing, which is known here as, again, (the) 'I'.

No, not the "I" (hence the quotes), but so-called perceptions, i.e. impressions, experiences.

Perceptions, impressions, or experiences of what', exactly?

And, who and/or what is having perceptions, impressions, or experiences, exactly?

See, it is an absolute impossibility to have one without the other.

Also, if 'you' did not mean 'I', then why not just say and write down what you,.actually, did mean only, instead?

you seem to have some.sort of disillusionment here that if some particular so or so said some particular thing, then what 'that one' said must be absolutely true and/or right.

Nope, they just said it before me and probably as well as I could say it myself.

So, just because you, or another, said some thing, this, obviously, in and of itself does not.mske 'that thing' right, nor true. So, who cares what just a human being says, or claims?

To me, anyway,.what is actually irrefutably True, and Right, always 'outweighs' or 'overrides' what is just said, and claimed, alone.

Anyway, I also view a 'world view' not as a view of the world, earth, itself.

Really? The world is not just earth, though. But are you sure a view must not be a view of something?..

you seem to have, again, completely and utterly missed, misinterpreted, and/or misunderstood what I actual meant.

What for? There is nothing 'above' that clarifies what you mean here, exactly.

Not to you, apparently.

Well if you look above, then you will see that there is not, actually.

LOL

This was a very common response among the adult population, back in those very, very 'olden days' when this was being written. That is; I would ask them an 'or' question, and they would would respond presuming or believing that I knew which part of the 'or' that they were responding to, exactly.

Or, they just did not know what they were doing.

Or, they were just, purposely, being misleading and/or deceptive.

One body among an enormous—and changing—number of other bodies.

So, now what 'we' have is 'this one' saying, and claiming, that the 'I' is 'a mind', as well as 'a body'.

If you say so (grammatical errors notwithstanding).

Would you like to Correct any errors you saw or see here?

If no, then why not, and why mention and claim that there are some?

Because you keep going on about the "One", and do so in conversations with others.

Okay.

Well obviously;

If there is some thing, then it is illogical, and impossible, for there to be so-called 'none'.
There is some thing.
Therefore, there is something and not none.

Because what "is known to be something, certainly, existing" is not an "I".

Why not?

And, who and/or what is 'it', exactly, that is, supposedly 'certainly existing', especially if 'it' is not an Aware nor Conscious 'I'?

As I said, caught in a web of language.

But, 'you' are not, correct?

By discovering it, duh. Know relatively, that is. Never absolutely. Hence philosophia, not sophia.

As I pointed out before, you are misinterpreting here.

It's when what's experienced is essentially the same as the experience thereof.

Could 'you' be caught up in a so-called 'web of language', here?

Or, could this not apply to 'you'?

Also, why did you, again, just not clarify the above here?

"Idea", not "ideal". Neither term requires a "by", though.

So, in 'your web of language' where doss 'the idea' exist if the words 'experiencer'' (and 'experienced') exist, exactly?

[Age]

Tell that to Age, for it was him I was paraphrasing there. He seems to regard everyone who is not going in his direction—which I doubt is following his own lead, by the way—as a wrong-way driver.

Well have you human beings ended up where you want and desire to be and/or ended up with 'the answers' that you have been searching and looking for?

Or, in the days when this is being written, are you adult human beings, still, pondering and wondering if there is 'more' HERE?

Are you by any chance Ecmandu?

Once again, actual clarification is not provided.

No.

[Fairy]

God is a word.

God is a thought.

No thought, no God. No word, no God.

Behind every thought known. . (concept known) is this EVERPRESENT wordless, thoughtless, pure unconditional eternal unborn undying presence.

(Just Simply This) and this is truth.