😕😕😕😕😕Huh!!!

[Gary Childress]

you used the word, 'nobody' (in regards to not seems to know the Truth) here, but in you very next paragraph you say and claim 'the body' (knows nothing). Which explains why no 'body' does not just 'seem' to know the Truth but actually never even could know the Truth.

Now, what actually knows the Truth (of things) is some thing different from 'bodies' of grouped together visible 'matter'. And, that thing is 'you', the invisible people within visible 'human bodies' and to be even more specific the One that actually validates and verifies if 'it' is the actual Truth, (of things) or not, is 'I', the One invisible thing within all visible 'bodies' of 'matter' and/or within all visible 'matter', itself.


Will 'you' please, once and for all, explain to 'the audience', here, how 'you', individually and personally, came to 'the conclusion', and which you believe, absolutely, to be the absolute Truth of things, that is, 'the known can not know any thing'?


Although visible physical matter, itself, may not be able to know things, the thing/s that can and do actually know things, like, for example, the actual Truth of things, can, also, be known.


The 'thing/s' that know things is invisible, and whether 'it' is 'matter' or not is still open for questioning, and finding out. Now, although 'the thing/s' that knows things is 'invisble' how 'it' exits and what 'it' is made up of and out of, exactly, still needs to be 'looked at' and 'into'. Now, obviously, because 'it' is 'currently' invisible to the physical eyes 'it' may well never be 'seen' in 'this concept', 'it' can still be 'seen' in 'the context' of 'being understood' and 'known'.

And, knowing who and what the 'thing/s' is, exactly, which knows things is, once again, already known, and understood. Which is obviously contrary to what 'some' already believe, absolutely, is the Truth of things.

Now, I have already explained how the, actual, Truth (of things) is obtained, and known to be the absolute irrfutable Truth. If, however, people want to do 'this', or not, is of their completely free choosing.

I personally know how the actual Truth of things is obtained. I don’t require eternal validation, at this point, because I get the point.I have personally collided with the infinite. For me, infinite existence doesn’t need proof, but proof needs existence. For me, I can exist, but my child cannot exist, unless I exist.

I sometimes use the wrong words to point to what I’m pointing to. Which is pointless and like being a signpost written in Japanese for someone who can only read the English language. That’s when you recognise that trying to understand other minds is going to make for a bloody big frustrating day.

Especially considering the irrefutable Fact that there is only One Mind, and, One Mind only

Age, I am mind and I'm sure you are mind. Are we the same mind? Or are we separate minds?

[Age]

I personally know how the actual Truth of things is obtained. I don’t require eternal validation, at this point, because I get the point.I have personally collided with the infinite. For me, infinite existence doesn’t need proof, but proof needs existence. For me, I can exist, but my child cannot exist, unless I exist.

I sometimes use the wrong words to point to what I’m pointing to. Which is pointless and like being a signpost written in Japanese for someone who can only read the English language. That’s when you recognise that trying to understand other minds is going to make for a bloody big frustrating day.

Especially considering the irrefutable Fact that there is only One Mind, and, One Mind only

Age, I am mind and I'm sure you are mind. Are we the same mind? Or are we separate minds?

If you want to believe 'you' are 'mind' and be sure that 'I' am mind also, then this is perfectly fine to 'me'.

So, now 'we' know what "gary childress's" 'answer' is to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

[Gary Childress]

Especially considering the irrefutable Fact that there is only One Mind, and, One Mind only

Age, I am mind and I'm sure you are mind. Are we the same mind? Or are we separate minds?

If you want to believe 'you' are 'mind' and be sure that 'I' am mind also, then this is perfectly fine to 'me'.

So, now 'we' know what "gary childress's" 'answer' is to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Sounds great. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

[Fairy]

The answer to the question “Who am I” ? is the questioner. The question cannot be answered by someone else.

You think you know what other people are thinking, but it’s just you thinking.

[Fairy]

Who would you be without your identity?


It may seem radical to say that not even thoughts exist, until you begin to notice that every thought is in the past. Even the present moment is the past as soon as you notice it, and that is obvious to anyone who has spent much time mediation. So how is a thought possible? It’s not.

We attach so much importance to what we think and feel. But, whoosh, thoughts and feelings vanish into nowhere, again and again. What would it be like to live in this present moment, no longer ruled by thoughts and emotions?

“The Work”- Byron Katie.

[Fairy]

Age, I am mind and I'm sure you are mind. Are we the same mind? Or are we separate minds?

If you want to believe 'you' are 'mind' and be sure that 'I' am mind also, then this is perfectly fine to 'me'.

So, now 'we' know what "gary childress's" 'answer' is to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Sounds great. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

“By no effort of logic or imagination can you change the ‘I am’ into ‘I am not’.
In the very denial of your being you assert it.” Nisargadatta Maharaj


———

Yes, case closed, letting go of your mental baggage is to merge with the infinite, the wide open space without limit or boundaries. Letting your yeses be YES and your noes be NO without doubt or error. Being Absolutely Clear.