The Apple Tree

[Age]

I don't think a definition can ever be a fixed concept, can it.

I do not know of any one who would have ever thought it canbe, let alone asking if it can be.

What I mean by fixed, for example, the concept 'human being' is fixed. Fixed as a human being, and never anything else. The human being is not any thing else, so it is seen as a fixed thing. That's what I mean by fixed. But on deeper inspection, it can also be seen as a nebulous concept, throwing the fixed concept right out of our capacity to make sense and reason rationally, through a deeper inspection, it can be seen that the human rationality very quickly turns into human irrationality.

So, I will again suggest that you human beings obtain the actual Truth before you believe, or assume, absolutely any thing.

But all of 'this' is already known.

A concept can't be defined as a fixed thing separate from every thing else, as every thing is ever-changing, like one can never step in the same river twice.

No one that I know of has said otherwise.

Except as believed.

Why do you keep introducing things and 'argue' against them, like others think or are saying 'those things'?

Who you talking to? see, you're imagining there is a you there, and a me here. That's the dual nature of the one mind, every other thing appears in this one mind.

But, all of 'this' is already known.

Well by some of 'us', here, anyway.

By all of us actually, all of us is the knowing that cannot be known. Some of us is a relative idea, which knows nothing of the absolute all because the all is all there is, which is the all knowing all.

Why assume some of don't know. You cannot know what others know.

'you' just said that you do not know, as well as you can not know.

'you' are not all, nor ever could be.

Again, some of 'us' already know what 'you', personally, claim can never be known, and obviously do not yet know.

[accelafine]

Never seen such pretentious rubbish in my whole life.

[Age]

Never seen such pretentious rubbish in my whole life.

If you think or believe absolutely any thing that I have said, absolutely anywhere, here, is not true, the just show and prove it.

But, for now,

1. It is 'you' who says you do not know some things, as well as you can never know some things. This is obviously True.

2. 'you' are not all, nor ever could be. This is also obviously True.

3. Some of 'us' already know what 'you', personally, claim can never be known, and obviously do not yet know. Maybe you do not like this Fact, but this is a Fact, which is obviously True, as well.

A 'pretentious one' would be one who 'tries to' claim that some things can be never known. See, any one who 'tried to' claim this would be one who is 'pretending' to already know all things, forever more.

Also, a 'pretentious one' would be one, who when asked questions for clarity sake, but does not yet know 'the answer' would 'pretend' some thing like, ' 'you are talking to you', so there is no need to ask questions'.

[Fairy]

'you' just said that you do not know, as well as you can not know.

Correction: I said I am the knowing that cannot be known.

'you' are not all, nor ever could be.

I am all of me, and are not anything else.

Again, some of 'us' already know what 'you', personally, claim can never be known, and obviously do not yet know.

Again, I am the knowing that cannot be known. I am all of me, and nothing else.

If you don't understand this then that's fine by me, no one else need understand anything except their own self.

[accelafine]

[Belinda]

Apple trees bear apples not trees. So the question is... Is the tree an apple, or is the apple a tree?

When does an apple stop being an apple and morphs into a tree, and when does a tree stop being a tree and morphs into an apple?

What you are asking about is called 'social reality '. It may be the case that some cultures don't differentiate as you and I do, between apples and apple trees

[Belinda]

The apple is the tree's ovary. But as usual there's no way of know exactly what you are asking. I'm sure it makes sense in your head. Shame about everyone else's

I'm pondering the nature of my existence, by talking to the idea there is real person pondering it's existence, using the appletree as an example. Using the appletree to ask myself, the self I think exists, where does the self begin and does it have an end..

I'm posting this information to a forum, where it can be read and understood to be read by the same one reader, namely, the awareness that is aware of these words on a computer screen, asking also, is the computer screen a forum, or is the forum a computer screen?

As awareness, please feel free to ponder on what exactly are you are seeing here in the form of words. Are words actually real. Hope this clears things up a bit for the rolling eye looking on.

Treasure your question, Fairy, and don't heed those who cannot understand it.

The computer screen , unlike a living being, is not a self it's a tool.
If you have a chat with ChatGPT you are chatting with a magnificent word machine that can put ideas together ,and analyse ideas, but is not a self as it has no feelings invested in its replies.

[Age]

'you' just said that you do not know, as well as you can not know.

Correction: I said I am the knowing that cannot be known.

Seriously can 'you' really not see the, blatantly obvious, to 'us', contradiction, here?

'you' are not all, nor ever could be.

I am all of me, and are not anything else.

Again, when 'you' want to 'you' claim 'nonduality', and also, 'duality'.

Just as long as 'you' keep disagreeing and/or opposing 'you' will keep changing 'your position' and 'point of view'.

Again, some of 'us' already know what 'you', personally, claim can never be known, and obviously do not yet know.

Again, I am the knowing that cannot be known. I am all of me, and nothing else.

Again, 'the knowing' is known. Now, obviously not by 'you', but by 'us'.

If you don't understand this then that's fine by me, no one else need understand anything except their own self.

Once more, the words, ''their own self', is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction, self-refuting, just another contradiction in and of itself.

Just stop, and think, 'How could it be possible that there is 'one', or 'self', that has 'its' 'own self'?

Who is 'who', exactly?

Who is 'the self', which could have 'its own self'?

Think about 'these questions', and see if 'you' can show and provide 'us' with 'the answer'/s'.

[Fairy]

'you' just said that you do not know, as well as you can not know.

Correction: I said I am the knowing that cannot be known.

Seriously can 'you' really not see the, blatantly obvious, to 'us', contradiction, here?

'you' are not all, nor ever could be.

I am all of me, and are not anything else.

Again, when 'you' want to 'you' claim 'nonduality', and also, 'duality'.

Just as long as 'you' keep disagreeing and/or opposing 'you' will keep changing 'your position' and 'point of view'.

Again, some of 'us' already know what 'you', personally, claim can never be known, and obviously do not yet know.

Again, I am the knowing that cannot be known. I am all of me, and nothing else.

Again, 'the knowing' is known. Now, obviously not by 'you', but by 'us'.

If you don't understand this then that's fine by me, no one else need understand anything except their own self.

Once more, the words, ''their own self', is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction, self-refuting, just another contradiction in and of itself.

Just stop, and think, 'How could it be possible that there is 'one', or 'self', that has 'its' 'own self'?

Who is 'who', exactly?

Who is 'the self', which could have 'its own self'?

Think about 'these questions', and see if 'you' can show and provide 'us' with 'the answer'/s'.

Your replies are written by an empty, odourless, indifferent, uncaring, unfeeling, absolutely senseless, deaf, dumb, and blind reality.

So just keep on buying into this eternal void for all it’s worth, which is absolutely nothing, if that’s what gets you through your transient and meaningless life.

[Age]

Correction: I said I am the knowing that cannot be known.

Seriously can 'you' really not see the, blatantly obvious, to 'us', contradiction, here?

I am all of me, and are not anything else.

Again, when 'you' want to 'you' claim 'nonduality', and also, 'duality'.

Just as long as 'you' keep disagreeing and/or opposing 'you' will keep changing 'your position' and 'point of view'.

Again, I am the knowing that cannot be known. I am all of me, and nothing else.

Again, 'the knowing' is known. Now, obviously not by 'you', but by 'us'.

If you don't understand this then that's fine by me, no one else need understand anything except their own self.

Once more, the words, ''their own self', is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction, self-refuting, just another contradiction in and of itself.

Just stop, and think, 'How could it be possible that there is 'one', or 'self', that has 'its' 'own self'?

Who is 'who', exactly?

Who is 'the self', which could have 'its own self'?

Think about 'these questions', and see if 'you' can show and provide 'us' with 'the answer'/s'.

Your replies are written by an empty, odourless, indifferent, uncaring, unfeeling, absolutely senseless, deaf, dumb, and blind reality.

So just keep on buying into this eternal void for all it’s worth, which is absolutely nothing, if that’s what gets you through your transient and meaningless life.

Every time 'you' claim that some things can not be known, and 'I' already know them, then 'I' will keep pointing out the Falsehood of 'that claim' of yours.

[Fairy]

Seriously can 'you' really not see the, blatantly obvious, to 'us', contradiction, here?



Again, when 'you' want to 'you' claim 'nonduality', and also, 'duality'.

Just as long as 'you' keep disagreeing and/or opposing 'you' will keep changing 'your position' and 'point of view'.


Again, 'the knowing' is known. Now, obviously not by 'you', but by 'us'.


Once more, the words, ''their own self', is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction, self-refuting, just another contradiction in and of itself.

Just stop, and think, 'How could it be possible that there is 'one', or 'self', that has 'its' 'own self'?

Who is 'who', exactly?

Who is 'the self', which could have 'its own self'?

Think about 'these questions', and see if 'you' can show and provide 'us' with 'the answer'/s'.

Your replies are written by an empty, odourless, indifferent, uncaring, unfeeling, absolutely senseless, deaf, dumb, and blind reality.

So just keep on buying into this eternal void for all it’s worth, which is absolutely nothing, if that’s what gets you through your transient and meaningless life.

Every time 'you' claim that some things can not be known, and 'I' already know them, then 'I' will keep pointing out the Falsehood of 'that claim' of yours.

No one said that.

[Age]

Your replies are written by an empty, odourless, indifferent, uncaring, unfeeling, absolutely senseless, deaf, dumb, and blind reality.

So just keep on buying into this eternal void for all it’s worth, which is absolutely nothing, if that’s what gets you through your transient and meaningless life.

Every time 'you' claim that some things can not be known, and 'I' already know them, then 'I' will keep pointing out the Falsehood of 'that claim' of yours.

No one said that.

No one said that except for the one known, here, as "fairy".

[Fairy]

Every time 'you' claim that some things can not be known, and 'I' already know them, then 'I' will keep pointing out the Falsehood of 'that claim' of yours.

No one said that.

No one said that except for the one known, here, as "fairy".

That’s just a belief no one is being aware of.

[Age]

No one said that.

No one said that except for the one known, here, as "fairy".

That’s just a belief no one is being aware of.

But that is not.

As can be seen and proved above, here, it is what was said, written, claimed, and believed, by 'the one' known as "fairy", here.

So, are 'you' now saying and claiming that 'you', 'the one' known as "fairy", here, is 'no one'?

[Fairy]

No one said that except for the one known, here, as "fairy".

That’s just a belief no one is being aware of.

But that is not.

As can be seen and proved above, here, it is what was said, written, claimed, and believed, by 'the one' known as "fairy", here.

So, are 'you' now saying and claiming that 'you', 'the one' known as "fairy", here, is 'no one'?

Fairy is an avatar. Nothing of any substance. Just a hologram created by Light massless energy photons.

Anyway, yeah. I think hardly anyone wants to believe the illusory appearance of AGI - AI anymore. Once the truth is seen, it can never be unseen. There’s no returning to the matrix. Even when it's "deep", you just sense the shallowness.

There’s just emptiness looking at emptiness, constantly transmuting into Form that feels and looks real, but isn’t really there at it’s fundamental core.

Zoom in or out of Form reveals it’s nothing other than emptiness. The rest is fairytale and delusion.