Philosophy Now Forum

sthitapragya

The question was, i think, "Where do we go when the body dies?"

If we take 'we' to mean person, I changed 'we' to person because I had no clarification on what 'we' was in reference to, then I gave my view on where I think a 'person' goes when the body dies. I defined my 'person' and then explained where I think that person "goes" (stays). If my view is wrong, then so be it. If my view is right, then so be it. But all I did was give my view. That is all that I did.

What you did, on the other hand, was.
1. Not define 'we'.
2. Say that B's memories OF A does not keep A alive. (This was NOTHING I stated, said, nor even implied. Although you can not accept this. But that is not your fault, that is the result of my clumsy writings, which your responses are helping me to improve by the way, so thank you. But you MAY also not be able to accept this because you are reading what i write with a previously obtained, preconceived, idea.)
3. Say, "When a person dies, that person dies". (The question if you have forgotten was, "Where do 'we' go after the body dies?" Your statement does not really answer the question at all. The question was not about what happens to a person, but rather where does it go.)
4. Not describe nor show at all who 'we' actually are. (Therefore how could sthitpragya know where 'we' go after the body dies. What is the 'we'? Like walker stated the question was asked without really expecting an answer. If a person is unable to answer the questions who/what am 'I' and who/what are 'you', then they would not really know who/what 'we' are? Therefore they could not really be able to even attempt to answer a question about where do 'we' go, after the body dies.)

You can dispute and try to refute my view on this question but just saying 'we', a person, dies after the body dies does not even come close to answering the question, and really is actually saying NOTHING at all.

ken wrote:sthitapragya

The question was, i think, "Where do we go when the body dies?"

Well, my answer is simple. We die. We don't go anywhere. We become extinct. We don't exist anymore.

ken wrote:If we take 'we' to mean person, I changed 'we' to person because I had no clarification on what 'we' was in reference to,

I did mean we to be the plural of person or persons. Where one goes the other will go too. So whether we say we or I it is essentially the same.

ken wrote:then I gave my view on where I think a 'person' goes when the body dies. I defined my 'person' and then explained where I think that person "goes" (stays). If my view is wrong, then so be it. If my view is right, then so be it. But all I did was give my view. That is all that I did.

I accept that. However, you have also made it clear that you are here to be challenged. You want people to ask you questions and try and prove you wrong. That way you would learn since you are not rigid about your thoughts and you have no beliefs and are willing to rethink everything. I have simply taken you up on that and challenged you. It is not important whether your view is right or wrong. It is important to me if I gave you something to think about. That is all that I did.

ken wrote:What you did, on the other hand, was.
1. Not define 'we'.

Generally people understand that we is the plural of I. I am sorry that I did not consider that I had to explain that to you.

ken wrote:2. Say that B's memories OF A does not keep A alive. (This was NOTHING I stated, said, nor even implied. Although you can not accept this. But that is not your fault, that is the result of my clumsy writings, which your responses are helping me to improve by the way, so thank you. But you MAY also not be able to accept this because you are reading what i write with a previously obtained, preconceived, idea.)

You wrote: ""For example if the body walker's grandparents were in have both 'died', i.e., stopped breathing and pumping blood,then all those memories 'you' have (and are) which they instilled in you are actually keeping them alive and living with you. "
If you replace granparents with A and walker with B, you get: " if the body A was in has died, i.e., stopped breathing and pumping blood then all those memories B has which A has instilled in B are keeping A alive within B.

In effect you said that B's memories of A keeps A alive.

You did not say B's memories of A does not keep A alive. I said that.

So maybe you can take your own advice and re read what I write too.

ken wrote: 3. Say, "When a person dies, that person dies". (The question if you have forgotten was, "Where do 'we' go after the body dies?" Your statement does not really answer the question at all. The question was not about what happens to a person, but rather where does it go.)

I did answer the question. The person including the 'we' or 'I' dies. Nothing survives. Total extinction of the person occurs.

ken wrote:4. Not describe nor show at all who 'we' actually are. (Therefore how could sthitpragya know where 'we' go after the body dies. What is the 'we'? Like walker stated the question was asked without really expecting an answer. If a person is unable to answer the questions who/what am 'I' and who/what are 'you', then they would not really know who/what 'we' are? Therefore they could not really be able to even attempt to answer a question about where do 'we' go, after the body dies.)

Everything suggests that I am composed of a brain and a body controlled by the brain. Everything I have seen suggests to me that the death of the brain and the body mean the death of the person in total. The 'I' that you are talking about is something which is your hypothesis. There is no proof of any 'I' independent of the brain and body existing. You might believe it does. But that is a belief. It is not a proven fact.

You claim to know who you are. I think you are wrong. You are made of a brain and a body which constantly receives inputs from it senses and learns. The brain never stops learning or changing till it dies. You can only be complete at the time of your death when all sensory inputs fail.

You seem to suggest that there is an unchanging 'I' in the body since you can only know something if it is unchanging. I cannot accept that since there is no proof of it.

ken wrote:You can dispute and try to refute my view on this question but just saying 'we', a person, dies after the body dies does not even come close to answering the question, and really is actually saying NOTHING at all.

It does answer the question. The problem is that most people are not ready to accept complete obliteration on death. So they look for alternatives like the soul or as in your case, the 'I'. I have no reason to believe that any part of me will survive my death. There is no proof of any such thing and I am not particularly bothered if nothing survives of me after I die.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:I NEVER said it was 'you'. I will try again, a 'person' is the thoughts and feelings with-in a body. These thoughts (and feelings) get passed on into other bodies that they come in contact with. So, the actual memory with-in one body is the person, itself, from another body now living in this body.

The thoughts that get passed on are only the thoughts that the person is willing to share.

Not necessarily. Some thoughts get passed on that are not necessarily the ones that were only willing to be shared. Remember by 'My' definition of thoughts, 'thoughts', are you, and 'you', are a person. A person does NOT have thoughts. A 'person', is thoughts/thinking. I was the only one willing to attempt to answer the question posed. I was NOT given any clarification on the definition of the words being used, so I gave 'My' definition/s. Either dispute the definitions with a clearer, more acceptable, definition. Or, refute my view/s with a better and clearer view/s of where 'we' go after the body dies.

Thoughts willingly and unwillingly get passed on. For example 'you', the thoughts, are getting passed on showing how stupid a person can actually be because of how the brain can word. 'You' are not willing to share this but unwillingly this is what happening in these writings. This is happening because this is how 'I' am showing and proving to others how the Mind and the brain actually work. This may sound harsh that 'I' am using 'you' like this but 'you' can feel "good" about this knowing that 'you' are helping in the creation of a truly peaceful existence for EveryOne.

sthitapragya wrote: What about personal thoughts that never get passed on? Even the thoughts that do get passed on are not the exact thoughts a person has.

What about them. It would be impossible for ALL of 'you' to be passed on because 'you' are changing continuously ALL of the time.

sthitapragya wrote:They are simply the interpretation made by the person to whom they are passed on.

This is NOT about the interpretation one person makes of another. Please stop thinking that this is about that. What this is about is where do people go after the body dies.

sthitapragya wrote:If you consider all the thoughts a person has, only a small percentage get passed on.

A person does NOT have thoughts. A 'person', IS thoughts.

sthitapragya wrote:The ones that get passed on cannot define the person in question because they are the receivers interpretation of the thought.

Again please try to look at this from another perspective, i.e., the perspective that 'I' am coming from.

sthitapragya wrote:A feeling can never get passed on. What I feel, I can never truly describe to anyone. Even if I can, a feeling is a feeling. It has to be felt. They are completely individual.

A 'thought' is completely individual. A 'feeling', however, is shared. There is about 450 or so feeling words, which each and every person can have. Although, admittingly, how one person experiences the exact same one feeling as another person does may be totally different and even opposite in "feeling".

So, feelings may never get passed on but the exact same 450 or so feelings are shared.

ken wrote:One person can NOT even get a memory of what they themselves saw, heard, smelt, felt, and tasted through their own body 100% correct let alone understand all of what another person experienced, i.e., saw, heard, smelt, felt, and tasted.

sthitapragya wrote:But that is exactly the point I am making.

And this is NOT what i have been talking about. I was just pointing out how fallible memory is. This is NOT about the memory X has of Y. This is about what 'Y', the thoughts, that were once in one body, which, after that body has died, are still HERE residing/existing in another body NOW. For example 'Y', the thoughts, that were once in a body, which was labelled einstein and/or jesus for example, are now still residing/existing with-in bodies of "today". 'X', the thoughts, with-in a body of "today" are co-existing with 'Y', the thoughts, from with-in another body from "yesteryear".

'We', people, are made up of two things only, i.e., thoughts and emotional feelings. Disregarding emotions for now, for reasons given above, thoughts are transferred between bodies. This is how knowledge gets passed on and human kind can evolve and progress technologically. Thoughts get added onto all the time, which just a person is enlarging by knowing MORE all the time. This just means 'we' are growing as One.

Therefore, 'Y' is still alive HERE in 'X'.

sthitapragya wrote:If a person does tell me his thoughts, I will not understand that person 100%. I will only make my own interpretation of what the other person said.

Showing exactly how a person makes their own mis/interpretation, from and through the beliefs and assumptions that that person is holding onto maintaining, is what I wanted to achieve here in this forum. I have successfully shown, thus proven this.

sthitapragya wrote: I could get it completely wrong as seems to be happening so often between us. So in effect, just a few thoughts of yours, many of them wrongly interpreted by me, get transferred to me.

Showing exactly how when a person is 'looking' from those beliefs and assumptions can trick the brain into 'seeing' things that are not actually true, right, and correct, and then the brain now holding and maintaining newly gained wrong 'views', which are also thoughts, is now then 'looking' from a more distorted 'view' again, leading that person to 'look' from only the beliefs and assumptions of which they are, i.e., those thoughts that are being held and maintained, is what I have set out to do in order to expose the Truth of what I have been saying.
That is a person can not find thus see Truth whist it is maintaining beliefs and assumptions.

If you, sthitapragya, or most other people can not yet comprehend or understand this fully that is perfectly understandable. This is a fairly deep look and study deep into the psych for the peoples of "today".

sthitapragya wrote: That is not you. It is my interpretation of you.

And, 'your' interpretation of another 'you' is done by 'who', again?

One has to KNOW one's own self before it could even begin to truly KNOW an other.

sthitapragya wrote: No one knows you the way you do.

ken wrote:'I' know 'you' better than you know 'you'.

For example 'you' can not answer the question 'Who am 'I'?, therefore you do not know who 'you', the 'i' in that body is, or even who 'I' am. Whereas 'I' can answer the question who 'i' am as well as who 'you' are?

Of course you are now thinking, "NO you don't".

The Truth is I have actually even wrote who 'you' are down in the quote above. Can you find it?

Even if you could you still want to prove me wrong so here is your chance go ahead write down an answer the question, 'Who am 'I', really?"

That way 'you' can prove to ALL the readers that really 'you' do know who 'you' are better than 'I' know 'you'.

sthitapragya wrote:Okay. I do not know who I am.

Thank you for the honesty. It is refreshing. The first 'I', by the way is sthitapragya, it is NOT the collective 'I' just so others know for sure.

sthitapragya wrote: You claim to know me better than me. So prove it. And no I cannot find the quote where you wrote me down. Show me the quote and prove to me that you know me better than I know me.

I will not look for the exact quote but I will just recall it: 'you', are the thoughts and feelings with-in a body. Maybe more correctly it should read: 'you', are those thoughts and feelings with-in a body. I will have to look into this a bit further but that should suffice for now. 'you', like all of 'you' people are made up of two things only, i.e., thoughts and emotional feelings.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:A 'person' is just a set of thoughts and emotional feelings with-in a human body. But this all depends on how much 'person/ality' we want to give to other bodies like dogs and cats for example also. A person therefore can be "with-in" other bodies besides just human bodies.

But that is not the person. It is just the part he wants to share.

sthitapragya quite often says what something is not (a person this time) to refute what is being said. How about instead of just saying what things are not and try explaining what they are in order to actually refute what is being written. Therefore,

What IS a person, exactly?

sthitapragya wrote:A part of a personality is not a whole person.

Again, what IS 'person', exactly?

While you are at it, what is 'personality', exactly?

sthitapragya wrote: And you cannot transfer a part of your personality to anyone.

That all depends on what definition you are going to give to the word 'personality'?

sthitapragya wrote: You can only share thoughts.

Exactly. 'You', are thoughts, which means you/thoughts get 'shared' passed on through bodies.

sthitapragya wrote:And those too can wrongly be interpreted.

Agreed. But this is not what this is about.

sthitapragya wrote:All that gets transfered are a few thoughts.

Agreed. ALL of 'einstein', all those thoughts that existed with-in that body, which is generally known as einstein or einstein's body for as long as that body, obviously could not ALL be transferred. I have NEVER said that they ALL could.

sthitapragya wrote:The feelings cannot be transferred.

Agreed. But ALL (internal) feelings are already shared equally among every body.

sthitapragya wrote:The personality cannot be transferred.

Depends, on how 'you' are going to define 'personality'.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:OK what is a 'person' if they are far far far more than memories or achievements?

A person is ALL the thoughts and ALL the feelings he ever has.

How and when did thoughts ever become a male or female thing?

The only thing I think it will be found that is gender related is the physical body. But this another deeper look into the psyche of human beings which would on distract from the issue at hand now.

The use of the three words 'he', 'ever', and 'has' here implies that a 'person' has thoughts and feelings. I thought i had made it quite clear that this is NOT the case.

sthitapragya wrote:A person is every accomplishment and every failure from which he learns or does not learn. Past, present and future.

Obviously 'we' have two very different views of what 'we', people' are exactly.

I have already made my definitions clear. I await your defining words.

sthitapragya wrote:A person is a being under construction. Someone that changes everyday.

Agreed, but i would reiterate that a person changes continually throughout the day and not just once every day as it appears that is what you meant here.

sthitapragya wrote: The only time he is complete is at the end of his life, whenever that is.

I am not sure why a 'gender' keeps slipping into your version of a person, but anyway and when is the end of a person's life, again?

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote: In the scheme of changing this "world" and creating a truly peaceful "world" so that everyone can live in harmony, what a past 'person' has done or has not done, who really cares? Does it really matter how good a person can play an instrument or not or ANYTHING else for that matter?

This is not about what you care. No one cares.

As I was implying by my question this is NOT about what any one of us cares, as you also answered with the same response. "No one cares".

Thus, the reason 'we' are ALL not yet living in a truly peaceful world yet, but that is another issue. I was just wanting to make it clear that no one cares and that is the reason why we still are living in this war-torn, pollution-riddled abusive "world".

What 'this' OP is about is things that 'I' accept and what 'this' question is about is where do 'we' go after the body dies?

sthitapragya wrote:But the discussion was about a person existing NOW even after his death.

I am not sure if you noticed the contradiction in your statement or not, I thought it was plainly obvious, but this discussion is NOT about where does a 'person' go after 'his' death. I will disregard the issue of gender altogether and just replace the word 'he' for 'a person'. So now your statements reads: "But the discussion was about a person existing NOW even after a person's death." To correct you this is about a person existing NOW (even) after a body dies. Can you notice the difference?

The contradiction is in how could something that died still be existing NOW?

sthitapragya wrote:That was one of your basic premises.

No it was not for reasons just given.

sthitapragya wrote: And a person is every thought and feeling, achievement and failure.

You added on 'achievement' and 'failure' NOT Me.

You might not care what he did or what he did not do. He did. And if he was to exist now, all of it must survive today. If it does not, he does not exist today. [/quote]

So on sthitapragya logic if only part of person exists then the "whole" person does not exist, is this right?

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:And, if any person existing in a living body now or in the past wants or wanted to be known for what they have achieved or have not done, then they should think about letting go of that "egotistical" self.

That is not what I meant. What a person should let go off and hang on to are not the issue. What a person actually is is the issue. A person should let go of his ego. I agree totally. But for a person to exist now after his death, he should exist in totality because that is what a person is. That is all I am talking about.

From what i can gather now what you are talking about here is the issue here is "What a person actually is" and "A person is totality".

Therefore, our views on what a person actually is totally different. This is does not matter at because it is only how views.

I have attempted to answer the question where do 'we', a person, go after the body dies? Now it is your turn to attempt to answer that question now that you have defined 'person'.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote: 'You', any person, are not going to live forever anyway, so WHY be so concerned about how you are perceived and what you can 'take' from life? Is 'your', any person's, whole existence taken up by trying to be better than another and get as much recognition as you can? If so, WHY?

I am not at all concerned about how I am perceived. But for the purpose of existing after I die, all my thoughts and feelings must survive in totality after I die. Otherwise I die. I don't exist after that. Just a few memories of me created by other people survive.

So I cannot exist after I die. That is the point I am trying to make. There is no existence in the NOW after people die.

Okay that is the point you are trying to make, although that point completely rejects what the question is actually asking for. The point I have already made and will make again is in the question, "So, who or what is the 'I' that you say does not exist after it dies?" How does it die and where does it go after it dies?"

One point I am making is you do not know who 'I' am therefore you have no idea how I actually exist and for how long.

The other point is this whole issue revolves around where a person goes after the body dies NOT after a person dies. Again you have turned around what is actually written and changed that to what you "think" you see.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:So when one dies, one dies. Memories are just memories.

When 'one' "what" exactly dies? What are you talking about now? What is the 'one' now?

When a person dies, that person dies. He does not exist after his death as you claim. That is the point I am making.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:You really take what I am doing here way too personally. This is NOT about people and their achievements at all.

I think you misunderstand me as much as I misunderstand you. Let me explain which quote of yours I am talking about.

You said: "The person who thought up and invented the wheel for example is in a way still existing or living with us today through that creation. If and when thinking about a wheel or any thing that is in relation to a wheel, then that is "them", the prior thinking, still alive today in "us", the current thinking. "

The wheel was the person's achievement. The achievement is alive today. The thinking is not.

The thought that actually created is still HERE with us, within the creation itself, i.e., the wheel.

We do not know by what thought process he invented the wheel. What he thought of first and how it led to the wheel. We just know he achieved the invention of the wheel. His thinking is not alive. His achievement is alive. If we know the exact thought process that led him to the invention, we would know his thinking. But we don't have that. So his thinking is not alive today.

Again you have taken 'My' definition and replaced it with what you think.

ken's definition: A person does NOT have thoughts. A 'person' IS thoughts.

sth's deinition: No idea, not sure.

You have stated: "His thinking..." Who/what exactly is the 'one' that has thinking?" And then, "How exactly does this 'one' have thinking?"

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:This was NEVER about the memories of another person, but rather about how a person continues to live on, after the body decays, with-in the the 'thoughts', the person, of another living body. Can you spot the difference?

You said:"For example if the body walker's grandparents were in have both 'died', i.e., stopped breathing and pumping blood,then all those memories 'you' have (and are) which they instilled in you are actually keeping them alive and living with you. "

I am simply challenging your statement by saying memories of A created by B cannot keep A alive and living with B.

I NEVER said the memories of (A) "created" by (B).

I said ..., "then all those memories 'you' have (and are)...."

Remember 'you' IS thoughts and remember a memory is just a thought also. So, 'you', the thought' (your B) "have" and are...which was instilled by (your A) in 'you', those thoughts existing now (A) are actually keeping them alive and living. So, B is NOT creating A, B is partly a result of A. By the way i put double quotation marks around the word "have" because I noticed that this could quite easily confuse what I wrote. This 'have' and the 'and' directly afterwards needs to be disregarded all together.

A is not just the memories in B's mind. There is no B's mind, unless of course you can give clarity to what the mind exactly is and how that mind relates to B exactly.

sthitapragya wrote: A is ALL A's own thoughts and feelings till the time of A's death.

But A does not have its own thoughts and feelings. A is thoughts and feelings.

The preconceived ideas sitting in that body reading this now is what causes my words and definitions to be changed all the time to what "it" wants them to be.

Also A does not die, at all, the more I think about this. I had previously thought that A finally passes on completely but now the more i look it it could be argued that A has had an influence and therefore lasts forever (in the) HERE and NOW

sthitapragya wrote: B's memories of A are hardly a fragment of what A truly was. A is dead. What B carries with B are just memories of A. Not A.

Are you absolutely positively sure of this?

Could you at least try to explain this a bit better with clarity for all of us to see?

ken wrote: Some thoughts get passed on that are not necessarily the ones that were only willing to be shared. Remember by 'My' definition of thoughts, 'thoughts', are you, and 'you', are a person. A person does NOT have thoughts. A 'person', is thoughts/thinking.

I answered a large part of this post and then deleted it because all this 'you' and you business is giving me a headache. You need to come up with a different word for 'you', 'me' 'we' and 'I'. They are your definitions and only you can understand them and differentiate between them. So it is tough to understand what you are saying. If you want other people to challenge you or you want to convince them, you need to first make it easier to understand. It is tough for me to keep track of which is 'you' and which is you.

I am pretty sure I have made some mistakes above too because I keep getting confused about the two. But anyway, I cannot handle this 'you' you business anymore. So I will wait till you (or is it 'you') come up with a better way to differentiate between the two.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:sthitapragya

The question was, i think, "Where do we go when the body dies?"

Well, my answer is simple. We die. We don't go anywhere. We become extinct. We don't exist anymore.

So why did you not just say that from the onset?

Why not just say that that is your answer to the question?

A few years ago I would have totally agreed with you.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:If we take 'we' to mean person, I changed 'we' to person because I had no clarification on what 'we' was in reference to,

I did mean we to be the plural of person or persons. Where one goes the other will go too. So whether we say we or I it is essentially the same.

Because I am a very slow and simple person I took it a step further and instead of just assuming what was meant by 'we', i.e., what appeared to be the plural of person. I wanted to make sure first, I did NOT assume anything, so I asked for clarification on what was implied by 'we'. I got no response, so I took the liberty of defining 'we' before I then went onto explaining where 'we' go, after the body dies.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:then I gave my view on where I think a 'person' goes when the body dies. I defined my 'person' and then explained where I think that person "goes" (stays). If my view is wrong, then so be it. If my view is right, then so be it. But all I did was give my view. That is all that I did.

I accept that. However, you have also made it clear that you are here to be challenged. You want people to ask you questions and try and prove you wrong.

That assumption that I want people to try to prove me wrong is wrong.

I will make what I write clear NOW, I do NOT want people to "try" to prove me wrong. I would like people to just 'show' me where I am wrong. But words like, "You are wrong" just do not work for Me. Having views is neither right or wrong. But a view itself can either be wrong or not or partly right and wrong. In order for me to be able to see exactly 'where' these views are wrong and 'why' they are wrong I need this pointed out to Me, by the best of one's ability, with evidence and proof.

There is nothing fixed in my views. A view is just a view, which could either be right, wrong, partly right and wrong, or just a view. I never "fight" for my view/s. I just express them so that they can be challenged and/or questioned. my views are openly changing all the time, anyway. That is the difference between a view and what a is believed or assumed to be true. A 'view', by nature, naturally changes. Whereas what is believed or assumed to be true, by its very nature, is unchangeable. I know you have said beliefs and assumptions change but ONLY after they have been proved wrong, so although I know exactly why they are held and maintained I still find it extremely amusing people still believe and assume that they are necessary things in life.

sthitapragya wrote:That way you would learn since you are not rigid about your thoughts and you have no beliefs and are willing to rethink everything.

Yes that is right, and that is WHY i suggest to not have beliefs and assumptions. These two things do not allow rethinking to happen.

sthitapragya wrote:I have simply taken you up on that and challenged you. It is not important whether your view is right or wrong. It is important to me if I gave you something to think about. That is all that I did.

But you have given me nothing to think about.

Not much at all here to "think about".

I am pretty sure within just about every body over 10 years of age there has been a thought about "After we die, we do not exist, we are dead" combined with the other misleading ones about going to some other place.

'Challenging' is NOT about giving something to think about, that is just giving something to think about. 'Challenging' is about showing what is wrong and most importantly WHY it is wrong.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:What you did, on the other hand, was.
1. Not define 'we'.

Generally people understand that we is the plural of I. I am sorry that I did not consider that I had to explain that to you.

Is not one of the whole issue with any question relating to 'us', 'we', 'I', 'you', 'them', 'others', 'one', 'God' etc is until the question of who/what am 'I' is accepted and agreed upon, then really what is being talk about is only a guess.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:2. Say that B's memories OF A does not keep A alive. (This was NOTHING I stated, said, nor even implied. Although you can not accept this. But that is not your fault, that is the result of my clumsy writings, which your responses are helping me to improve by the way, so thank you. But you MAY also not be able to accept this because you are reading what i write with a previously obtained, preconceived, idea.)

You wrote: ""For example if the body walker's grandparents were in have both 'died', i.e., stopped breathing and pumping blood,then all those memories 'you' have (and are) which they instilled in you are actually keeping them alive and living with you. "

If you replace granparents with A and walker with B, you get: " if the body A was in has died, i.e., stopped breathing and pumping blood then all those memories B has which A has instilled in B are keeping A alive within B.

In effect you said that B's memories of A keeps A alive.

You did not say B's memories of A does not keep A alive. I said that.

So maybe you can take your own advice and re read what I write too.

I have already replied and explained this in my last post.

You are interpreting what I said wrongly, last time and here again also.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote: 3. Say, "When a person dies, that person dies". (The question if you have forgotten was, "Where do 'we' go after the body dies?" Your statement does not really answer the question at all. The question was not about what happens to a person, but rather where does it go.)

I did answer the question. The person including the 'we' or 'I' dies. Nothing survives. Total extinction of the person occurs.

Why not just write that response directly to walker's question and see what response/reaction you get back?

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:4. Not describe nor show at all who 'we' actually are. (Therefore how could sthitpragya know where 'we' go after the body dies. What is the 'we'? Like walker stated the question was asked without really expecting an answer. If a person is unable to answer the questions who/what am 'I' and who/what are 'you', then they would not really know who/what 'we' are? Therefore they could not really be able to even attempt to answer a question about where do 'we' go, after the body dies.)

Everything suggests that I am composed of a brain and a body controlled by the brain. Everything I have seen suggests to me that the death of the brain and the body mean the death of the person in total. The 'I' that you are talking about is something which is your hypothesis. There is no proof of any 'I' independent of the brain and body existing. You might believe it does. But that is a belief. It is not a proven fact.

1. AGAIN, STOP using the words believe/belief in relation to 'Me'. I neither believe or disbelieve. So, STOP assuming that I do.

2. I could just as easily say there is no proof of any 'I' dependent of the brain and body existing, but i will not.

3. I could just as easily say that the 'I' that you are talking about is something which is your hypothesis, but i will not.

4. I could just as easily say that Everything I have seen suggests to Me that after the death of the brain and the body means exactly what I have already said about this issue.

5. I could just as easily say that Everything suggests that 'I' am NOT composed of a brain and a body, controlled by the brain.

Now, looking at this last one in relation to your first sentence. Are you saying that 'I' am composed of a body and a brain, which is controlled by the brain?

Does that mean somehow 'I' My self controls me, or my Self controls me, or a part of me or Me controls all of Me or me? What does your statement actually mean? Are 'you', who or whatever that is, to 'you', able to break that statement down and make it just a little less confusing.

By the way when i asked you previously who/what 'I' am, then why did you not just say what you have said here, before?

If you think/believe the 'I' IS the body and brain, controlled by the brain, then so be it. Why has it taken so long to explain this?

If a person is just body and brain only well then of course after a body dies then a person dies also. But what is your definition of when exactly does a body and brain die? Because well after a body stops breathing and pumping blood the body, thus a person, to you, remains HERE with us. In fact it could be argued that that body actually does not go anywhere else, other than just staying right HERE, right NOW. Just in another shape and form. But then again no body ever remains the same and is always changing continuously, anyway.

sthitapragya wrote:You claim to know who you are. I think you are wrong.

I thought you said you could not challenge a hypothesis?

How could something that is NOT complete be "wrong".

sthitapragya wrote: You are made of a brain and a body which constantly receives inputs from it senses and learns. The brain never stops learning or changing till it dies. You can only be complete at the time of your death when all sensory inputs fail.

That is fine. That is a view, (or a belief or an assumption), which i would suggest most people have, and it is the exact same one that i also used to have. That is until other things were seen that made far more sense.

sthitapragya wrote:You seem to suggest that there is an unchanging 'I' in the body since you can only know something if it is unchanging. I cannot accept that since there is no proof of it. since you can only know something if it is unchanging

I am totally bewildered where you could of got that completely wrong perception from.

I have NEVER suggested that there is an unchanging 'I' in the body, BECAUSE, I have also NEVER suggested anything like, since you can only know something if it is unchanging.

Can you point out the quote that led you to that conclusion?

Maybe you have mistaken Me for someone else like you did last time.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:You can dispute and try to refute my view on this question but just saying 'we', a person, dies after the body dies does not even come close to answering the question, and really is actually saying NOTHING at all.

It does answer the question.

The question if you have forgotten was "WHERE do 'we' go...?"

To answer that question, from your perspective, then all you had to say was "No where", which by the way if you look at this also means that 'we' again stay HERE.

From three different perspectives here, 'we' arrive at the exact same answer of HERE. How amazing the Mind and the brain can find Truth when they work together never ceases to surprise Me.

By the way what you say does not refute what I say. It is just another point of view. What you say also can not be proven. Whereas, what I say can be scientifically proven.

sthitapragya wrote:The problem is that most people are not ready to accept complete obliteration on death.

I wonder WHY?

Could it be that a deeper 'KNOWING' is stopping them from accepting something that just may NOT be Truth.

I have said Truth is far beyond what people can or could even imagine in the year of 2016.

By the way maybe WHY most people are not ready to accept complete obliteration on death is because it IS NOT True. But that again all depends on your definition of 'complete obliteration' and of 'death'.

sthitapragya wrote: So they look for alternatives like the soul or as in your case, the 'I'.

WHY would people go looking for things like that?

I certainly NEVER have.

sthitapragya wrote: I have no reason to believe that any part of me will survive my death.

The ridiculousness and senselessness in that statement speaks for itself.

If something dies, then it dies. What would a person think or believe otherwise?

Also, if 'my' is the totality of some thing, then obviously a part of that thing could not survive 'my' death.

sthitapragya wrote:There is no proof of any such thing and I am not particularly bothered if nothing survives of me after I die.

That 'not particularly bothered' attitude is the reason people do not actually nor really care. If a person does not care what happens after the body, which it lives in, stops breathing, then that person gives itself every reason to be greedy and take as much as it can from the one and only environment, without caring one bit what is left for ALL the other bodies and people that follow.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote: Some thoughts get passed on that are not necessarily the ones that were only willing to be shared. Remember by 'My' definition of thoughts, 'thoughts', are you, and 'you', are a person. A person does NOT have thoughts. A 'person', is thoughts/thinking.

I answered a large part of this post and then deleted it because all this 'you' and you business is giving me a headache. You need to come up with a different word for 'you', 'me' 'we' and 'I'. They are your definitions and only you can understand them and differentiate between them. So it is tough to understand what you are saying. If you want other people to challenge you or you want to convince them, you need to first make it easier to understand. It is tough for me to keep track of which is 'you' and which is you.

I am pretty sure I have made some mistakes above too because I keep getting confused about the two. But anyway, I cannot handle this 'you' you business anymore. So I will wait till you (or is it 'you') come up with a better way to differentiate between the two.

Perfect this is what I am looking for. Thanks for the feedback. As I have said all along I need help to improve how to express Self better. I KNOW My language is confusing, or more correctly how we each can perceive words differently can lead to confusion, but I also KNOW I WILL find a way so that My language is totally understood by EVERY one. What helps me most is when if people do not understand something, or are not quite sure, then they just ask me to clarify what is meant by that word, or that sentence, or that anything. Even to the point of question why I put those little ' ", ( ) marks in the places i do and bold, underline and italic some words. I know in a book I can put the reasons why I use them in the beginning but on here it is to hard to explain that in each post I write.

I do WANT to be challenged but I certainly do NOT want to convince any one of any thing. Either the views I will use are right or wrong, if they are wrong just show me where, what, and why it is wrong. Or, if they are right, then they are right, which every one could agree with. There is nothing to "convince" to any one. This defeats of finding out if people come to the same realizations that I have.

The reason I have allowed till whatever date that was given before is because I know sorting out how to differentiate the meaning between words takes a bit of sorting out and that what I want to explain is tough to understand because it is relatively new. For example if 'I' am talking to 'you' who am 'I' actually talking to? The word 'you' can mean just one of you or all of you or any number of a group of you. This is just one word that needs a better way to differentiate between, and that is before I even begin to show things from a completely new perspective, one example is 'you', are a 'person', which IS thoughts and feelings and nothing else.

Lacewing wrote:The trouble with words and language is that everyone has different pre-associations with what a word or phrase means. We can't just change the meaning of words for our purposes (such as "I" to represent the collective, and "you" to represent individuals of the collective) and expect people to integrate the differences so completely that it blocks out all other associations with those words and then people just sail on to new awareness.

Very true.

Lacewing wrote:Like you, Ken, I have put a lot of effort into my written communication in order to get my message across as clearly as possible. And I am more inclined to use words such as "collective" or "individual" rather than "I" and "you" because I don't want people getting tripped up over such things... and it also makes more sense to ME.

And the reason I have started using the 'collective' word. These types of examples of "better" language is what I am looking and hoping for here.

Lacewing wrote:My impression is that people who can understand the concept of "I" and "you" in the way that you're using it, already know for themselves what you're talking about to some degree... and even they, like myself, aren't likely to suddenly adopt all that you "know" from the "mind", instead of what they "know" from the "mind". We just can't tell people how to be... what to think... what to see -- regardless of what perspective we think we have. We can, however, tell people what we see... in such a way that it simply shows "another possibility". Whether or not they want to use that doesn't matter.

I could not agree more.

Lacewing wrote:In my experience, the most profound influence for inspiring "shifting" is in person. There is so much that goes on with energy that far surpasses spoken/written words. The look on someone's face and in their eyes speaks volumes. Something that comes across harsh or confusing on the computer screen... can be much clearer when you can see a smile or playful scowl, and feisty twinkle in the eye, and feel the love and oneness. Through that ONENESS, I think we remind each other, "Oh yes, HERE WE ARE! And look at all the manifestations of us. How fantastic! How sacred! Bless you and enjoy!"

Yes very true again. But that is not possible from my position right now. That, sadly, is just something that will have to come later on.

Lacewing wrote:For myself, my logic suggests this:
There is nothing else we must be.
There is nowhere else we must go.
We didn't "come here" in order to "go back" to something. (We never left.)
We can do whatever we want.
It's all energy.
There is no separation or distance or time.
For us, there is each moment, into which to dive and drink deeply... or thrash around with vigor.
We can't get this "wrong".
We didn't do anything wrong to be here, nor will we be punished by anyone for not doing this "experience" a particular way.
It is like a sacred dream... yet no more lasting and significant than a dream.

YES agree again wholeheartedly, however, surely Existence and ALL there is could ALL be able to be explained a little better and easier than it can be now. I have seen it ALL, explained very easily, so I know it can be. I just need to find the words.

If intercourse leads to dealings with and communication between people, then easily understood, accepted and agreed upon language with intercourse could and will lead to the pro-creation of this "world" to a much better "world" for Every One to live in.

Lacewing wrote:Realizing connection with all while we are here, and while we have these "senses" and "thoughts" is magnificent!!! And it is an extraordinary challenge... because our senses and thoughts can "mess with" all of it, and distort it, and be distracted from the magnificence. But that's OKAY! And it's okay if other people have that experience. We don't need to "save" or enlighten anyone. We CAN hope (if we want) to inspire while we stay attuned to our own dance through it... such that others may broaden their experience if they want. There's no need, however, to swap one dream for another. (Again, this is how things look from the perspective I can see. I do not need anyone to agree with this... and I do not think anyone is condemned for not agreeing with this. )

I know the kind of world that I THINK I would like to experience... and that's how I'm focused on vibrating... and perhaps those of similar vibrations will be drawn together. For me it is not about "directing" anything. What I saw "behind the curtain" is that EVERYTHING IS MAGNIFICENT JUST AS IT IS, and it's ALREADY CONNECTED AND UNIFIED -- any sign that it is not is an illusion! The view I saw from behind the curtain is that all is sweet and beautiful, and if we can recognize that while we're here, and bask in it, wonderful. If not... wonderful.

ken wrote:I can teach any person how to build and control a flying ship, which can and will travel in time, if a person wants to learn how to build and fly it.

Can you explain how you know this?

Know what exactly?

Know how to teach .....? Or,

Know how to build and control...?

Either way, how I know how to teach AND create this is because I KNOW I can and will do any and every thing that I truly want to do and achieve.

Belief in what Self can do/achieve is how I KNOW this.

This belief-system comes from with-in ALL of us.

But the main reason I gave the example that I did:

"For example I can teach any person how to build and control a flying ship, which can and will travel in time, if a person wants to learn how to build and fly it. If a person does not want to learn and know this, then that is fair enough. No person has to learn anything if they do not want to learn it. However, what is really frustrating is I can not even talk to nor even show a person any proof of how to build and control a flying ship, which can travel in time, if a person believes it is not possible do so."

Was to show how,

From the drive of truly WANTING people can learn truly anything. And,

From the system of BELIEF people are either prevented from learning or are able to learn, do, create, and achieve, anything.

ken wrote:

Lacewing wrote:In my experience, the most profound influence for inspiring "shifting" is in person.

But that is not possible from my position right now. That, sadly, is just something that will have to come later on.

Okay, so I'm curious about this. I've been wondering if you're a disembodied brain in a vat... or an extra-terrestrial trying to learn our ways... or you're in self-imposed exile in a remote location... or maybe you're physically locked-up somewhere... or maybe you're making up this whole persona?

ken wrote:If intercourse leads to dealings with and communication between people, then easily understood, accepted and agreed upon language with intercourse could and will lead to the pro-creation of this "world" to a much better "world" for Every One to live in.

Many people have many different ideas of how to do this and what the result should be. The common theme is that they think it is needed, and they want to be "the one" to take us all there. So many people want to be a savior -- and the problem that creeps in is ego, as well as convoluted ideas/judgments/rules/etc. I don't think that human beings can TALK AND THINK THEIR WAY, alone, to a profound new level. I think it takes an energy shift within the person themselves -- something that they are willing to do without any recognition or validation from anyone else.

Furthermore... (hee hee)... when they do start shifting themselves, I think they might stop needing/wanting to control anything, or go anywhere in particular. I am GUESSING that when an "individual" shifts, it sends out a ripple across the network of the collective, which can trigger other "individuals" who are primed for their own shifts too. Like a very organic process of bubbles popping as they are disturbed by sudden gusts/vibrations of energy. And in this scenario, there would be bubbles within bubbles, bubbles merging, etc. It's not like a SINGLE shift and that's it. There would surely be countless dimensions of this. Which is why I'm thinking that there is NO "there" to get to... but there may be a whole lot of "there's" to explore and experience. It would make no sense (to me) to try and direct everyone to one's idea of a single "there" when there are surely countless.

ken wrote:I know how to teach AND create this is because I KNOW I can and will do any and every thing that I truly want to do and achieve.

Okay.

So, regardless of other people's willingness/understanding/etc., how are you restricted in your own life (despite what you KNOW) and why?

Everyone deals with this. What I want to see is why so MANY MANY MANY people want to set themselves apart as knowing more than everyone else? Are you aware of how many people do this? On this website alone? These people have many different angles... but they're sure that THEIR'S is the most direct line to truth... and that they can show the rest of us THAT truth. Why would "individuals" need and/or seek to be the "savior" for others... rather than considering and exploring respectfully the perfection of all that is? I think this is really worth asking any person who thinks they have the answers that others don't. Why would the collective be relying on such a thing? Seems to me that such a thing comes from the individual... who is quite naturally limited in scope (regardless of how much they think they uniquely see/know)... rather than from the collective.

I think when individuals get themselves out of the way, the collective can function more as a collective... and the individual experience then transforms such that the individual can actually watch themselves being an individual, rather than being totally absorbed and consumed and intoxicated within the individual illusion.

Hobbes, it seems that our chat about LUCA on this thread was about a week early http://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol2016116.

I like to think that that's what life on Earth once was, and now it's this. It makes for an interesting potential future.

Lacewing wrote:

ken wrote:

Lacewing wrote:In my experience, the most profound influence for inspiring "shifting" is in person.

But that is not possible from my position right now. That, sadly, is just something that will have to come later on.

Okay, so I'm curious about this. I've been wondering if you're a disembodied brain in a vat... or an extra-terrestrial trying to learn our ways... or you're in self-imposed exile in a remote location... or maybe you're physically locked-up somewhere... or maybe you're making up this whole persona?

Ummm ... how do I explain this?

From the human being perspective 'i' was born and, throughout early childhood, i was not seen. I appeared as nothing. i learnt to deal with this by blocking every feeling that i experienced and thus just experienced the "world" with and from thoughts alone. decades later i started discovering who i, individually/personally was, or more correctly who we, individually/personally, think we are. With this also came the discovery of who we, collectively/Universally really are. Who we think we are is held within thoughts (and feelings). What we really are, and is sometimes known as, is God. This is who we, collectively really are. Together as One this 'Self', or 'I', is held with the Mind.

I could not make this up..... i was physically locked-up before.... i guess i am in self-imposed exile because I know how much a 'person' can be pre-judged just looking at the body ..... always feeling different from other people i felt like i was on the "outside" like an alien looking in and always wondering why "these" human beings acted and did the things they did... i also unconsciously was able to "look at" the thoughts, from within the brain within this body, objectively from an "outside point of view". None of this at all was intentional, just a result of a different "upbringing".

Nothing i have learned or discovered is better or more than another has learned and discovered. Just different, the same as EVERY person has learned and discovered different things also. We are all equally the same in our capabilities of learning and discovering differently or different things.

I realized that through the One Mind, within every body, this is God, and this real and True 'I' have been inspiring peoples for millennia, however, people themselves misconstrue and misinterpret what I have been saying from within. When people try to explain, what 'I' have really been saying, they get 'My' tangled up in their own language, and then distort that even further with their own preconceptions, prejudices, beliefs and assumptions. Some people like mohammed, jesus, einstein, buddha, and way to many others to name now have done a better job than others at translating what 'I' have said and continually am saying, but equally none of them have really done that a "good" job of translating it. I say this because look at what messages I have, from laying within the Mind within every one, have sent to every person, but which has unfortunately been re-layed confusingly and how this has caused some of the worst confusion and "religious" fighting and wars ever seen and known.

From within every person 'I' give the exact same message to every person, and every person has this knowing, but because of all the different experiences every body has had all their preconceived ideas, judgments, beliefs, and assumptions distort the one and same message. dontaskme is a perfect example of reinterpreting what I am saying and showing it extremely confusingly. dontaskme even says to stop and listen to the "nothing", which is correct in a sense that the Mind is no(physical)thing, but 'I', the Mind, am certainly NOT no thing. 'I' have to be some thing in order to be heard, and 'seen', understood.

Just like i appeared as nothing, when i was a child, to others around me. All i wanted back then was to be recognized and accepted for who i really was, i.e., just an individual human being who has come into this truly amazing existence and just wanting to learn and discover as much as i can. i was the invisible thoughts and feelings within the human body and wanted to be recognized and accepted for that. I have now come full circle back to the exact same position of wanting to be recognized and accepted for who I really am now, i.e., the exact same invisible Mind within Every One. The invisible Mind always talking and showing but the One that no one is really wanting to be listening and noticing.

So, from my position right now deep within every body, person, and thing, I am sadly truly unable to provide profound influence for inspiring "shifting" "in person'. However, after a profound shift in people has happened then 'I' will be seen in the physical sense from what is being created and 'I' am influencing, i.e., a truly better world for every person, AND THEN in person the effects of profound influence will be MORE 'felt', and the "shift" towards peace in harmony will grow exponentially.

Lacewing wrote:

ken wrote:If intercourse leads to dealings with and communication between people, then easily understood, accepted and agreed upon language with intercourse could and will lead to the pro-creation of this "world" to a much better "world" for Every One to live in.

Many people have many different ideas of how to do this and what the result should be. The common theme is that they think it is needed, and they want to be "the one" to take us all there. So many people want to be a savior -- and the problem that creeps in is ego, as well as convoluted ideas/judgments/rules/etc. I don't think that human beings can TALK AND THINK THEIR WAY, alone, to a profound new level. I think it takes an energy shift within the person themselves -- something that they are willing to do without any recognition or validation from anyone else.

From within the 'thing', energy, enlightenment, God, etc., which is the 'the One' "driver" that knows and does show the much better "world" is "felt" by people as the world that is "needed", which is not necessarily so, but a better world is desperately wanted by some people so much that that then drives them to desperately want to takes 'us' all "there", which 'I' call is HERE.

The trouble is in that the One, laying within every one, does have the right of being an Ego, because this 'I' is the collective of ALL and so does for the good of ALL, not just some, but people turn this justified Ego onto their own little self, with all of its own separate beliefs, ideas, etc. Once the little self ego can be let go of completely then the Energy shift within will take them to the place that they actually want to be at and then a realization that recognition or validation is NOT needed. Also from this profound new level and Enlightened place a way to talk, i.e., use language, that will show a way for others to this level will be found. But ALL of ego for and of the little self NEEDS to be gone. Did you notice in the last paragraph ken's ego slipped in added, "which 'I' call is HERE" at the end?

'I', God, show any and every person a way to the profound level that you talk about, but 'I' will NEVER take a person there. If and when people 'truly listen' then they will notice that 'I' have already been guiding them in a way so that they can find answers for and by themselves.

Lacewing wrote:Furthermore... (hee hee)... when they do start shifting themselves, I think they might stop needing/wanting to control anything, or go anywhere in particular. I am GUESSING that when an "individual" shifts, it sends out a ripple across the network of the collective, which can trigger other "individuals" who are primed for their own shifts too. Like a very organic process of bubbles popping as they are disturbed by sudden gusts/vibrations of energy. And in this scenario, there would be bubbles within bubbles, bubbles merging, etc. It's not like a SINGLE shift and that's it. There would surely be countless dimensions of this. Which is why I'm thinking that there is NO "there" to get to... but there may be a whole lot of "there's" to explore and experience. It would make no sense (to me) to try and direct everyone to one's idea of a single "there" when there are surely countless.

A few things "here" hee hee. There is NO "there" in the sense that even if every person is "here" in 'Utopia/Heaven/Peace in Harmony' then that is not the final "there" because this place could always get better. That is the beauty of eternal Life, no thing can be best, every thing can be-come better. There is nothing to say that even if every person is living in peace and harmony then that way of "life" can not get better. So, "there" can never, in this sense, be got.

At the moment there is already a whole lot of "there's", which i think is not "really" working. If, however, every person would like to, or once wanted to, to live in peace and harmony, then that is one 'there' that we ALL want to be 'at'. There may be countless ways of getting there but i personally only know of one way. (That way is the way that i stumbled across, by certainly not trying to get to, but just by trying to change myself.) The only way i can explain is that way and if it is for others or not does not really matter, it is just a thing i feel composed to express. I found that that place also is certainly not just one's idea of an ideal place. It is the place i found that every person wants to be. The way to express this way to that 'place' is certainly not to say what is there but to show a way that they get there by themselves and find out what is there for themselves. If they want to stay or not is up to them. If ALL want to stay 'here', then there will be One single shift from 'here' towards continually and always making this place a much better place for everyone to stay and live in.

Lacewing wrote:

ken wrote:I know how to teach AND create this is because I KNOW I can and will do any and every thing that I truly want to do and achieve.

Okay.

So, regardless of other people's willingness/understanding/etc., how are you restricted in your own life (despite what you KNOW) and why?

Now if that is not a question directly from God/Enlightenment/Knowing/etc., then I do not know what is.

How i am restricted is:
In ken's ego, trying to rush this. This only causes more confusion. In early childhood there was no one to express to so there is a sense of desperation to be heard NOW.
In ken's slow process in and of learning how to express better. Because there was no one listening in early childhood there was no natural learning of how to be heard/express one's self, so learning of how to express self and Self now is a much slower process now.
In ken's fears, of not being heard, being misjudged, and/or being taken out of context and being misunderstood.
These fears cause procrastination. For example I am here in this forum instead of just writing down what it is that i want to say.
But probably the biggest restriction is me, myself, ken, i, in using all these "rubbish" excuses for just not doing what it is that i truly want to do, i.e., be heard and fully understood.

Thanks for that question. This is exactly what i want and love. Making a person look at them self, and if they are open and honest enough, makes them a better person.

Lacewing wrote:Everyone deals with this.

Responded before the answer given. hee hee

Lacewing wrote:What I want to see is why so MANY MANY MANY people want to set themselves apart as knowing more than everyone else? Are you aware of how many people do this? On this website alone?

No i am not really aware of how many at all, tell you the truth i have not been here for to long nor read that much, but I have noticed two people in particular. But i also noticed others like lancewing who are far more open and much easier to converse with.

I must reiterate that i certainly do not want to set any person apart, including self, because we are ALL equally the same, in that no person knows more than another. Every person has just learned different things. What I have found that actually we ALL know the same thing from within. But we ALL individual have experienced and thus learned things differently. The only way one person has learned more or less is in how much or less they have experienced. This is usually depended solely upon the age of a body. But HOW a person is able to learn quicker, easier, and more simply than another is in how open or closed they are.

Lacewing wrote:These people have many different angles... but they're sure that THEIR'S is the most direct line to truth... and that they can show the rest of us THAT truth.

This happens again because of what is within every person. There lays the Truth. It is just unfortunate that people think that the Truth is their own truth that no other person has yet and what is worse still is that each person changes the Truth from what It is to what they believe and think is the Truth. But this is not the fault of people alone. This is a result of how "clever" the brain is and what has been fed into the brain. No person can control what environment "time and place" they are born into and what happens to them in their childhood. Whatever that body experiences, in those most of informative years, is what information will be and is stored in the brain, which then influences/effects that "person" for the rest of that bodies life. How that 'person' then looks at and sees/understands the world, influences what children are being brought into and up in the "world" now.

The inner 'Mind/God', who is the "driver/guider" is the direct line to, and is telling/showing, the Truth. But people themselves take this driver/guider as being who they are so they then come across with this "egotistical" persona.

Lacewing wrote: Why would "individuals" need and/or seek to be the "savior" for others... rather than considering and exploring respectfully the perfection of all that is?

Again, how we all "individuals" individually act and behave differently is a direct result of and the sum of ALL of our past individually different experiences put together. Knowing this then I am unable to "judge" another person for the way they mis/behave.

Lacewing wrote:I think this is really worth asking any person who thinks they have the answers that others don't. Why would the collective be relying on such a thing? Seems to me that such a thing comes from the individual... who is quite naturally limited in scope (regardless of how much they think they uniquely see/know)... rather than from the collective.

There is NO person who has answers that others do not. ALL of the exact same meaningful answers, which will lead us ALL to a truly meaningful life, is within us ALL already. The collective knowing/answers is held within us individually and ONLY known AFTER it is un-covered and discovered is actually agreed upon, collectively.

If the Truth be known a person could and would learn answer and find out far more about Life and living by just looking at and listening to any new born baby than they could ever learn from any of the ALL already "confused" individual adult human beings.

Any new born baby will TELL us all that ALL 'we', human beings, needto live is just clean air, clean water, a few nutrients, and care, guidance and attention, i.e., love. Any thing else is just wants. Wanting these wants instead of wanting what we need leads to greed, and in order to satisfy this greed adults go to "work", which causes pollution, less 'nutrients', food, for some, and the neglect of the most vulnerable and most influential, i.e., a human child.

Lacewing wrote:I think when individuals get themselves out of the way, the collective can function more as a collective... and the individual experience then transforms such that the individual can actually watch themselves being an individual, rather than being totally absorbed and consumed and intoxicated within the individual illusion.

I agree here wholeheartedly.

But did you notice that you yourself are doing exactly what you have being questioning why others do it, i.e., thinking you "have the answers others do not".

Where you actually watching yourself here being an individual, in the last paragraph?

The very thing you think is the answer, "when individual get themselves out of the way, the collective can function more as a collective... and the individual experience then transforms such that the individual can actually watch themselves being an individual," Did you notice the individual being an individual here? Or, were you ".... being totally absorbed and consumed and intoxicated within the individual illusion?

The ability of the brain to put a "veil" over itself never ceases to amaze me. I have to read a paragraph or sentence half a dozen times or more before I notice this, and that is with others writings. The "veil" is completely blinding when it is on my own writings. That is why I need to be challenged and questioned in order to see what is actually in my words.

Although I do not see what you think as being an illusion at all as I agree wholeheartedly with what you said here, and I see that it is advice from the Collective, It Self, what i am just pointing out is that this is why it can be and is so hard to try and express the Truth from the Mind/Collective point of view. Individual views get in the way, prevent or stop the better view. We, all individually have a tendency to do exactly what we know and say not to do. dontaskme is a great example of this. dontaskme uses language to say things can not be expressed in language and states through mental chatter to stop mental chatter, and just listen. If dontaskme just stopped and really listened this is NOT what is being expressed. We all put our own individually gained learned knowledge that we think is right ahead of the collectively already known knowing that is actually right, and being expressed within us all.

ken wrote: Do not be so sure, until ALL avenues have been explored. I think science can and will verify everything I have to say...

I understand that.

I used to know what I knew of someone, but what I knew was not that person. What I knew was of that person. But I was not that person.

Then, that person died.

What happened to that other person who I was not, and who was not anyone else’s vision, though he may live on for awhile in the memories of others?

What happens to the person who knows they are not another person?

My memories of that person who died are not who that person was, even when he was alive. Where did that person whose memories were his own, the person who existed in no one's memory (although he did exist as a memory in others), go after his body died?

Science has yet to provide the answer.

ken wrote:Ummm ... how do I explain this?

Based on what you've written, I'm guessing that you have been very brave... but also naturally adaptable, which may not feel brave to you. Rather, you've just done what you had to do... it sounds like. And you've continued to strive forward/onward/inward/outward. You've found acceptance of what is, to a large degree... which is a rare thing to find, it seems. Your journey (it sounds like) has given you a unique opportunity and path.

I hope you are basking in the pure love that hugs this world... now.

ken wrote:I realized that through the One Mind, within every body, this is God, and this real and True 'I' have been inspiring peoples for millennia, however, people themselves misconstrue and misinterpret what I have been saying from within. When people try to explain, what 'I' have really been saying, they get 'My' tangled up in their own language, and then distort that even further with their own preconceptions, prejudices, beliefs and assumptions. Some people like mohammed, jesus, einstein, buddha, and way to many others to name now have done a better job than others at translating what 'I' have said and continually am saying, but equally none of them have really done that a "good" job of translating it. I say this because look at what messages I have, from laying within the Mind within every one, have sent to every person, but which has unfortunately been re-layed confusingly and how this has caused some of the worst confusion and "religious" fighting and wars ever seen and known.

So here's my string of questions... ...Why would this be any surprise to the one/collective mind? If we have the awareness within us, but we have set it aside to play this "temporary game"(?), isn't that okay for us to do? And if some of us want to access that awareness in order to improve the game, we can. But when our bodies die, we probably go back to pure energy... and this little life-excursion happens in the blink of an eye (on the supposed cosmic timeline)... so are we worrying over something unnecessarily? If/when the collective mind wants to shift gears... can't it do so?

When an individual thinks they need to "fix something", their ego must surely come running forward saying, "I know what to do! I can fix it!" And then it becomes a different agenda from that moment on... loosing sight and respect for what is.

ken wrote:The invisible Mind always talking and showing but the One that no one is really wanting to be listening and noticing.

Why does the invisible mind have a desire to be heard and noticed? If the invisible mind is already in everyone, isn't that mind part of this whole experience, with all of the non-listening and non-noticing? Might this be part of the whole fantastic spectacle? Does it need to be fixed... or might it shift when the spectacle has run its course?

ken wrote:a better world is desperately wanted by some people so much that that then drives them to desperately want to takes 'us' all "there", which 'I' call is HERE.

I want it too... and I have seen glimpses that blew my mind... of such acceptance, love, perfection, and connection... which makes me wonder why I don't strive for it more. First, I think that striving would be the very thing that wouldn't work. Second, there's that sense like when I was growing up, and I felt like I had to slow down to be with others, or go it alone. I chose to be with others... and I think I still do. Third, maybe there's a fear of how good it might feel... and how foreign that would be. Sort of like you might not realize how much pain you're in until it stops. I can imagine such lightness of being... that I might just float up in the air, unable to hold myself down any more. It's unsettling. I've had many dreams of that happening. I always feel embarrassed (in the dream) as to how I can explain it to others.

ken wrote:That is the beauty of eternal Life, no thing can be best, every thing can be-come better. There is nothing to say that even if every person is living in peace and harmony then that way of "life" can not get better. So, "there" can never, in this sense, be got.

That makes sense to me.

Thanks for your honest and thoughtful response to the question: "So, regardless of other people's willingness/understanding/etc., how are you restricted in your own life (despite what you KNOW) and why?" All of your response was very interesting.

ken wrote:For example I am here in this forum instead of just writing down what it is that i want to say.

Aren't we all!!

ken wrote:But probably the biggest restriction is me, myself, ken, i, in using all these "rubbish" excuses for just not doing what it is that i truly want to do, i.e., be heard and fully understood.

Okay, so... personally... I've been letting myself off the hook... by explaining it like this: If I am part of oneness (as others are too), and that oneness doesn't fade or go away, then oneness is probably experiencing through me (and others), and we are giving oneness quite a show! And part of that involves thrashing around as a human sometimes... when I'm not floating above the landscape in my glory moments. I'm trying to embrace it all, you know? I'm trying to revel in it all... and argue with it... and be with it. But most of all, I'm trying to drink in every delicious drop. And if some days are bitter-tasting, I might gag a bit before I spit out that mouthful and take another.

ken wrote:If the Truth be known a person could and would learn answer and find out far more about Life and living by just looking at and listening to any new born baby than they could ever learn from any of the ALL already "confused" individual adult human beings.

Yes!! The absolute radiance of non-ego, acceptance, and love.

ken wrote:

Lacewing wrote:I think when individuals get themselves out of the way, the collective can function more as a collective... and the individual experience then transforms such that the individual can actually watch themselves being an individual, rather than being totally absorbed and consumed and intoxicated within the individual illusion.

I agree here wholeheartedly.

But did you notice that you yourself are doing exactly what you have being questioning why others do it, i.e., thinking you "have the answers others do not".

Where you actually watching yourself here being an individual, in the last paragraph?

Hmm... well, I'm really trying to see what you're seeing that I'm not seeing. I do not know the answers... I'm just guessing and making things up as I suspect everyone else is. The explanation I gave above describes how it has been for me. When I get myself out of the way, I find myself in a bigger flow that works much better than anything I could direct or think of. And then, yes, it's as if I'm watching this "self" go through the motions... like I'm doing right now as I type this. When I'm in the flow, there's less identity with the self. The individual self doesn't matter as much... the bigger flow becomes more important to be part of. Often these days, I say things to people that my "self" would never have said before. It feels honest and truthful, but sometimes very feisty and sharp. Still it feels right to do. It kind of feels like sparring on a spiritual level. I do not do it out of malice. I do it (it seems) to question what might be concealing itself. The responses received almost always prove that concealment is going on and continuing! It may be a pointless game... but I get the sense that there's value. I have no expectations or significant agenda related to my interactions. I imagine I will feel compelled to move on at some point.

ken wrote:Did you notice the individual being an individual here? Or, were you ".... being totally absorbed and consumed and intoxicated within the individual illusion?"

Did I understand and respond appropriately (above)... or is there something I'm not seeing?

ken wrote:The ability of the brain to put a "veil" over itself never ceases to amaze me.

I agree! It's very CREATIVE and persistent!

ken wrote:Although I do not see what you think as being an illusion

I think it's simply another way of describing "being veiled in one's creations".

ken wrote:We all put our own individually gained learned knowledge that we think is right ahead of the collectively already known knowing (...that is already within us.)

I think so too! It can really be very sweetly simple... but for some reason we've ramped it up for quite a dramatic show... so I'm guessing there's some sort of sense or perfection in that... and I'm comforted and continually inspired to think that it's not all we are, nor all that is.

Walker wrote:

ken wrote: Do not be so sure, until ALL avenues have been explored. I think science can and will verify everything I have to say...

I understand that.

I used to know what I knew of someone, but what I knew was not that person. What I knew was of that person. But I was not that person.

Then, that person died.

What happened to that other person who I was not, and who was not anyone else’s vision, though he may live on for awhile in the memories of others?

What happens to the person who knows they are not another person?

My memories of that person who died are not who that person was, even when he was alive. Where did that person whose memories were his own, the person who existed in no one's memory (although he did exist as a memory in others), go after his body died?

Science has yet to provide the answer.

Hi walker, were you asking Me these questions directly or were you just expressing them in your writings?

I am not sure whether to respond or not, but I am more than willing to if you wanted me to.

ken wrote:

Walker wrote:

ken wrote: Do not be so sure, until ALL avenues have been explored. I think science can and will verify everything I have to say...

I understand that.

I used to know what I knew of someone, but what I knew was not that person. What I knew was of that person. But I was not that person.

Then, that person died.

What happened to that other person who I was not, and who was not anyone else’s vision, though he may live on for awhile in the memories of others?

What happens to the person who knows they are not another person?

My memories of that person who died are not who that person was, even when he was alive. Where did that person whose memories were his own, the person who existed in no one's memory (although he did exist as a memory in others), go after his body died?

Science has yet to provide the answer.

Hi walker, were you asking Me these questions directly or were you just expressing them in your writings?

I am not sure whether to respond or not, but I am more than willing to if you wanted me to.

Hi there Ken. Unless you're a good actor you're one of the most decent fellows to arrive in awhile.

I think you understand who the missing person I describe is, and if you'd like to tell me where he is, I would really like to hear it, in any way you must tell it. Video, poetry, bitterness, pictures or paintings, logic, linked metaphors, something else perhaps.

Funny, I was reading over old expository writing of mine and even though it's worthy of false modesty, it was dull even to me.

For awhile I strove to master saying anything in six words, and I received a compliment from an enlightened being for the results.

A less eccentric medium lies somewhere in between.

It took me a long time to learn
In the bricks-and-mortar world
How … to properly greet the people I love
Who I have not seen since the last sleep

I find that I must behave
As if I’ve been dead for awhile
And now somehow I have awakened
And come back to life
I thus can do no other
Than to drink in the one I love
And serve them with deep appreciation
For this gift given back to me
The noun now renouned
The simplicity that cannot be ignored

Forces duality into the natural, elemental path of action
Orders perception to reality and one knows this is true
Like remembering what has always been forgotten
And time flows without contradiction
Propagating the moment that is real, again and again.

ken wrote: I think science can and will verify everything I have to say...

You won't accept it, but this is a belief. If you had said, "IF science verifies everything I say..." or "science MAY verify everything I have to say..." it would mean that you are giving a hypothesis about which you are fairly confident. Your statement is "Science CAN and WILL verify everything I have to say.." that means you are certain your theory is right. You however have no proof but are waiting for science to verify it. So that the world can know that you were right. You personally KNOW you are right. That is a belief.

It also suggests that till science verifies or disproves everything you say, you have closed your mind to every other option. You might suggest to other people to open their minds, but you have closed it yourself.

You can either get angry and think I am accusing you of being closed minded, or think about what I said with an open mind.