Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:12 pm
Hey - its ok you can capitulate when you have no ACTUAL ANSWERS.

Nonduality the one question to all our answers.

The Triune explained here> duration 5mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha_KFQxvGbQ
God in Relation to the Non Dual Understanding

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:18 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:28 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 pm But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

This ineffable reality is KNOWN

So, what is knowing the ineffable?

Ineffable is not known. Ineffable cannot be uttered.
QED you are still talking nonsense.

Utterances of an ineffable reality becomes a reality KNOWN in it's idea/concept. The knower is conceptually understood to be human. We seek our (human) selves every time we emerge from Nothingness, for there is nothing else we know conceptually to relate our knowing to. The first thing you have to know is yourself. A man who knows himself can step outside himself and watch his own reactions like an observer.

Don't try to make sense, you already are sense.

.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:53 pm Nah. In the least, you haven't identified why you state 'He'.

Yes he has and he did identify why he stated 'He' ..HERE >

by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:06 pm


Well, and this: that we can't say "God is a he" (referring to the male conception of humanness), because the predication ("he") did not exist until God assigned it to man. As I said earlier: God is the prototype, and human maleness is merely a pallid derivative of that.

So God isn't "a type of he," but rather, all "he"s, (i.e. all our human conceptions of maleness) are in some important respect merely dimly reflective of an aspect of God. Perhaps his Fatherhood, perhaps his role as Creator or Initiator, perhaps his sovereign power, perhaps his authority...and perhaps all of those things and more, all rolled together.

The one thing it obviously emphasizes is God's priority as the Uncreated Creator. He is "the Father of All," as is said Biblically.

ALSO, notice HE is in the word HERE...RE:HE comes after HE

That's because words are magic, they contain code, his magic code.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:45 am

Then prove who is naming ? show who is doing the naming - and then answer: does that ''who'' have a name?
You'll see there is no thing and nothing that can be proven or shown to be naming anything here except what is KNOWN via the conception/ word. All you can do is ask a word for proof, there is nothing else to ask.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:17 pm I know you are trying to get at something, but your question is pretty easy to answer.
And I don't think you are going to be happy with the answer.
Humans are doing the naming, obviously.

''Humans are doing the naming, obviously''.. maybe right from your perception there, from how you see. But it's not the right ( I ) from the perception that is here in DAM.

The one "thing" to which we give the greatest value, out of all proportion, is the "thing" we see when we look in the mirror. The body in the mirror is not our Identity, any more than ''Homer Simpson'' is the identity of the cartoon character playing that role.
What is naming is the consciousness that perceives the body in the mirror. The name is a concept KNOWN when empty unborn awareness becomes aware it is aware. Only the 'thought of you' is born in association with the image in the mirror. The image is born, but the perceiver of the image is unborn. And I don't think you are going to be happy with that answer.

Consciousness walks without feet, yet knows every step, sees without eyes, yet knows every image, hears without ears, yet knows every sound, and speaks without a mouth, yet knows every concept.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:17 pmYou seem to pretend to know a lot about this god fellow, but seem to have zero evidence and no argument to back up ANYTHING you are saying.

The evidence for empty space is pervading the object. The evidence for an object is within the empty space. Both are needed to define the other. Objects come and go in empty space. Empty space does not come and go in an object.
In other words, the patch of blue sky does not appear within the clouds. The clouds appear within the blue sky.
The evidence will be revealed to man when man is ready to see, and hear.



''No created light can touch this ground and illumine it, for it is truly God's home and dwelling-place. The whole of creation would not fill or plumb this void, nothing created could ever penetrate it or fulfil its yearnings. God alone can fill it with His divine immensity. This abyss of the soul belongs to the divine abyss, to nothing else.'' Tauler

.

Cracked pot looses water to hold an argument.
WTF are you actually talking about?
Do you even know?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:24 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:18 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:28 am

This ineffable reality is KNOWN

So, what is knowing the ineffable?

Ineffable is not known. Ineffable cannot be uttered.
QED you are still talking nonsense.

Utterances of an ineffable reality becomes a reality KNOWN in it's idea/concept. The knower is conceptually understood to be human. We seek our (human) selves every time we emerge from Nothingness, for there is nothing else we know conceptually to relate our knowing to. The first thing you have to know is yourself. A man who knows himself can step outside himself and watch his own reactions like an observer.

Don't try to make sense, you already are sense.

.

I am making sense. You should try it sometime - you might even like it.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:03 am I am making sense.

Then you'll know you cannot talk nonsense.

No need to utter the idea of nonsense, not even to yourself, the one you imagine to be someone else.

.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:02 am
WTF are you actually talking about?
Do you even know?

Yes, I know what I am talking about since I am the one talking, so I am the one knowing this talk.

.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:18 am Looking at what goes on in the world reveals errors clanging together. Opinion vs opinion. Why is there such a resistance to the experience of truth ?

Because man does not want to hear another mans truth unless that truth is his.
Man can only know his own truth that abides within his own self.

_____

From the innernet, your very own guru..the source of all your knowledge.

''Not to know is profound; to know is shallow. Not to know is internal; to know is external.'' Chuang-tzu

''God must be knocked out and bowled over by the mystery of himself, by the glory and completeness of his impossible victory over inert, unaware, dead nothingness, by his absolute unknowability. And bowled over equally by his absolute know-how. The unknowable God knows, without knowing, how to BE. So this impossible feat of self-origination, this incomparable success-story is mine. I'm giving rise to Myself and all things, at this instant. I catch Myself in the act, eternally poised with one foot dangling in the Abyss of Not-being, and the other planted firmly on the Ground of Being''


.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:09 pm
I was just asking you that if you start a thread, especially titled, Let's talk about GOD, then why would you question "another", just for asking "others" to provide proof of the God that they BELIEVE in? Does this make it more clearer?

When did I question another just for asking others to provide proof of the God that they BELIEVE in?

When you asked me;
So why ask for proof and evidence when every word is already proof and evidence of God...what more proof or evidence could one provide??

(Which, by the way, I went on to explain WHY I ask "others" to provide what proof or evidence that they have).

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:17 pmSo it's like when I'm talking to Age sometimes is when I start to get totally lost in translation when conversing with you.

I totally understand. This is all my fault because of the way I communicate.

I would like to apologize, but really I could not apologize honestly. If I am doing only what I know, then I would only be dishonest if I apologized. I would LOVE to know how I could communicate better (more succinctly) but unfortunately at the moment, of when this is written, I do NOT know how to.

The very reason I want to learn how to communicate better is so that people do not get totally lost in translation when conversing with me.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:17 pmBut I have had this trouble ever since.

Yes I am fully aware of this.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:22 amGod is an idea within consciousness. Ideas are expressed using words that are unique to the consciousness that is manifesting as a human mind. That's what this talk is about, it's about God talk based on ideas expressed as and through mentation heards as words aka concepts known..

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:09 pmIf this thread is about 'God talk', then there is NO human mind. So, there are NO ideas manifesting as a human mind.

Ok then...if you say so, then so be it, you said..''there is NO human mind. So, there are NO ideas manifesting as a human mind'')....ok then so what, all I can say in response is ok if you say so, but that doesn't change the God talk thread does it, this thread is still God talk no matter what is said here, as I've stated in the OP nothing is excluded or rejected.

But REALLY is thread 'Talking ABOUT God', or, 'God talk'?

If it is the former, then IF and WHEN, some one states some thing about God as though it is True, then I would like to be able to ask that one what actual proof or evidence do they have for that claim.

If, however, it is the latter, then I will talk FROM God, and say correct things, when they are written incorrectly, for example; I will correct when human beings say the term 'human mind'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:09 pm But you were just 'trying to' reject or limit what I am saying, by saying: "God is ineffable", and, "Why would you want another person to provide proof of God"

But I don't want another person to provide proof of God.

I KNOW you do NOT.

But what appeared to me is that you also do not want me to ask "others" to provide evidence for what they claim ABOUT God.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:17 pmAlso, I wasn't rejecting or limiting anything you were saying about God by saying God is ineffable. You only thought I was doing that, but I'm telling you, I was not.

Okay, fair enough.

So, if any one says any thing ABOUT God, as though it is a true fact, then I am allowed to question them about providing proof and evidence for their claims, and that is perfectly fine with you here in this thread?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:17 pmIf God to you is not ineffable then that's fine by me, I have no argument with that.

But for me, knowing God which I do... is a bit like eating an orange or falling in love with someone. I can't put what those two feelings and knowings into words for someone else to experience. I can only feel and know what it's like asmy own direct experience...or even if I did try to put the feeling and knowing into words,...that may take many words that may be interpreted differently and mean different things to other people.

And that's what I'm getting at here.

.

Okay, and that is perfectly fine with me.

I KNOW EXACTLY what it is like 'trying' to just say some thing, and then having it interpreted differently and meaning different things to "different" people. LOOK AT how long just the three word saying, 'In the beginning', has been misinterpreted and interpreted differently and how it means so many different thing, to so many "different" people, and I have still not had a chance to explain what it REALLY MEANS even after the saying has been around for thousands of years.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:28 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:25 pm More accurately: do you believe it was masculine?

Nah - it created rainbows.

The completely open nature of all dimensions and events is a rainbow always occurring yet never grasped.

What is the location of a rainbow.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:54 pmIf it is the former, then IF and WHEN, some one states some thing about God as though it is True, then I would like to be able to ask that one what actual proof or evidence do they have for that claim.

All known truths are relative.

No one knows truth, they are truth. ONE is truth.

The more you talk and think about it the further astray you wander from the truth. Sen-t'san

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pm
How can you be so SURE that forever more that 'not a thing' can not be KNOWN?

Because THINGS are KNOWN....and known things can't know they are known.
Not-a-thing is only known in relation to a thing known. Not-a-thing and thing are one knowing in the instant...is that too complicated to grasp?

No. But the "one knowing in the instant" CAN BE KNOWN. Agreed? Or, is that, so called, "too complicated to grasp"?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:48 pmNow read what I've just written 3 hundred times until it sinks in that ( not-a-thing) cannot be known...only things can be known, and things can't know that they are known because they are already being known by not-a-thing.

Now, IF there is 'not-a-thing' OR 'no thing' OR 'nothing', then that OBVIOUSLY can NOT be known. HOWEVER, you are stating that there is 'not-a-thing' that ALREADY KNOWS. To be able to 'already know' any thing, then that implies 'it' MUST BE some sort of 'thing' and NOT a 'not-a-thing' at all. Surely to be able to know infers being a 'thing' and 'not-a-thing' at all? If I am reading you incorrectly, then please tell me what is correct.

Until you can explain that so it is FULLY understood, what I perceive what you are saying is there is actually some thing, which already knows things, but which you are just classing as 'not-a-thing'. Is this correct?

So, for me to KNOW exactly what it is you are saying and MEANING; What do you MEAN when say, "already known by not-a-thing? Are you saying that there is a KNOWING by 'not-a-thing', 'nothing', and 'not-any-thing'?

If no, then what do you actually MEAN when you say; "already being known by not-a-thing? How can actual 'not-a-thing' or 'nothing' know things?



Also and further more, you claim; "only things can be known", which I agree. But then you claim; "things can not know that they are known", which I disagree to a certain extent. EVERY thing, except for the human being thing, (as far as I am aware) can not know that they are known, however, that one thing known as the 'human being' can know that they are know. For example, 'i', the human being known as "age" here in this forum KNOWS that 'i' am KNOWN. 'i' also KNOW who and what this Thing IS, which KNOWS who and what 'human beings' are also. So, 'i', a thing, CAN know that 'i' am known.

Also, how does it logically follow that IF a 'thing' can not know that they are known, THEN this is BECAUSE they are already being known by some, so called, "not-a-thing"?

If the thing "dontaskme" KNOWS that they can not be known because they are already being known by 'not-a-thing', then that sounds like you have defeated your own logic and conclusion, to me.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pmAlso, just because 'you', "dontaskme", do not know YET know how a concept is KNOWN, this does NOT mean that the KNOWN know nothing.

Then explain to DAM, tell or show her what does a concept KNOWN know?

The KNOWN concept 'human being' knows things.

Thee 'human being' is a concept KNOWN. To different human beings they have different concepts of 'human being', but, to me, the concept 'human being' is just KNOWN as the physical body with a non visible Mind and non visible thoughts and emotions. The 'human' part of 'human being' is just the physical body and physical organ part, and the 'being' part of 'human being' is just the non visible thoughts and emotions part. The two parts make up the 'human being'. This concept KNOWN is obviously able to know things.

"dontaskme", for example, is just a name given to one 'human being'. The concept of the 'human being' KNOWN as "dontaskme" knows things. When "dontaskme" explains what they know, then that is HOW I could prove what I have been telling and showing about just HOW the concept KNOWN ('human being', which one of is "dontaskme") knows.

Now I could tell and show "dontaskme" this from another perspective, but I will leave that for another time.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pmIf there IS a Knower, which knows EVERY thing, then that Knower IS also KNOWN, so the KNOWN would KNOW EVERY thing.

The knower is known by the knower - so yes every thing is KNOWN by the knower...HOWEVER, the known doesn't know ANYTHING,

BUT, IF the Knower is KNOWN, by the Knower, then the KNOWN Knower DOES KNOW SOME thing.
The KNOWN Knower KNOWS Itself, at least.
If the KNOWN knows at least one thing, then it KNOWS some thing.
Therefore, the claim the KNOWN does not know ANY THING is incorrect, false, AND not true.

IF the KNOWN know some thing, then IT does NOT not know ANYTHING.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:48 pmbecause the known is already known by the knower that knows everything.

So, again, the Knower IS the KNOWN, and IF as you say the Knower knows everything, then the KNOWN (Knower) does NOT not know ANY THING, It actual KNOWS EVERY thing.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:48 pmWhat I mean is... a coffee cup is known...but it's not the coffee cup that knows it's coffee cup..the coffee cup is just a concept known to the knower...The knower is no thing knowing thing...do you see?

I ALREADY KNEW, quite some time ago, that a thing without the ability to know particular things would NOT know that it is a thing.

But, as I have hopefully explained, a thing, like the 'human being' thing, which can KNOW a relatively LOT compared to a lot of "other" things, CAN KNOW what 'it' is, and therefore be the Knower and the KNOWN, which MEANS the KNOWN can know SOME things.

This all depends on 'what' KNOWN, which we are discussing.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:35 pmIF there IS a knower of ALL things, or ALL-THERE-IS, then that It also would be the Knower and the KNOWN of Its own Self.

Yes, agreed. Knower/knowing/ known are all ONE.

.

Okay great. So what IS 'it' exactly, which you think I do not yet KNOW?

Just maybe if you STOP thinking or BELIEVING that I do NOT yet understand you, and instead just START thinking that just maybe we are LOOKING AT the EXACT SAME thing, but just from DIFFERENT perspectives.

Also, maybe IF you consider that OBVIOUSLY us two human beings have had vastly DIFFERENT past experiences, so we both OBVIOUSLY would NOT be able to SEE things from the EXACT SAME perspective, as we DO see things past on our OWN PAST EXPERIENCES. So, although we are LOOKING AT the EXACT SAME thing, we can only use our already and only grasped language, with OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT meanings and definitions, to SEE FROM, and then explain what it is that we both SEE and UNDERSTAND.

Just some thing to think about and consider anyway.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:51 pm
If the thing "dontaskme" KNOWS that they can not be known because they are already being known by 'not-a-thing', then that sounds like you have defeated your own logic and conclusion, to me.

Not really. A ''thing'' can only be known in relation to it's opposite. DAM is known as a conceptual label, the label doesn't know anything, no more than a label on the outside of a tomato soup tin knows there is tomato soup inside the tin.
DAM is a 'thought' inside of conscious knowing, the opposite of unconscious not-knowing...Dam is known by consciousness itself when the image formed inside the mind...aka the 'thought'

DAM wasn't D inside the womb. Inside the womb, D's real identity was just the pure consciousness with no image of itself. It is only when the thinking ''I am D'' totally stops that the Truth of who you really are exists which is consciousness.
All there is, is consciousness. And the mind of 'thought' is merely a reflection of that consciousness.

One aka consciousness can know oneself only with one's own eye of knowledge, and not with somebody else's. Does she who is DAM require the help of a mirror to know that she is DAM?

DAM doesn't know, Dam is known as knowledge in-forms itself.

.

DAM, consider the relationship between yin, yang, and qi. Is yin a reality or is it just the results of yang's imagination?

If you want to make a fortune market something called "DAM beer." I can see the commercial now: "Have some of this DAM beer and it will all become clear." Hell, I'll buy six pack.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:17 pm DAM, consider the relationship between yin, yang, and qi. Is yin a reality or is it just the results of yang's imagination?

You are beyond I am and I am not. Descriptions of yin and yang is pure dreamscape. The dream is composed of millions of opposites. (oppositions)

In the dream state, aka the opposition state. You know this because you know that. Or, this is because that is. In reality there is no comparison to reality, there's only ISness..there's no well it's just like this or that. Is is simply IS in every moment.

Reality is only what it is, else it would be what it isn't. Reality doesn't make that comparison...imho

But believe what you want Nick, it's your canvas you are writing on. If your point of view is culturally bound and is filtered only through that boundary then so be it, there is nothing can be done about that unless you become as a blank slate but this time you are holding the pen.

PS, drink your own coolade..at least you'll know for sure what's in it.