Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote: And, What do you mean by 'what is known is illusory'?

What is cannot be known....what is known is illusory since nothing can be known of what is.

Is this anything like when I said, the only thing we can be sure of, i.e., know, for sure, is the thoughts within the head.

Can you do me a favor dontaskme, when I actually doaskyou a question, can you please answer it for me. I ask questions so that i am able to get somewhat better clarity on what is that you are actually saying.

"What is cannot be known" does that in any way relate to when I said, "I am looking at the blue sky"? I will make it easy for you to clarify for me, is that a Yes or a No.

Is the "what is..." for example a blue sky, and the "cannot be known" part be close to the same as when I said we can not know, for sure, what is a blue sky? Again, just a Yes or a No would suffice here.

The ''what is'' IS ...but it can't be known what the ''what is'' is......it's known that it is ..but NOT what it is....the seer or knower would have to be outside the seeing itself looking on itself to know it.

That which is without colour appears as all colour.
That which is without sense appears as all senses.
And so on....

''what is'' IS as it appears, given form, shape, and colour by thought and known, but thoughts are without form,shape and colour...so what that is can never be known....no one has ever seen the colour blue or red...the colour blue or red are known ideas known by that which is unknowable. Reality is pure fantasy, it's born of pure intangible perception that is without source or location. There does appear to be a point of reference where a thought arises within the mind/body mechanism,(location) but even that is just another thought about the prior thought believed to be located in the body /mind...even that thought is of no location....there is nowhere only herenow nowhere.

Dontaskme wrote:But it's obviously known else it could not and would not be appearing.

ken wrote: You are right in that it may be obviously known but until you have an idea you are unable to explain 'it'. I will prove this fact again. Answer this:

What is the 'it' in "it's obviously known else 'it' could not and would not be appearing?

It's called IT because no one knows what IT is.....only that IT is....call it ISNESS

Only as IT appears as all appearances...can the unknown be known, but not known by a someone, not known by a person, IT as IT appears as every thing is not a thing ..yet appears as all things...things arise in no thing....given meaning via idea/thought....which are not things, only ideas/thoughts about things....as things are known via the thought about them, it is not known what or who that knower/thinker is apart from the thought.....the thinker cannot separate itself from the thought...it's one unitary action.....The thinking is the thinker itself. The thinker cannot get rid of the thought because the thought is not a thing... The world is an imagined dream, dreamt by no one...

There has to be a frame of reference an awareness or no thing in place before an appearance of thing is known by the no thing....without the awareness there is no thing happening, no thing known...just pure awareness without an object.

The pure awareness without an object...is totally unknowable since it's one without a second.

ken wrote:
Is this anything like when I said, the only thing we can be sure of, i.e., know, for sure, is the thoughts within the head.

Yes, but thought is only fantasy believed to be real, why I say believed.. is because while there is belief there is no believer.

The belief is the believer and where is that...no idea.

ken wrote:
You never cease to surprise me dontaskme. You have the answers.

I am very interested in knowing how you got them, especially when you do not know yourself. What path were you on when you come to this realization? Hopefully, you will share with me your path in how you got here.

Deleted reply / because the content was for one showing only, and is now deemed redundant...was my opinion only and not relevant anymore.

sthitapragya wrote:Like I said, Ken, there is nothing more to discuss. Good luck.

The problem with people who say there is nothing more to discuss is that these people are only interested in winning over the other person to their side of the debate, to their own ideas, it's like I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine... and when that doesn't work out they then realise they are talking to a brick wall, and it's like if you don't come on board with me, then fuck off. Such is the game of my idea is more important than yours. Not that it is wrong or right, but more important.

ken wrote:
Yes maybe, but my question was What about you, what do you need?

I used to think I need things until I realised I am already everything that I needed.

ken wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:Although what you are trying to reveal is actually easy to explain, finding the right words to make revelation distinctly clear for everyone takes a bit longer.

I don't agree.

This can never be revealed using words, words obscure the pure clarity of what it is that's being spoken about.

So why are you trying then? What else could you use?

If this can never be revealed using words, then why use words here and now?

With the use of the right words, words, in of themselves, can in fact clarify to pure clarity.

If you believe your words here, then what are you creating?

I'm Writing purely for the fun of it.

Yes, you are right, but words are still not the same as direct seeing into this silently.

Dontaskme wrote: Words can be the catalyst toward a deeper understanding of ultimate reality, but the ultimate seeing comes from the tacit Self alone, not from the word.

ken wrote:Of course, But 'I', the tacit Self, want to be revealed. Your persistence is proof of this fact.

'I' am teaching how 'you' are also able to become and thus see from the tacit Self to.

'Seeing', can just mean understanding. So, the ultimate understanding comes from the tacit Self alone, but sharing that understanding is best done through words of knowledge.

Sharing only done by words.. yes agreed...understanding however, is an existential resonance and is also experiential to the one seeking.

I can't answer every post of yours Ken...so apologies if i miss stuff out...but it seems we are staying on the right track...I'm learning from you as you are probably learning from me... we each have some thing to show the other, This is the fun thing about a two way street...the conversation appears to be flowing the way it wills to go...the point is that we are both interacting freely without tension and I'm enjoying the nature of the conversation, it's very nice speaking with you. And more importantly, nice to speak with another who is also into this subject.

I maybe a bit quiet over the next coming week or so as I have visitors from overseas coming round to spend a holiday with me.

Dontaskme wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Like I said, Ken, there is nothing more to discuss. Good luck.

The problem with people who say there is nothing more to discuss is that these people are only interested in winning over the other person to their side of the debate, to their own ideas, it's like I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine... and when that doesn't work out they then realise they are talking to a brick wall, and it's like if you don't come on board with me, then fuck off. Such is the game of my idea is more important than yours. Not that it is wrong or right, but more important.

Awwww, All the oneness went away in a flash didn't it? All your smiling politeness, all of it just came out in the separateness, didn't it?

Who is the people with a problem? There are no problems. Why is the grass green? Why is the sun yellow? Who wins? Who loses? There is only fiction. There is no truth. Who scratches whose back? There is no brick wall. IT is AAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL one. There is just oneness and love.

And it is all love, isn't it

hahahahahahahahahahahha.

Don't blame me. Blame yourself. You wrote what Sthitapragya wrote. It all just appeared on the computer screen. Why do you think Sthitapragya wrote this? It was you who did it.

Oh, and you still haven't posted anything without a username, you supercilious twat.

sthitapragya wrote:
Oh, and you still haven't posted anything without a username, you supercilious twat.

Any thing named is knowledge.Knowledge gives superficial understanding of 'more' knowledge which is 'more' bondage. Deeper understanding of the existential nature of 'knowledge' is wisdom and gives freedom.

sthitapragya wrote:
Don't blame me. Blame yourself. You wrote what Sthitapragya wrote. It all just appeared on the computer screen. Why do you think Sthitapragya wrote this? It was you who did it.

In life the ego is not present, and yet the ego says I can do, speak, think, allow, let go, permit, resist, demand, create ... etc

In life the ego is not present, and yet the ego says Awwww, All the oneness went away in a flash didn't it? All your smiling politeness, all of it just came out in the separateness, didn't it?

Who is the people with a problem? There are no problems. Why is the grass green? Why is the sun yellow? Who wins? Who loses? There is only fiction. There is no truth. Who scratches whose back? There is no brick wall. IT is AAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL one. There is just oneness and love.

And it is all love, isn't it

Yes, you got it, it's all love.

Dontaskme wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
Don't blame me. Blame yourself. You wrote what Sthitapragya wrote. It all just appeared on the computer screen. Why do you think Sthitapragya wrote this? It was you who did it.

In life the ego is not present, and yet the ego says I can do, speak, think, allow, let go, permit, resist, demand, create ... etc

In life the ego is not present, and yet the ego says Awwww, All the oneness went away in a flash didn't it? All your smiling politeness, all of it just came out in the separateness, didn't it?

Who is the people with a problem? There are no problems. Why is the grass green? Why is the sun yellow? Who wins? Who loses? There is only fiction. There is no truth. Who scratches whose back? There is no brick wall. IT is AAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL one. There is just oneness and love.

And it is all love, isn't it

Yes, you got it, it's all love.

The ego also starts a sentence with " the problem with people is that...." what people? There is only freaking oneness, remember? You are so full of contradictions that your mouth is also your asshole. Or your fingers in this case.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:

What is the 'it' in "it's obviously known else 'it' could not and would not be appearing?

The IT - the THIS IS IT is not known...but the appearance of IT as in IT'S raining is known via the experience of droplets of water coming from the sky.

ken wrote:Do you know your writings on first glance can appear as insanity? I do, however, know exactly where you are coming from, but the problem here is, Do you know?

You do not have to answer that question by the way. You have already answered it when you wrote, "What this knowing is I've no idea."

Yeah i know where I am coming from, I'm coming from the no mind, I have to be out of my mind to say stuff like this...when I tell people they don't exist as a separate self and that there is no one inside them, they say to me things like are you out of your mind and I say yes.

IF, and only IF, you want to be better understood, then you need to be able to provide absolute clarity in defining each and every word being used, otherwise confusion will set in. The definitions can not be able to be misconstrued nor be able to be confused with any other word and definition. For example, you have to provide a clear and distinct definition for 'i', 'I', 'no mind', 'mind, 'out of my mind', 'my mind', 'my', 'people', 'separate self', 'no one, 'inside them', 'they', 'me', 'your', and but not least 'your mind'. If these words can not be clearly, distinctly, and unambiguously defined, by yourself, then how do not expect others to think and say what they sometimes do back to you?

You may have the answers, but how did you get there? For example on very rare occasions when i am given a maths problem/question i can get the answer, but if asked how did i get there, then that could take far longer to explain. Sometimes i am not actually sure how i did without a lot of consideration. The difference between these maths answers and these Life answers that you are providing is all maths answers can be very easily verified with a calculator. There is no calculator for finding Life's answers. Through words, and their definitions, only can Life's answers be seen and thus known. To show others Life's answers they firstly need to know how to get their by themselves. Only when they can see answers clearly for themselves, and be able to verify them with their own past experiences, will they then be able to see that those answers that you are trying express to be the actual ultimate One Truth also. Everything is relative to the observer. So the way you look at and see Life is different from all the other observers. Your goal here is to show what the One sees and knows from every one's perspective.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:

What is the 'it' in "it's obviously known else 'it' could not and would not be appearing?

The IT - the THIS IS IT is not known...but the appearance of IT as in IT'S raining is known via the experience of droplets of water coming from the sky.

You did not answer my question.

If 'It' is appearing, then what is the 'It' that appears, to you anyway? You actually said, 'It' is obviously known, so what is the 'It' that is supposedly obviously known?

Although you do now say 'It' is not known, but you say 'It' still appears. So again what is 'It' that still appears, to you.

'I' know what 'It' is, so, 'It' is known. But, I want you to provide us with what appears to you. I will give you a clue on what 'It' is, 'I' have mentioned what 'It' is on a few occasions already. Another clue is in the statement 'It' is raining.

Can you explain what is the 'It'?

If not, then does not in of itself mean 'It' is not known nor that it could be known. If you can not answer that question, then all that means is 'you' do not know what 'It' is.

thedoc wrote:

ken wrote: If there is a universal laws that states 'Every action causes a reaction', then that would be enough proof, would it not?

This appears to be a paraphrasing of one of Newton's laws of motion, and such laws are descriptive not prescriptive, these laws only describe what is observed, and do not dictate how the Universe works. So they don't prove anything except to provide proof of what has been observed and no proof of what has preceded it.

So, if we can only observe "backwards" to big bang singularity, then there is no proof of what preceded (pre-seeded) it, right? (We do not know what caused that seed).

Also, if we can only observe "forwards" to black hole singularity, then there is no proof of what proceeds (pro-seeds) it, right? (We do not know what that seed gives pro(vides) life to).

Do not worry about what is written in brackets. That is for others to notice.