Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:No person is able to find and see, i.e., uncover and discover, Truth whilst having a belief.

Yes, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!

Sorry, I got excited.

This discussion between Dontaskme and Ken is funny to see, even if mind-numbing to stick with , because it's like sword-play of the ONE with itself using the language of observers and seers.

Dontaskme, I'd just like to point out that THIS is what it's like to be on the receiving end when someone claims to see and know more/beyond where you do. I don't think it's generally successful to approach people in such a way. We are all of the one... and any of us can go to sleep and/or drift into self-absorbed fantasy from time to time... and perhaps we CHOOSE to sleep as deeply as we do. I don't know. I'm just not sure that there's any necessity for anything -- meaning there's no particular way to see, or place to get to, or method for movement, etc. If we sleep away this entire life, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I'm guessing we merge right back into the one as soon as we stop believing in ANY kind of separateness. So why would there be any pressure or urgency?

Now it's interesting to watch myself saying this because I spent many years and much energy exploring various paths of enlightenment. And during that time, I believed that "other people needed to know such things too". But I'm much more relaxed about all of it now. All seems perfectly fine as it is. I use my creativity to manifest all sort of things in all sorts of directions. I favor certain qualities, but it's no more crucial than a painting on a canvas. It is my/this art. I do not obsess over it or claim to know what a much larger cosmic canvas is or must be... or what "I" or others are in relationship to that... because it all appears to be one, shimmering from different levels and facets like sunlight on water. There is no need to define or focus on any separateness or time EXCEPT for this world stage... and this world stage is a playground to dream and sleep and awake and dream some more. It doesn't matter because it's all one. That's my guess.

Dalek Prime wrote:Enough to dwell on my eventual demise. How much more do I need? (Actually, I have been told by people who do know, that I am the most self-aware person they know of.)

I just ask that question, to any person actually, "Do you have self-awareness? If so, how much do you have?", hoping that in their introspection look for the answer that they realize if a person can not answer the question, "Who am I?", then really how much self-awareness do they really have.

I found that there is actually two separate selves. One self is the one who we individually think we are, which is the separate human self. The other Self is the One true and real Self, this Self evolves into realization/awareness through humankind. A person is the individual one of us. We, individually, is a person. We, collectively, is everyone and 'everyone', by definition, is the One real true unified Self.

When an individual person can 'let go' of themselves, in other words when a person can 'stop believing' in that what they see is right, and start seeing from everyone's perspective then they can become self and Self aware. Once this awareness is realized then being able to distinguish between the two becomes so much easier. For example ken grew up learning from, and believing in, the environment that ken lived in. ken believed we, humans, needed money to live and believed some things like time travel and living in a truly peaceful and harmonious world is impossible. This is because this is what was taught and thus only what ken had experienced. If ken only looked from the brain, with only the thoughts that have been put into brain real or absolute Truth does not come into view. In the years ken lived lets say 1980 to 2000 this environment caused and created ken. If ken grew up 10000 years earlier then "ken" could not even imagined money let alone believing that we humans needed money to live. ken went to work on 'auto drive' from this belief, and from the greed of wanting more money. But when ken looked from the truly open Mind, instead of the believing brain, ken could easily see that we, humans, do not need money to live. And, ken could also see what we, humans, actually do need to live. To verify the rightness of what was now being seen was done by knowing that everyone else could agree. If everyone could agree, then Truth is known. If a view ken has now is only because of the time and place that ken lived and is only a view that some people could agree, then that view is not a true, right, and/nor correct view.

I have to clarify with dontaskme but i think dontaskme does not accept that there is two S(s)elves. The one we individually think we are, and, the One we collectively know we are. The little one thinks only from the environment it lives in. A person living 200 years ago could not imagine a mobile phone, flying, flying to the moon, a computer, driving a car, and depending whereabouts that person is living some could not even imagine anything much more than having a spear. But like all human made things what was once seen as impossible or was not even dreamed of can become possible. If something is known, then it can come into fruition, and when anything becomes a reality, then to live without it, e.g., money, mobile phone, etc., etc. or not being able to do it, e.g., driving a car, flying in airplane, etc., etc. NOW seems not possible. If and when being able to time travel a human body we could take a so called aboriginal human from a place where the only human made things they had were tools and brought them into the NOW we could easily teach them to be able to drive a car, if they wanted to. The same applies if and when we, humans, are NOW living in peace and harmony. We would be looking back at the people's of the year 2016 and thinking how could have they been so silly to not have even imagined what we are living in NOW. If 'you', a person from the 2016's were taken to a world in which everyone is living in peace and harmony you would quickly learn how to live that way and very shortly would start believing that to live otherwise would be impossible, which in this case would actually be a Truth.

Time travel and living in a truly peaceful and harmonious world are actually extremely easy things to create, once we know how to. HOW they can be created will never be known if and when 'you', a person, continues to look from the already held preconceived thoughts within the brain, which has only come from the place and time you have existed in. Only from the truly open Mind can anything be imagined and then created.

Fully S(s)elf-awareness comes when being able to differentiate between the two and being able to see what we can actually collective create and that which will become the true reality.

Ken and DAM look to me Iike two kids debating whether Almond Joy or Mounds is the better candy bar.

Reflex wrote:Ken and DAM look to me Iike two kids debating whether Almond Joy or Mounds is the better candy bar.

Sweet Marie is better.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:
From about the onset of this post I have been asking you, "How did you get to the point where you are able to see what it is, that you are now trying to explain?" I am still waiting for that answer.

If you do not know how to get "here", besides just reading what others have written, then how do you propose others will get to this point also?

I've lost count how many times I've given you the answer ... so I repeat...yes I did do some reading nonduality books of course, but only to find some confirmation of what I already knew.

I have to point out that on re-reading your sentence here I read it a different way now than i did the first time. On first glance I took this sentence to mean you were reading only to find that what would confirm what you already knew, but on reading this time I see it differently. This time I see the ambiguity and that this sentence can also be read as, what you may have meant it to mean, i.e., what you read coincidentally actually confirmed what you already knew. This is a great example of how words can and actually do obscure what it is that is trying to be expressed. By the way without you now answering a clarifying question like, "What did you actually mean?" me, the other person, will never know what was meant, and this could lead to total confusion, which could then lead to disputes, conflicts, name calling, which i surprisingly find happens a lot more than i thought it would in a philosophy forum/discussion, and then even leading to waring and murders. Without clarity confusion can set in, and when set in confusion becomes beliefs, then all 'hell' can break loose. Some of the current world events are examples and proof of this occurrence happening.

Also, if you just wrote, "by dropping the separate self", in reply to my clarifying question, "how do you propose others will get to this point also?", then that would have created much less words, for both of us to write, and much less words for other separate beings to read, that would have led to a better understanding, which would then help all of us separate beings to see and know how to become re-united as the One true Self again.

Reflex wrote:Ken and DAM look to me Iike two kids debating whether Almond Joy or Mounds is the better candy bar.

I am actually surprised anyone would, or would even be bothered, keeping up. Great to see that this may be of some interest to others though.

"Looks" can be deceiving. That may be what it looks like to you but it is not really. I have just been trying, through clarifying questions, to understand how dam also got to see from 'God's' vantage point, (just to change the word for the One, once again). I have never said I like some thing better than some other thing nor have I ever said one way to get some where is better than another way.

i am just a very simple, and non-educated, person. I am only here to learn how to write and express from the real Self better. i am grateful humans are progressively evolving, and other people are also starting to see and observe from The One Witness. Understanding HOW others got here also will help me in revealing HOW to reach full enlightenment, which will then produce the One outcome that we ALL collectively truly want for our selves and want for Our One true Self, i.e., living together in peace and harmony.

ken wrote:

Reflex wrote:Ken and DAM look to me Iike two kids debating whether Almond Joy or Mounds is the better candy bar.

I am actually surprised anyone could, or could even be bothered, keeping up. Great to see that this may be of some interest to others though.

"Looks" can be deceiving. That may be what it looks like to you but it is not really. I have just been trying, through clarifying questions, to understand how dam also got to see from 'God's' vantage point, (just to change the word for the One, once again). I have never said I like some thing better than some other thing nor have I ever said one way to get some where is better than another way.

i am just a very simple, and non-educated, person. I am only here to learn how to write and express from the real Self better. i am grateful humans are progressively evolving, and other people are also starting to see and observe from The One Witness. Understanding HOW others got here also will help me in revealing HOW to reach full enlightenment, which will then produce the One outcome that we ALL collectively truly want for our selves and want for Our One true Self, i.e., living together in peace and harmony.

Whatever. I am always bemused by by posters who say they neither believe or disbelieve without qualifying it in some way. It makes me wonder how they can function in the world or contribute to society. But, hey, even rocks have something to contribute, I suppose. They don't believe or disbelieve, either.

Dontaskme wrote:

ken wrote:
But as dontaskme sometimes, contradictorily, insist

Dontaskme wrote:There is no observer.

If this is dontaskme's truth, then dontaskme will never see, know, nor understand.

There is no observer because there is no other than the observer which is illusory. The ''other'' being illusory, not the act of ''observing'' itself.

If there is no observer, then there is also no witness AND there is no seer also, is this correct?

If this is not correct, then what is the difference between 'observer', 'witness', and 'seer'?

Dontaskme wrote:Enlightenment is neither achieved nor realised. Enlightenment is clarity that every moment of life is non-dual but appears as dual in the
mind.

Although 'Life', It Self, may be non-dual, Life at Its most fundamental level is made up of two things, i.e., physical things and the non-physical space between and/or around a physical thing.

Besides Everything It Self being the One, living, i.e.,non-dual Life, every other thing is alive as well. Life, as One, may or may not be infinite and eternal. But all the other separate things come into being, evolve, i.e., change in shape and form, and then end. Even human beings themselves are made up of two things, i.e., physical visible matter (brain/body) and non-physical invisible "matter" (thoughts). When the invisible thoughts actually occur within the head these, by the way, are the only things that can ever been known for absolutely sure. All physical matter may only be an illusion? But i digress.

What is the 'mind'?

Just like every single thing evolves into its unique self, the (eternal/infinite?) Universe also evolves into Its uniques Self. The Universe has created through evolution an intelligent enough species, i.e., human beings, to NOW be able to see, understand, and with the right words, reason what It actual Self really IS. The Mind It Self is the only thing that is able to see, observe and witness this.

Dontaskme wrote:And yeah one could call it contradictive...Upanishads precisely documented that enlightenment is ‘neither this nor that’ (neti neti).

Repeating what others say, in of itself, is not necessarily productive in getting "your" point across. If you yourself can not explain something with your own words, then using other people's words will not necessarily help you.

And trying to use the word 'precisely' does not fool me.

Instead of "precisely documenting" that any thing is neither this nor that, i think a better thing to do would be to 'precisely document' what that thing actually is, which is what I am exploring how to do, accurately and non-ambiguously.

By the way, 'enlightenment', to me, for now, is actually being able to see from within from pure light with no obscurity, blackouts, nor black spots. En-lighten-ment is the light with-in showing what is absolutely clear and distinct Truth. In-tuition is the Tutor with-in. Both are the One that lays way down deep past any of preconceived ideas, thoughts and beliefs that stop a separate self person from uncovering and finding/discovering the One real and true Self.

Dontaskme wrote:Please get past this hurdle ...otherwise we have nothing further to say to each other.

Truthfully i think "this (so called) hurdle" has been long past. What exactly is the hurdle?
1. a person "precisely documented" something,
2. that enlightenment is neither this or that.
3. Enlightenment is neither achieved nor realised.
4. Enlightenment is clarity that every moment of life is non-dual
5. there is no observer.

you have not explained clearly what these actually mean, for example, just saying enlightenment is clarity that every moment of life is non-dual does NOT really say anything. The only thing it does for me is show me your belief. Again, this belief that you are trying dearly to hold onto is NOT the Truth. Although that belief may in fact have some truth in it it is in have a belief, itself, that will always stop you from seeing and learning the Truth.

1. just because you use the word clarity does not in of itself mean that there is clarity. I have already explained how Life IS actually non-dual but made up of at least two fundamental and separate dual things. I think the reason you are not able to make clear what you say is clarity and what that actually is is because you believe things have to be one or that other. Let me guess you pick one side or the other in disputes, arguments, etc. Would I be wrong in guessing that because you believe there is ONLY non-dual "thing" then that means nothing else could exist? If so, then how do you explain to 'others', which by definition means there is a separate thing, that there is in fact no other separate thing?

The Truth is the One Everything is made up of at least two things. So what does that do to duality?

I say non-dual and duality co-exist, equally. Just like creation and evolution, and, free will and determinism co-exist, equally. And, just like all the other supposedly "this" or "that" questions. In fact TOE is everything co-exists in equilibrium. All of which can be easily proven. But I digress again.

Also, did you not have a judgmental view about deciding in not having anything further to say and so commented about some one else "giving up" also, before in this post?

Reflex wrote:

ken wrote:

Reflex wrote:Ken and DAM look to me Iike two kids debating whether Almond Joy or Mounds is the better candy bar.

I am actually surprised anyone could, or could even be bothered, keeping up. Great to see that this may be of some interest to others though.

"Looks" can be deceiving. That may be what it looks like to you but it is not really. I have just been trying, through clarifying questions, to understand how dam also got to see from 'God's' vantage point, (just to change the word for the One, once again). I have never said I like some thing better than some other thing nor have I ever said one way to get some where is better than another way.

i am just a very simple, and non-educated, person. I am only here to learn how to write and express from the real Self better. i am grateful humans are progressively evolving, and other people are also starting to see and observe from The One Witness. Understanding HOW others got here also will help me in revealing HOW to reach full enlightenment, which will then produce the One outcome that we ALL collectively truly want for our selves and want for Our One true Self, i.e., living together in peace and harmony.

Whatever.

Why say "whatever"? Did you think i was being disrespectful or dismissive of you?

I just gave my view/s.

Reflex wrote:I am always bemused by by posters who say they neither believe or disbelieve without qualifying it in some way.

I am curious how many posters have you seen who also say this? Can you provide names I am very interested in chatting with them.

If you do not ask me/us to qualify it or anything in some way, then I would never know that you wanted me to. It is a funny thing humans tendency to be bemused and/or laugh at what others say, whilst also being to afraid to just ask qualifying or clarifying questions. The reason human beings do this is not funny, but "sitting back" and watching/witnessing/observing some of the things humans being do is extremely funny. So, what is it exactly do you want me to qualify for you? Your wish is my command. I thought saying I neither disbelieve nor believe in anything, except I believe in Self, in that the 'I' can do and achieve that what 'I' really want to do and achieve, speaks for itself. Is there anymore you would like Me to qualify for you?

Reflex wrote:It makes me wonder how they can function in the world or contribute to society. But, hey, even rocks have something to contribute, I suppose. They don't believe or disbelieve, either.

The best, simplest and easiest way to fill that inquisitive wonder in you is just ask Me how I can and do function in the "world" and contribute to society also. You will never learn if you never ask, and/nor listen.

'Wonder' is the greatest tool that the truly open Mind has. Wonder has led to all the human made creations. But wonderment all goes to waste if a wondering question is not answered nor if it is not sought to be answered.

Why do you believe that a person needs to believe or disbelieve?

Is a new born baby able to function? Does it believe or disbelieve anything at all?

Actually a baby/infant is a perfect example of how quickly, easily, and simply a person can learn without neither believing nor disbelieving. In within only a few years a new born baby can learn one or more languages and compared to any other animal know a considerable amount of information about the "world" in which it is living. This happens so quickly because it, the new born baby, is completely open to anything. Just look at what any new born baby can and does learn depending on what "world" time and place it is born into and brought up in. Unfortunately though because of this openness people can start believing in some things that are not actually true, for example, depending on the time and place some people believe that living with horse drawn vehicles would be impossible, some people believe that living with mobile phones would be impossible, some people even believe living without mobile phones and even money would be impossible, some people believe living in peace and harmony together would be impossible. Some people even start believing that human beings have to be believing or disbelieving in or to function in the "world". Although it is obvious how quickly language can be grasped and known by a newer human being because this person is more open, the just as obvious proof of how beliefs can stop people from learning is in how some adults tell (believes) itself that it could "never" learn another language. When are person says that to them self are they also willing to admit that if they were just born into another place where the "other" language is spoken that they then could also never learn that language? People tend to tell themselves things are not actually true at all, then when they start believing those untruths the obvious becomes apparent. They start to teach those "beliefs" to their younger newly born open ones who can and sometimes will, because of this complete openness, then start believing what they are told to believe. If a person themselves very strongly believe something, then they will very strongly try to pass on this same belief.

Being truly open or not having any beliefs at all is HOW human beings on a whole actually continue learning and progressively are learning faster and faster. If and when this fact is known and realized, then human beings will really "take off", for lack of better wording, and create the "world" in which we/they all truly want to live in.

How about you qualifying how you think/believe a human being could not function if it did not either believe or disbelieve? At the moment I can only see the opposite, but unlike you I have no beliefs nor disbeliefs that would stop me from seeing what the actual truth is. All you have to do now is provide some example or some evidence that proves a human being could not function nor contribute to society without either believing or disbelieving. Could you do this? If me in this human body is functioning and contributing to society without any beliefs/disbeliefs, then I am living proof.

I have already given you proof to what I say. If you can provide proof refuting this, then lets see it. I am, and would be, the first to acknowledge my inaccurate views.

You are conflating not-knowing with not having belief/disbelief.

(Looks to me you are espousing some pretty strong beliefs; e.g., "I have already given you proof to what I say. ")

Reflex wrote:You are conflating not-knowing with not having belief/disbelief.

Are you sure? How am I supposedly doing that exactly? Some examples?

Reflex wrote:(Looks to me you are espousing some pretty strong beliefs; e.g., "I have already given you proof to what I say. ")

I am not sure how you view 'belief'? But, if what I have given you is proof, then it is proof. If it is not proof, then I am open to that fact also. I am open and still waiting.

I do not know if my "proof" is right or wrong until others have viewed it and decided also. I stay OPEN like this ALWAYS. I just express how i see things. I just say what i think and give the reasons why i think that is right. Thinking something is right is FAR different from believing it is right. Also i observe things and i just express what I see. These are just my views, which together with what i only think is right is very FAR from having beliefs or disbeliefs.

ken wrote:These are just my views, which together with what i only think is right is very FAR from having beliefs or disbeliefs.

Seriously? How can you say that with a straight face?

ken wrote:
Also, did you not have a judgmental view about deciding in not having anything further to say and so commented about some one else "giving up" also, before in this post?

Yes you are correct, I said people are only interested in winning their opponent over to their side of the debate, including me...and when they fail to do so, they feel they have nothing further to discuss, and I agree with that. I mean what's the point in any discussion unless you want the other to see from your point of view? who is going to get into a discussion and then have to admit defeat or that they are wrong?

Usually people are so strongly fixated over their chosen beliefs that the last thing they are going to do is have those beliefs torn apart or annihilated completely. The point is we all hold our own truths within us already, some will be wise enough to know the real from the unreal truths, others will not be so wise and will never know real truth, they will always substitute their own beliefs over the clarity of real truth.

When we choose to share our truths, we often do so in the search for validation or else why bother sharing with others at all? if no validation comes ...it's pretty normal to back off. The thing about Nondual truth is there isn't any. Nondual truth means there is no truth to be known by another and that truth stands alone without a position. Nondual truth simply says that there is no one to take up the position of saying I know the truth, and only when that assumed position is let go of, will real truth remain. And that's all that needs to be understood. Knowing there is nothing to know or understand brings one from belief to clarity...

Reality is Nondual, it is a verb. Noun world is made up of illusory mental constructs appearing in and from nothing. Non-duality is duality ... because there is no such thing as no duality, there is only duality, how can you have no duality....on the other hand Duality is Nonduality because it's not two ..it's ONE appearing as two, and three, and four, and five and so forth...go forth and multiply... All numbers are imaginary numbers..the only real number is one or zero which are the same concept.

Nonduality is the same as Duality, they only differ in context....If there was only Nonduality, how could one reality exist? If there was only Duality this would imply two realities exist....that's why Duality couples with Non to make Nonduality....<< how can I explain that any better?

If there were no NON and there were just DUALITY that would imply two realities, how can there be two consciousnesses, or two awarenesses? there's only One reality and This is It...and it's called NONDUALITY... If you don't get that now you never will.

If people want to get into a debate about Nonduality then either they agree to agree with each other or agree to disagree with each other, otherwise the conversation will more often do one of two things, it will either go on and on and on and on going round in circles going nowhere, or the conversation will be understood by both parties, even as each point of view appears to differ in their context. Authentic Nondual speakers when communicating with other Nondual speakers should be able to read between the lines at what's being pointed to...I can read you ken, but you obviously can't read me, and there is nothing I can do about that, and quite frankly I don't care about that...so I guess we'll have to call it quits.

You ask me to write in a way that others can understand, but it doesn't work like that, there is no way I can do that, I can write words about this subject to the moon and back and still won't be able to help others in their own understanding, that's not how enlightenment happens to humans. It does not happen by reading someone else's ideas unless they are themselves resonating with those ideas. The capacity to become enlightened is not found in how the words are presented, but in what they are actually pointing to. A person will either see or not see, if it happens, it will do so automatically and spontaneously. It will not be forced upon someone by reading through the thoughts beliefs, ideas and words of others. If you believe it works like that then so be it, but I don't.

Similarly I can read all the medical text books under the sun over and over again until I'm blue in the face.. but that's not going to make me a qualified brain surgeon. I either am a naturally born brain surgeon or I'm not. It either happens to me or it doesn't, it's the same with enlightenment, it either happens to a person or it doesn't.

Reflex wrote:

ken wrote:These are just my views, which together with what i only think is right is very FAR from having beliefs or disbeliefs.

Seriously? How can you say that with a straight face?

Yes. Easily.

Your response is further proof of how strong the belief system is. You are incapable of seeing into and understanding that sentence.

You appear to be controlled by some other thing, otherwise you would have taken control and provided even just one logical reasoned response to back up what you are saying here. Are 'you' being controlled by "your" beliefs?

You either refuse to give your view of what 'belief' means to you or you either are not capable of doing so.

Either way I have asked you well over six qualifying and clarifying questions NONE of which you replied to.

I have said I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) anything, besides what I have explained earlier, and I function very well.

You believe we are incapable of functioning without beliefs, so how do you explain those people who function very well without beliefs?

Whilst you continue to allow the belief system to override you you will continue the way you are, i.e., not answering questions.

Either what you believe here is false or you have a well thought out logical reasoned, sound, valid argument to provide.

Your next response will show all of us which one is in control.

ken wrote:
'Who' is the one in relation to "my" in 'my life'?

An idea believed.

ken wrote:How long is the "all" in 'all my life'?

As long as an idea believed is believed.

ken wrote:From when did you know I was not a separate self?

When I stopped believing I was. ...when that was I have no idea....I didn't check my watch as to the precise time and day or year.

ken wrote:Although I know exactly where you are coming from, from some other's perspectives your comments were appearing very silly from the onset. All I have done is try to help you better explain.I have already said numerous times that you have glimpsed the One true Observer, and as such you have had a glance, from this Seer. The difference is that 'you' and 'I' are NOT in the same understanding. 'you' can not explain clearly and distinctly what the Seer sees, nor how to even get to the Seers advantage point. 'you' still are only looking from the small observer perspective, i.e., the seer. 'I', on the other hand, CAN not only just explain extremely clearly and distinctly what the big and real true Seer sees and KNOWS I can also explain what the Seer IS, how the little pretending seers can get to HERE and NOW, where the true Seer sits AND how they all can become One with the Seer. In fact you are still in the confusion "stakes" in regards to what the Seer can and does KNOW.


I was just trying to help you see things clearer for you, and thus also be able to explain things clearer for others.

Aww, gee thanks for the generous offer to help me see this clearly, but believe me when I say to you, I've already worked this out for and all by myself thank you very much, I would advice you to save your much more superior knowledge on someone who is more appreciative rather than waste time on me.

Dontaskme wrote:If you can't see by now that I too am a seer....

ken wrote:I can see and KNOW you too are a seer, but unfortunately you only look, and observe, mostly from one separate brain only, i.e., what I call the little self, which is NOT the real and true big Self.

Prove that DAM only sees from the brain perspective? ...listen to yourself...just see if you actually know what you are talking about when you make statements like that by proving it to be true....your beginning to sound like an utter fool, and me thinks you like the sound of your own voice, and you are making this one feel like it's losing the will to live, you are now actually boring me to death.