Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:


The man has no way of knowing he is alive or dead.
..

Like this stupidity.

It's not stupid, it's fact. ...n.

FFS!

Dontaskme wrote:
Nothing can be known by man, without first understanding the original fundamental knower.

For everyone concerned, above is what was written, and not - Nothing can be known by man,

Please learn to quote properly, otherwise others are bothered on the forum.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Like this stupidity.

It's not stupid, it's fact. ...n.

FFS!

It's not your fault you do not understand Hobbes, you are following your cultural conditioning that has been spoon fed to you from birth. And you have probably not learnt to think in any other way - you have been a sheeple... not your fault. The world has a funny way of distracting you from real truths.

If you look deeply enough into the nature of reality like I've done and science and mathematicians will also confirm this. You will realise that there is no separate entity at the heart of it all...by that I mean no separate consciousness or awareness or what ever we want to call this life.

Life has no way of knowing it is alive or dead. That knowledge is a reflection of the seer awareness that cannot be seen. All it does is reflects itself, and that's all that is seen and known....All reflections are mirages.

A baby in the womb is life - and lets not confuse the word ''Life'' with the word ''Birth''

The baby is life but doesn't have any concept is it alive or dead. Only knowledge informs illusory reality.

Now..reality is real enough, it's just that there is no separate entity living it...do you see?


The baby was informed of such concepts via other, aka knowledge which is illusory since there is no other - there's just LIFE...all alone, all one.

NO beginning OR end to Life is never seen,known, or found. That's the real truth about existence. But what we do is we believe the lie of duality....however, this too is part and parcel of the nature of consciousness in the human experience, it is necessary for human to have knowledge in order for them to function and interact with each other sanely in the world.

But on deeper inspection, it has been the I ...of... I am this, and you are that,....that has been the cause of all misery and suffering in the world today.

Beauty wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
Nothing can be known by man, without first understanding the original fundamental knower.

For everyone concerned, above is what was written, and not - Nothing can be known by man,

Please learn to quote properly, otherwise others are bothered on the forum.

Yes, Beauty is correct. Nothing I write is truth, it's illusory knowledge. All Knowing is tacit. And you are that.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
It's not stupid, it's fact. ...n.

FFS!

It's not your fault you do not understand Hobbes,.

Idiots like you are always hard to understand. I do not feel any problem associated with that, it's more of a compliment - thanks.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
FFS!

It's not your fault you do not understand Hobbes,.

Idiots like you are always hard to understand.

Mystics are not idiots, they are home safe and well. It's the one who thinks a mystic is an idiot who is the idiot.

The mystic knows that it is ''the last idiot''..meaning there is nothing that can come after the one and only...peace out.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:


Idiots like you are always hard to understand.

.


The birth and death of I is an appearance - it comes and goes. <<<<<<<(UNREAL) <<<< you are that as a fictional character.

The fictional character comes and goes ...In that which is always here without beginning or end. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<(REAL) <<<<<< you are that as the eternal source of the real fictional character.




The birth and death of I is the illusory you ..because prior to your birth and after your death there is no trace of you.

The eternal source of all the appearances of you is unknowable...and yet that unknowable manifests as the illusory known ''I am'' everywhere.

This image explains it all in just one simple picture....https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 516a9e.jpg




Do you understand that Hobbes?

Why ridicule someone who has had the foresight to envision this? ....It always puzzles me why man chooses to be so ignorant.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:


Idiots like you are always hard to understand.

.


The birth and death of I is an appearance - it comes and goes. <<<<<<<(UNREAL) <<<< you are that as a fictional character.

The fictional character comes and goes ...In that which is always here without beginning or end. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<(REAL) <<<<<< you are that as the eternal source of the real fictional character.




The birth and death of I is the illusory you ..because prior to your birth and after your death there is no trace of you.

The eternal source of all the appearances of you is unknowable...and yet that unknowable manifests as the illusory known ''I am'' everywhere.

This image explains it all in just one simple picture....https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 516a9e.jpg




Do you understand that Hobbes?

Why ridicule someone who has had the foresight to envision this? ....It always puzzles me why man chooses to be so ignorant.

Your answer was so bad you had to try it twice LOL.

Dontaskme wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Another good question is, "Who are you before thoughts enter into the mind?"

Yeah I like that one too. It's like there are two you's.

There's the you that's prior to thought. and there's the you that is thought. You that's prior to thought has to be in order for thought to appear. But the prior you doesn't know it's you until the thought you appears. So the prior you that is prior to you is in fact the only you there is because the thought is appearing in you.

Doh!!

And we both know who the prior "you" is hey dontaskme?

The way I separate the two is there is the real and true knowing I, and the thinking i.

The capital I is the One who can see, understandand knows all of 'you,' the small i's, which ken is also one of.

The I, is the collective of all the i's. This I is the One who is sometimes referred to as the Spirit, Allah, Sage, Enlightenment, et cetera.

The I is God in the spiritual form. While ALL physical things is God in the physical form

ken wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Another good question is, "Who are you before thoughts enter into the mind?"

Yeah I like that one too. It's like there are two you's.

There's the you that's prior to thought. and there's the you that is thought. You that's prior to thought has to be in order for thought to appear. But the prior you doesn't know it's you until the thought you appears. So the prior you that is prior to you is in fact the only you there is because the thought is appearing in you.

Doh!!

And we both know who the prior "you" is hey dontaskme?

The way I separate the two is there is the real and true knowing I, and the thinking i.

The capital I is the One who can see, understandand knows all of 'you,' the small i's, which ken is also one of.

The I, is the collective of all the i's. This I is the One who is sometimes referred to as the Spirit, Allah, Sage, Enlightenment, et cetera.

The I is God in the spiritual form. While ALL physical things is God in the physical form

Yes, I agree with the way you see it Ken. And it's beautiful how you've personally described it, thanks for that.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Your answer was so bad you had to try it twice LOL.

My answer was the only answer. It wasn't my bad it was yours, through lack of understanding, aka ignorance.

If at first you don't succeed, try and try again. ..As for me aka this one here, I'm all out of tries. In other words, I don't need to try to be.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Your answer was so bad you had to try it twice LOL.

My answer was the only answer. It wasn't my bad it was yours, through lack of understanding, aka ignorance.

If at first you don't succeed, try and try again. ..As for me aka this one here, I'm all out of tries. In other words, I don't need to try to be.

Please refer to the answers I have already made.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Your answer was so bad you had to try it twice LOL.

My answer was the only answer. It wasn't my bad it was yours, through lack of understanding, aka ignorance.

If at first you don't succeed, try and try again. ..As for me aka this one here, I'm all out of tries. In other words, I don't need to try to be.

Please refer to the answers I have already made.

You cannot make an answer without a question?

So what was your question again ?..I forgot