Philosophy Now Forum

Relinquish wrote:
Discard ALL conceptual answers and DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE what remains

Experiencing reality is certainly way easier than explaining it but that can
not however satisfy the curiosity or desire to try and understand what it is

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:37 am

Relinquish wrote:
Discard ALL conceptual answers and DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE what remains

Experiencing reality is certainly way easier than explaining it but that can
not however satisfy the curiosity or desire to try and understand what it is

There is always a natural curiosity to understand ourselves.

However, using the mind to reach yourself is ironically counter productive.

For the seeker...The dawning will come spontaneously, no amount of trying to understand will make the dawn come if dawn is not ready to come. It either dawns or it doesn't.

Every person that awakens to the dream is the end of suffering for that person, and that in turn is a gift to the world.



.

Relinquish wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:35 am It seems that a deep acknowledgement of this unsolvable mystery may be the most 'open-eyed' stance that could be taken.

But there is NO unsolvable mystery. AGAIN, just because at present you are unable to solve a supposed mystery does NOT mean, in of itself,
that there IS any unsolvable mystery.

The assumption you make here is extremely preconceived, especially considering that I had previously asked you clarify questions in regards to this, and if you had answered them, then your contradictions would have become quite clear, without Me having to point them out for you.

Relinquish wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:35 amWhat is seen by these open-most eyes? Any accepted answer (no matter HOW all-inclusive it SEEMS to be) will effectively obscure it.

Obscure what?

Relinquish wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:35 amDiscard ALL conceptual answers, and DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE what remains.

The way to solve ALL, previous, mysteries and discover ALL, new, knowledge (as I have been saying all along) is to look from a truly open perspective.

How do you think human beings were able to to obtain all that they have created now? Human beings have had to be able to solve ALL previously perceived mysteries to be able to get to where they are now.

Being able to move past this present greedy, war-torn, polluting and stressful way of life that human beings, on a whole live now, in order to create a much better life for themselves just takes remaining wholly and completely open to be able to see and discover what reality truly is. That "mystery" like all other "mysteries" will be solved.

Understanding this is just one of the many supposed "mysteries" that human beings have had to discover and solve before they can create what they all truly want.

Assuming and believing that some things are unknowable and that there are some mysteries that can not be solved IS NOT having open-eyes. In fact making assumptions and having beliefs is having very closed-eyes, and is therefore the very opposite of being open.

Also, you have alluded to that it is possible to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE reality, which contradicts exactly what you have been saying all along. That is if you could directly experience what Reality IS, then you could know what It IS, so then there would NOT be a mystery. And, that is why I continually say why not just look at what IS, before assuming and believing any thing first, which just means always remain OPEN, which could also be construed as look with open-eyes.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:19 am

ken wrote:
BUT you are trying to blame Me. You are using My presumed reaction to your words for not further expanding on
your answer so it is not a false claim at all. Read into what you are writing. What you are trying to do is obvious
It is a false claim for your presumed reaction is not at all my reason for not wishing to expand upon my answer

Two things here, I have not had a 'presumed reaction', and, what I said is NOT a false claim. YOU were the one who clearly stated that you would not expand on your answer because YOU presumed that I would have some sort of reaction. That reaction being that if you had expanded then that may not provide any more clarity for Me. That WAS the reason YOU gave for not expanding your answer further.

-----------------------------

Saying you see no reason to expand on your answer because it may not provide any more clarity for you
IS trying to blame Me for you not expanding on you answer. This does totally contradict what you have previously said
I said it may not provide any more clarity for you which does not mean it definitely would not provide any more for you

Why did you say this? I NEVER said it like you are proposing here. In fact I wrote exactly what you wrote. AGAIN, you are twisting things around. Do you do this purposely trying to get others not notice what you have said, to shift focus on to some other thing, or for some other reason?

--------------------------

Either way I have no wish to expand upon the definition I already gave as I was not intending to expand upon it anyway

Well if you had just said previously that you do not intend to do so, instead of trying to shift the blame onto some thing else, namely Me, then I would have just left it at that.

-------------------------------

Of course you have no more to say about this because you are unable to say any more
You are totally unable to expand on your answer. You can not explain it any further
So then why not just accept what I have said as the best possible answer I can give

Well if you had previously stated that that is the best and only answer you could give, then of course I would accept that. But when you try to blame Me, with some perceived assumed reaction that I might have, for you not expanding on your answer, especially when your answer did not really relate to the question, then of course I am going to show what you are doing. Even if you could not recognize it.

---------------------------

You also have no more to say because you do not want to look into what you are actually
doing and saying here. You also do not want others to see what you are doing and saying here
Both of these truth claims are false and so you therefore have no evidence for either of them

YOU, through your own words, have already provided ALL the evidence I need. So, I will let others decide if My claims are false or not.

ken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:12 am
Assuming and believing that some things are unknowable and that there are some mysteries that can not be solved IS NOT having open-eyes. In fact making assumptions and having beliefs is having very closed-eyes, and is therefore the very opposite of being open.

Also, you have alluded to that it is possible to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE reality, which contradicts exactly what you have been saying all along. That is if you could directly experience what Reality IS, then you could know what It IS, so then there would NOT be a mystery. And, that is why I continually say why not just look at what IS, before assuming and believing any thing first, which just means always remain OPEN, which could also be construed as look with open-eyes.

I think you are totally not open enough to see what Relinquish means by Direct Experience.

Direct experience means to see for ITSELF BY ITSELF...that a mystery is no mystery//and, or that no mystery is a mystery.

Nothing can be known without also knowing it's opposite known.

You are totally missing the point of what direct experience is.

.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:13 pm
Ah.... I see. You are no thing, so I can ignore you. And since you can't recognise "me", "I" as a distinct entity then you ought to be ignoring me too.
Since you actually responded to my post, you must recognise its thing-ness, so you are in contradiction.

Go back to reading your early learning books, and leave the masters to their knowledge.


The contradiction has already been shown why it needs to exist in this thread.

If you knew this subject throughly you would see that any contradiction is an illusion.

Stick to what you know. But don't try to sway others from what they know, just because you don't understand it yet.
.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:04 am

ken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:12 am
Assuming and believing that some things are unknowable and that there are some mysteries that can not be solved IS NOT having open-eyes. In fact making assumptions and having beliefs is having very closed-eyes, and is therefore the very opposite of being open.

Also, you have alluded to that it is possible to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE reality, which contradicts exactly what you have been saying all along. That is if you could directly experience what Reality IS, then you could know what It IS, so then there would NOT be a mystery. And, that is why I continually say why not just look at what IS, before assuming and believing any thing first, which just means always remain OPEN, which could also be construed as look with open-eyes.

I think you are totally not open enough to see what Relinquish means by Direct Experience.

Direct experience means to see for ITSELF BY ITSELF...that a mystery is no mystery//and, or that no mystery is a mystery.

Nothing can be known without also knowing it's opposite known.

You are totally missing the point of what direct experience is.

.

Maybe I am, but to Me, dontaskme has repeatedly said that dontaskme does NOT know what it is talking about. What is written here is just more evidence of this.

Of course every thing has an opposite. The Theory Of Everything, in its most simplified level, IS there is an opposite of every thing, with equilibrium. The Universe, ITSELF, which is made up of two exactly opposite things sits in this equilibrium.

The reason I found what I KNOW IS because of direct experience, which can only happen by being completely open, which means having NO beliefs, NO preconceptions, and NO assumptions whatsoever of what could be the case. By just being completely OPEN and by just experiencing what IS the case, then that is how ALL was able to be revealed to me.

I discovered what IS actually true, right and correct because i was totally and truly Honest, Open, and Wanting to change My self for the better. Discovering, and then thus KNOWING, who and what the 'I' actually IS and who and what the 'i' actually IS and how they are different, which came from direct experience of ITSELF, is what allowed Me to KNOW the answers to what was previously mysterious to me. KNOWING Reality now being just one of those what was a mystery previously.

ken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:34 am
Maybe I am, but to Me, dontaskme has repeatedly said that dontaskme does NOT know what it is talking about. What is written here is just more evidence of this.

Of course every thing has an opposite. The Theory Of Everything, in its most simplified level, IS there is an opposite of every thing, with equilibrium. The Universe, ITSELF, which is made up of two exactly opposite things sits in this equilibrium.

The reason I found what I KNOW IS because of direct experience, which can only happen by being completely open, which means having NO beliefs, NO preconceptions, and NO assumptions whatsoever of what could be the case. By just being completely OPEN and by just experiencing what IS the case, then that is how ALL was able to be revealed to me.

I discovered what IS actually true, right and correct because i was totally and truly Honest, Open, and Wanting to change My self for the better. Discovering, and then thus KNOWING, who and what the 'I' actually IS and who and what the 'i' actually IS and how they are different, which came from direct experience of ITSELF, is what allowed Me to KNOW the answers to what was previously mysterious to me. KNOWING Reality now being just one of those what was a mystery previously.

Yes Ken.

I know you have discovered what IS actually true. I know this because I've discovered it too. That's how I know you KNOW.

The problem is when we are using our avatars to tell other avatars the truth, it gets a bit confusing, simply because we are trying to talk about the only one that knows using words, which are dual in their nature, it's like trying to describe silence by filling it up with words....it's counter productive...the truth is tacit Ken, you know this and I know this. We ARE this.

We are, you are, I AM the LAST AVATAR.

.

Trying to get people to describe their knowing to others to see if their knowing is agreeable to the other cannot be done Ken...because that requires two...duality cannot point to nonduality without causing a contradiction....one can only be known, not explained.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:07 am

ken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:34 am
Maybe I am, but to Me, dontaskme has repeatedly said that dontaskme does NOT know what it is talking about. What is written here is just more evidence of this.

Of course every thing has an opposite. The Theory Of Everything, in its most simplified level, IS there is an opposite of every thing, with equilibrium. The Universe, ITSELF, which is made up of two exactly opposite things sits in this equilibrium.

The reason I found what I KNOW IS because of direct experience, which can only happen by being completely open, which means having NO beliefs, NO preconceptions, and NO assumptions whatsoever of what could be the case. By just being completely OPEN and by just experiencing what IS the case, then that is how ALL was able to be revealed to me.

I discovered what IS actually true, right and correct because i was totally and truly Honest, Open, and Wanting to change My self for the better. Discovering, and then thus KNOWING, who and what the 'I' actually IS and who and what the 'i' actually IS and how they are different, which came from direct experience of ITSELF, is what allowed Me to KNOW the answers to what was previously mysterious to me. KNOWING Reality now being just one of those what was a mystery previously.

Yes Ken.

I know you have discovered what IS actually true. I know this because I've discovered it too. That's how I know you KNOW.

We just disagree on what can be KNOWN.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:07 amThe problem is when we are using our avatars to tell other avatars the truth, it gets a bit confusing, simply because we are trying to talk about the only one that knows using words, which are dual in their nature, it's like trying to describe silence by filling it up with words....it's counter productive...the truth is tacit Ken, you know this and I know this. We ARE this.

We are, you are, I AM the LAST AVATAR.

.

Trying to get people to describe their knowing to others to see if their knowing is agreeable to the other cannot be done Ken...

It can be done, but it is a futile exercise, because adult human beings prefer to look for what is, perceived to be, wrong and point that out instead. That way they can feel more superior. They do this from lack of self-esteem. NOT knowing the real Self, means adult human beings are not sure of who they are, and not knowing who one is leaves them with some sort of inferiority complex. Also, the amount of varying and different knowing among all the varying, different people means that trying to find others to agree with ALL of our own knowing is near impossible.

That is why I say it is best to ALWAYS remain OPEN. Remaining fully OPEN is the best way to learn things, one for example being to learn how to explain that ALL things can be discovered and learned. By just asking others clarifying questions, instead of saying My knowing, I am able to see what is agreeable in others knowing. This also allows Me to learn far more.

That is why I prefer to only explain HOW I found and discovered new things, and allowing others to do as they please, and then let them explain what it was what they find. If we came to same answers, then we KNOW the answer/s we found are on the right path. The more who come to the same answers, by our selves, the more right the answer is. If we come to the same answers, then agreement is also achieved, with the least sense of biases being present. Also if agreement is reached this way, then it would be in the most peaceful way also. Peace and harmony would be reached in its truest form.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:07 ambecause that requires two...duality cannot point to nonduality without causing a contradiction....one can only be known, not explained.

.

But this ALL can be explained. Once the One and only true Self is KNOWN, then the ability of what It can do and achieve is also KNOWN, and from that KNOWING ALL things are possible.

ken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:51 pm
But this ALL can be explained. Once the One and only true Self is KNOWN, then the ability of what It can do and achieve is also KNOWN, and from that KNOWING ALL things are possible.

Well I suppose it can yes, but what I meant is that each explanation if going to differ in content, and content. Sages of all types have explained the true Self, and each account is different even though the overall message is the same message. That's all I'm pointing out to you Ken, do you not see that?

My message is ...

There is an instant KNOWING that is here right now ever present. You are that knowing.

You do not have to explain yourself to be you. YOU ARE ..WITHOUT DOUBT OR ERROR

A mind that seeks to explain itself is the contradiction...because that implies two, the knower and the known.

The mind doesn't have to split into knower and known to be what it is. But splitting is like a pair of scissors, once the cut is made, it can't be made whole again with the scissors, it's best not to make the cut in the first place and stay whole.

.

And I always agree to the truth that when all have realised COME TO KNOW their true Self, greatness can be accomplished in the world.. and suffering and misery will be a thing of the past.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:21 pm

ken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:51 pm
But this ALL can be explained. Once the One and only true Self is KNOWN, then the ability of what It can do and achieve is also KNOWN, and from that KNOWING ALL things are possible.

Well I suppose it can yes, but what I meant is that each explanation if going to differ in content, and content. Sages of all types have explained the true Self, and each account is different even though the overall message is the same message. That's all I'm pointing out to you Ken, do you not see that?

But you never had to point this out. I KNEW most of this already. What I did not know and what is wrong IS NO one, and I repeat, NO one has yet explained the true Self, correctly yet. If they had, then the rest would not be living as their pretentious selves.

Only when every thing is in agreement can the true Self be seen and recognized, for what It truly IS.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:21 pmMy message is ...

There is an instant KNOWING that is here right now ever present. You are that knowing.

Again, you did NOT need to tell Me this message. The first sentence I already KNEW, and again there is some thing incorrect, namely the second sentence. 'I' am the ALL-KNOWING that lives in the ever-present NOW. 'you' , ken, dontaskme, and all the other labelled human beings, are just people, who come into and out of existence, and while they are here they mostly just think they know. 'I' am the knowing and knower. 'you' are the thinking and thoughts.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:21 pmYou do not have to explain yourself to be you. YOU ARE ..WITHOUT DOUBT OR ERROR

EVERY thing could be said to be without doubt or error. BUT if there was no thing to doubt and no thing with error, then there would be no thing to change. And, change is inevitable. Also, if dontaskme can not see that the "world" that human beings create for themselves could not be become better, then I would say dontaskme is not seeing some things.

Obviously EVERY thing is perfect in the sense that how it ALL is NOW IS, and has to be, perfect, but this still does not dismiss the fact that ALL things change, including human beings, and human beings can make the "world" a better place for themselves and their children, or they could make it worse. The choice is solely up to them.

People do NOT have to explain themselves to be who they are. BUT when people are able to understand how they become who they are and they are explain this, then they will KNOW how to become better, more God-like if you like.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:21 pmA mind that seeks to explain itself is the contradiction...because that implies two, the knower and the known.

When dontaskme defines what the mind actually is, which is being talked about here, then we can further discuss.

Human beings explain things. Mind being just one thing that can very easily be explained.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:21 pm The mind doesn't have to split into knower and known to be what it is. But splitting is like a pair of scissors, once the cut is made, it can't be made whole again with the scissors, it's best not to make the cut in the first place and stay whole.

The ONLY thing I split to be able to explain ALL-THERE-IS is adult human beings from child human beings. This is done only from a necessary point of view to be able to explain how ALL the meaningful answers in Life can be found, which when discovered by the way solves ALL the supposed mysteries of Life also.

dontaskme is trying to use the word 'mind' as though dontaskme knows what it is exactly.
.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:21 pmAnd I always agree to the truth that when all have realised COME TO KNOW their true Self, greatness can be accomplished in the world.. and suffering and misery will be a thing of the past.

.

So, if the true Self IS the KNOWER of ALL things, the this Self can KNOW what Its Self IS. The Self will then be the KNOWER and the KNOWN, which will be easily proven is possible, when I am fully challenged and questioned about this.

ken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:19 pmWhen dontaskme defines what the mind actually is, which is being talked about here, then we can further discuss.

I define the mind as a thought ?

ken wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:19 pmSo, if the true Self IS the KNOWER of ALL things, the this Self can KNOW what Its Self IS. The Self will then be the KNOWER and the KNOWN, which will be easily proven is possible, when I am fully challenged and questioned about this.

Yes, the Self can know itself.

It's only a mystery because it's no mystery.

Congrats Ken, you have reached the one step beyond place.

Would you like me to play you a tune to celebrate?

.

ken wrote:...

Dontaskme wrote:...

To both of you:

Do you think that what you routinely speak of uniquely matters or is somehow significant when compared with other perspectives, and if so, to who does it uniquely matter, and why/how is it significant?

Do you prefer to detach from and/or deny your "selves", as if to speak and claim from a perspective that is "beyond" or "broader" than "that"? If so, who creates these definitions and boundaries?

Do you see yourself as a "knower" more than a creator -- and is knowing more real and important than creating?

ken wrote:
BUT you are trying to blame Me. You are using My presumed reaction to your words for not further expanding on
your answer so it is not a false claim at all. Read into what you are writing. What you are trying to do is obvious
It is a false claim for your presumed reaction is not at all my reason for not wishing to expand upon my answer

Two things here I have not had a presumed reaction and what I said is NOT a false claim. YOU were the one who clearly stated that you would
not expand on your answer because YOU presumed that I would have some sort of reaction. That reaction being that if you had expanded then
that may not provide any more clarity for Me. That WAS the reason YOU gave for not expanding your answer further

_________________________________

Saying you see no reason to expand on your answer because it may not provide any more clarity for you
IS trying to blame Me for you not expanding on you answer. This does totally contradict what you have previously said
I said it may not provide any more clarity for you which does not mean it definitely would not provide any more for you

Why did you say this? I NEVER said it like you are proposing here. In fact I wrote exactly what you wrote. AGAIN you are twisting things around
Do you do this purposely trying to get others to not notice what you have said to shift focus on to some other thing or for some other reason

_________________________________

Either way I have no wish to expand upon the definition I already gave as I was not intending to expand upon it anyway

Well if you had just said previously that you do not intend to do so instead of trying to
shift the blame on to some thing else namely Me I would have just left it at that then

_________________________________

Of course you have no more to say about this because you are unable to say any more
You are totally unable to expand on your answer. You can not explain it any further
So then why not just accept what I have said as the best possible answer I can give

Well if you had previously stated that that is the best and only answer you could give then of course I would accept that. But when you try
to blame Me with some perceived assumed reaction that I might have for you not expanding on your answer especially when your answer
did not really relate to the question then of course I am going to show what you are doing. Even if you could not recognize it as such

________________________________

You also have no more to say because you do not want to look into what you are actually
doing and saying here. You also do not want others to see what you are doing and saying here
Both of these truth claims are false and so you therefore have no evidence for either of them

YOU through your own words have already provided ALL the evidence I need. So I will let others decide if My claims are false

A shame all this had to be explained for it has no place in an otherwise excellent thread that could be read by everyone here
But how many other members of the forum part from ken and Dontaskme will actually bother reading what they have written

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:32 am

ken wrote:
BUT you are trying to blame Me. You are using My presumed reaction to your words for not further expanding on
your answer so it is not a false claim at all. Read into what you are writing. What you are trying to do is obvious
It is a false claim for your presumed reaction is not at all my reason for not wishing to expand upon my answer

Two things here I have not had a presumed reaction and what I said is NOT a false claim. YOU were the one who clearly stated that you would
not expand on your answer because YOU presumed that I would have some sort of reaction. That reaction being that if you had expanded then
that may not provide any more clarity for Me. That WAS the reason YOU gave for not expanding your answer further

_________________________________

Saying you see no reason to expand on your answer because it may not provide any more clarity for you
IS trying to blame Me for you not expanding on you answer. This does totally contradict what you have previously said
I said it may not provide any more clarity for you which does not mean it definitely would not provide any more for you

Why did you say this? I NEVER said it like you are proposing here. In fact I wrote exactly what you wrote. AGAIN you are twisting things around
Do you do this purposely trying to get others to not notice what you have said to shift focus on to some other thing or for some other reason

_________________________________

Either way I have no wish to expand upon the definition I already gave as I was not intending to expand upon it anyway

Well if you had just said previously that you do not intend to do so instead of trying to
shift the blame on to some thing else namely Me I would have just left it at that then

_________________________________

Of course you have no more to say about this because you are unable to say any more
You are totally unable to expand on your answer. You can not explain it any further
So then why not just accept what I have said as the best possible answer I can give

Well if you had previously stated that that is the best and only answer you could give then of course I would accept that. But when you try
to blame Me with some perceived assumed reaction that I might have for you not expanding on your answer especially when your answer
did not really relate to the question then of course I am going to show what you are doing. Even if you could not recognize it as such

________________________________

You also have no more to say because you do not want to look into what you are actually
doing and saying here. You also do not want others to see what you are doing and saying here
Both of these truth claims are false and so you therefore have no evidence for either of them

YOU through your own words have already provided ALL the evidence I need. So I will let others decide if My claims are false

A shame all this had to be explained for it has no place in an otherwise excellent thread that could be read by everyone here

How was this supposedly an excellent thread?

Most people here said that some things, including reality, is a mystery that can not be solved. I, on the other hand, said that ALL meaningful questions can be answered, thus all the supposed mysteries can be solved, and by the way already have been. What was so supposedly excellent about that?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:32 amBut how many other members of the forum part from ken and Dontaskme will actually bother reading what they have written

Who really cares? I do NOT.

If people want to engage, then they will. If they do not, then does it really matter? This thread will, like all threads do, stop when people stop engaging.

Once again, to Me you are just trying to turn the focus away from what you said and what you were doing.