Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

[Sculptor]

The point is, sure we die, the brain is dead, but a certain amount - perhaps just a reference point back to the Operating System - the 3rd party intellgence - then puts that reference into the matter of a rebirth.

HOW?

...IT (the 'OS') is more pervasive than an actual OS. IT is at the core of all existence - all matter - where matter is broken down to its most finite level - a binary level. It pervades ALL the matter within your brain, this I know from the TEST_AMEN_T tests. So that is HOW.

HOW?

[AlexW]

Maybe when you (meaning: Age) stop projecting your complete and utter bullshit responses in saying this can be explained via language - will you finally SEE the ultimate truth in that there isn't any truth to be found in language. Except what is imagined in this conception aka a language as it is conceived via the language itself appearing as knowledge.
...
Obviously, of course, any so called imagined claimed truths about reality are imagined via the artifically placed imposisition of concepts, as there is actually zero availablity to the absolute truth as and through A CONCEPTUAL LANGUAGE because YOU already ARE THE ABSOLUTE prior to any concept of IT.

Very well said! Lovely!

I think the problem is that Age only believes in... oh no... wait... he doesn't have any beliefs:

I do not believe any thing.

"I do not believe any thing" sounds like a belief to me... but maybe to you, Age, this is a fact?
If its not a fact, what is it?
If it is, then what exactly is the difference between fact and belief?

To me, facts are not more than stubborn beliefs. Thus all you actually state are, to me, beliefs that you believe are facts (or truth, or whatever else you think it is).

I guess, we have very different points of view, simply because you only trust in what thought tells you, while I see thought as not more than a tool to navigate the conceptual worlds of language based human interaction, but never as a tool to state absolute truths.

Imagine you watch a movie called "Life". It shows great landscapes, rivers flowing, trees, animals, there is no human language present, just sounds, running water, the wind, the occasional bird... After each scene, maybe every 5mins or so, a narrator explains what is happening. "This is the river XYZ, it flows from A to B, the trees growing on its banks are called ABC trees... etc etc"
What is "true" and what is made up? Can any explanation of life - of this moment, here, now - ever be true?
If not, can it be false?
See, if something can never be true, then stating that it is false is useless - it makes no sense. What makes sense, to me, is to say, that a statement is neither true, nor is it false... it is simply a play of words, nothing more, not to be taken seriously, or even worse, for absolute truth.

[Age]

What is it that those 'things' known as "alexw" and "dontaskme" believe I believe is true?

Why do those 'things' known as "alexw" and "dontaskme" come to a forum, where words are used, to continually keep using words while insisting that words can NOT be used to explain that, 'that' what they are trying to explain, can not be explained, with and through words?

Do the ones known as "dontaskme" and "alexw" see the absolute illogical contradictions they continually make, and just how many they make in their 'words'?

Do they see just how hypocritical they are by continually saying and doing the same thing over and over again of repeating "words can not be used to explain 'this'?

If the 'ever-present Awareness' supposedly can not be explained in words, then what do they think the descriptive words 'ever-present' and 'Awareness' are exactly, if they are not descriptive words?

If you want to appear as though you know what you are talking about, then please refrain from describing and explaining things in and with words. Each time you do you are just reinforcing what I say can actually be done. Each time you two speak here in this forum you are verifying and confirming what I say is actually very true, very right, and very correct.

Each time you two speak here in this forum you two are falsifying what you two say and believe is True.

[AlexW]

What is it that those 'things' known as "alexw" and "dontaskme" believe I believe is true?

It seems you believe whatever thought tells you, while, at the same time, believe these are not beliefs but truths.

Why do those 'things' known as "alexw" and "dontaskme" come to a forum, where words are used, to continually keep using words while insisting that words can NOT be used to explain that, 'that' what they are trying to explain, can not be explained, with and through words?

I don't know... maybe we just like pointing our fingers at the moon

If the 'ever-present Awareness' supposedly can not be explained in words, then what do they think the descriptive words 'ever-present' and 'Awareness' are exactly, if they are not descriptive words?

They are fingers pointing at the moon (to spell it out for you: the moon is a symbol for reality, the finger is a symbol for the descriptions used within the conceptual framework that is being employed for communication... I have said that multiple times, but it seems you either don't understand or ignore it deliberately... anyway our conceptual understanding is so far apart that we seem to not have many things in common... and thus we find no common ground... but it really doesn't matter, does it?)

Have you ever read the Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 1?

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

That says it all, doesn’t it?

[Dontaskme]

If you want to appear as though you know what you are talking about, then please refrain from describing and explaining things in and with words.

Listen, you seriously need to refrain from telling other people how to think.

When I use words to talk about a subject that I know to be implicitly and ultimately tacit ...ABSENT of any mad-made story or concept imposed upon it. Then believe me when I say to you I really do know what I am talking about because I have had personal DIRECT EXPERIENCE of what I am talking about. And yes ironically words are all I've got to talk about what I know to be tacit. What else am I supposed to use on a public forum to talk about this subject...would you prefer I use 'jellybeans' ?

I also use words to convey a silent knowledge and understanding, and this comprehension is unique to the character 'dontaskme'.
In regards to what I understand or don't understand. I KNOW WHAT I KNOW and nothing you say in opposition to what I know will change that. And yes I already understand the contradictive nature of langauge and it's dual nature when talking about the tacit nature of nondual reality, so stop with the constant lecturing and patronising people with your relentless condecending put downs of other peoples opinions.

If you don't agree or like what I talk about then don't get involved, leave it, or reject it, it's your choice. Know and respect the fact that I don't resonate with any of your counter arguments to my ideas. And that communicating with you, for me, is like being trapped inside a washing machine where the flow of conversation can be compared to a jumbled mixed up mess where my head feels like it is spinning out of control. I simply don't want to engage in such discussions. When are you going to accept that people have their own opinions and see that no two people ever see reality in the exact same way, nor will they ever express their seeing via their story in a way that EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS collectively ..which is what you BELIEVE can be possible. Well allow me to disagree with you on that belief. This is what you fail to understand due to your ignorance which is seen by nearly every poster on this forum except you yourself.


Age, you will just have to accept that not every one on this forum sees reality in quite the same way as you do, you need to understand this and mind your own business, resisiting the temptation to force your own business on other nondual thinkers is a hard dicipline that you have yet to master.

.

[Dontaskme]

Very well said! Lovely!

Thank you too!

[surreptitious57]

So what evidence do you have that the Universe has no purpose at all

I do not think that a non biological entity can be said to have a purpose

And what evidence do you have that the Universe is not a biological entity ?

Is the earth to you a biological entity ?

Most of the Universe is empty space which is non biological

No the Earth is not a biological entity as such although it does contain life forms

[surreptitious57]

Is there actual evidence that PROVES with I00 % certainty that there is :

I cosmic expansion at the local boundary ?

2 cosmic expansion beyond the local boundary ?

3 Is the local boundary or even beyond that actually the Universe Itself ?

I Yes there is evidence of local cosmic expansion

2 No there is no evidence for the non observable Universe

3 Yes local cosmic expansion is definitely a part of the Universe

[Age]

What is it that those 'things' known as "alexw" and "dontaskme" believe I believe is true?

It seems you believe whatever thought tells you, while, at the same time, believe these are not beliefs but truths.

What seems to you could not be further away from what is actually right and correct.

Look again and you might see that what I wrote is an absolutely OPEN question asked for clarification. You not being able to see this for what it truly is a great sign and clue that you have an assumption and/or belief behind your ability to see the Truth here.

You are still STUCK on your own WRONG perception on what I said in regards to the word 'thought.'

I suggest if you want to KNOW what I am actually saying and meaning you answer my completely OPEN clarifying questions and just ask me what I mean instead of your continual believing, based on your assumptions, which are based upon your previous experiences.

You could not have taken my comment on The only thing I can know 100% for sure are the thoughts within this body. Just so you are absolutely clear what this means, this means that absolutely EVERY 'thought' within this body could actually be completely and utterly WRONG and INCORRECT.

By the way, so you are AWARE of this also, 'thoughts', themselves, are the LAST THING I listen to or follow. I rely on KNOWING and NOT on THINKING.

Just maybe it might be better, for you, if you find out what I am actually saying and MEANING before you make up ridiculous assumptions, and before jumping to obviously WRONG conclusions, like you obviously have above here.

Why do those 'things' known as "alexw" and "dontaskme" come to a forum, where words are used, to continually keep using words while insisting that words can NOT be used to explain that, 'that' what they are trying to explain, can not be explained, with and through words?

I don't know... maybe we just like pointing our fingers at the moon

That is FINE, but you keep trying to tell us what the "moon", and you keep telling us that the "moon" can not be understood nor explained by and with words, which some could be inferring that you are trying to tell us that we do NOT know what you KNOW, and we never will know through words. Yet the way you explain this shows that the only way you KNOW this is from the words of "others".

Also, saying words can not explain this, could be seen as, 'If you can not explain some thing simply, then you do not understand it well enough. From the way you and the one known as "dontaskme" explains this, this seems exactly what the Truth IS. To me, you are both on the very right track of what is the actual Truth of things, but only when you stop with the self-fulfilling prophecy of "Words can not explain this", then only then will you start actually achieving what you both seem to be so obviously trying so hard to achieve.

Just because people throughout history in the past could not explain this with words, then this is in NO WAY an indication of what will, to me, obviously happen, and happen not that very far in the future, from when this is being written.

If the 'ever-present Awareness' supposedly can not be explained in words, then what do they think the descriptive words 'ever-present' and 'Awareness' are exactly, if they are not descriptive words?

They are fingers pointing at the moon (to spell it out for you: the moon is a symbol for reality, the finger is a symbol for the descriptions used within the conceptual framework that is being employed for communication... I have said that multiple times, but it seems you either don't understand or ignore it deliberately...

I ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY UNDERSTAND what the 'descriptive words' "the moon" and "the finger" are MEANING, from your perspective, you do NOT need to explain this to me. You also do NOT need to even try to tell me nor try to explain to me what the Awareness thing Itself actually IS. I ALREADY KNOW ALL-OF-THIS as well. Remember it is 'I' who says ALL-OF-THIS can be explained very easily and very simply. And, remember it is 'you' two who have absolutely NO idea at all of how to explain ALL-OF-THIS, which to some is a clear sign that you two do NOT understand this well enough.

anyway our conceptual understanding is so far apart that we seem to not have many things in common... and thus we find no common ground... but it really doesn't matter, does it?)

Does anything really matter?

If you want to keep insisting that 'this' can not be explained through words, then so be it. That is fine with me, but why do you two appear to get so frustrated and annoyed when I just say that 'this' can be very easily and very simply literally explained and understood, with, by, and through words?

Have you ever read the Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 1?

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

That says it all, doesn’t it?

I can SEE where you got the belief, which you have now, from, which is more or less what I have been saying all along here.

NO, that does NOT say it all, to me. That just says in the past people did not know how to explain what it is they were understanding. As I have already pointed out this is just like the preacher telling their students/followers, "There are some things we are not meant to know".

Expressing the above is more or less saying, "Do not ask me any further questions regarding 'this' because I do not know how to explain any thing further to you".

The 'eternal Tao', the 'eternal name', the 'nameless', is just the Universe, Itself, in the physical visible sense, AND, the Mind, Itself, in the Spiritual invisible sense.

'This' really is just this simple, and easy, to explain AND understand.

Now, I am NOT expecting you to believe what I say and mean nor to even listen to what I say and mean, but each time you explain, in words, that there is 'some thing' that can not be explained in words, then I can and may express that this is NOT correct, because I KNOW exactly how that 'some thing' can be very easily, and very simply, explained and understood, in words.

Just because 'you', in the year when this is written, can not yet do some thing, then this does NOT mean that it can not happen forever more. Is this understood?

Also, just because 'you' believe some thing is true, because you are relying on what "others" have written or said, also does NOT mean that it is actually true also. Is this understood?

[surreptitious57]

Reality is non dual in the sense that it is eternal and infinite and all points within it are interconnected
Brains are a part of it but they sometimes perceive themselves as being separate from it which is false
Something that is within something cannot be separate from it but first person subjective perspective can fool brains into thinking otherwise
But from a Gods Eye perspective looking at reality from the outside everything including brains is a part of reality with nothing being separate

When the finger is pointing at the moon it is important to remember that both of them are a part of reality not just the moon
The finger may be language which is a conceptual framework for explaining reality but language itself is also a part of reality
All concepts occurring within brains are a part of reality including the false concept that reality only exists outside brains
Reality is both inside and outside brains just as it is both inside and outside all physical objects and organisms in existence

The reality that brains perceive is not absolute because sense perception is very limited but brains however can understand it conceptually
As I have already mentioned it has three main characteristics - it is all there is / it is eternal and infinite / it is in a perpetual state of change
This is what it is at a fundamental level but brains cannot fully understand how it all functions because absolute knowledge is just not possible
So while brains can experience reality they can never truly know it no more than anything can and so this is a fundamental truth to be learned

[surreptitious57]

I accept the non duality of reality but I do not accept the concept of Awareness as a fundamental feature of reality
The knowing that occurs within brains is just a characteristic of their existence as a physical entity and nothing else
From a Gods Eye perspective this is simply a part of reality and no more and only brains think it has any significance
But that is because they see things from a first person subjective perspective which is where all concepts come from

When brains eventually cease to exist there will still be reality but reality does not need brains but brains however need reality
So all concepts both true and false will be no more when brains are no more and reality will carry on existing like it always has

[AlexW]

By the way, so you are AWARE of this also, 'thoughts', themselves, are the LAST THING I listen to or follow. I rely on KNOWING and NOT on THINKING.

Interesting... can you please let me know your definition of KNOWING vs THINKING?
What exactly is the difference? How do you rely on KNOWING - how does that exactly work?

The 'eternal Tao', the 'eternal name', the 'nameless', is just the Universe, Itself, in the physical visible sense, AND, the Mind, Itself, in the Spiritual invisible sense.

Is this your explanation for "ALL-OF-THIS" ?
If so, great, what an amazing feat! You used the words "Universe" and "Mind" and gave them attributes of "physical visible" and "Spiritual invisible"...
Now... how would that explanation help anyone?
All I can see is that it will confuse people and make them believe that there is some tangible thing called "universe" and another one called "mind" - a physical thing versus an invisible thing... But hey, if you like your own explanation that's great - keep believing in it!
As long as I don't have to, its fine with me.

[AlexW]

Reality is non dual in the sense that it is eternal and infinite and all points within it are interconnected
Brains are a part of it but they sometimes perceive themselves as being separate from it which is false
...
When the finger is pointing at the moon it is important to remember that both of them are a part of reality not just the moon
The finger may be language which is a conceptual framework for explaining reality but language itself is also a part of reality
All concepts occurring within brains are a part of reality including the false concept that reality only exists outside brains

As I see it: "reality" has no parts, there are no points to be connected - parts are ultimately not real and what is not real can not be reality.

But then again, all we can talk about are these apparent parts of reality - but they are all conceptual entities...
Thus the question is: How real is a part? How real is a concept? How real is a thought? Or a brain? Or a tree?

If reality ultimately has no parts, does it make sense to believe that they are actually real?
To me, it makes sense to think that they "exist" - as existence is again a (time bound) concept, no attribute of reality - but not that they are actually real. Only reality is real - parts may be thought to exist (which is an amazing thing humans can do), but this doesn't make them real.

That's also why I said previously: reality neither exists, nor does it not exist. It's before/beyond all conceptual borders.

[surreptitious57]

Reality has parts to it but only human beings with their complex brains understand this
This is because in order to understand it they have to break it up into manageable bits
Reality itself is not aware of this because it is not capable of introspection of any kind

Human beings thinking about reality is part of reality too because all concepts within brains occur within reality
This is true regardless of whether or not the concepts in question are true or false as they still exist either way

[AlexW]

Reality has parts to it but only human beings with their complex brains understand this

Can something that has no limits, no boundaries really have parts?
If it had parts then it would have to have an unlimited number of parts, right? Doesn't this render the idea of parts actually being real - of reality being made up of limited things - a toothless concept?

This is because in order to understand it they have to break it up into manageable bits

Well.. but reality doesn't ask to be understood. Its only something we think (in our compartmental dream of a dualistic reality) is so important...

Human beings thinking about reality is part of reality too because all concepts within brains occur within reality

To me, it is not part of reality - it is undivided reality itself.
Also, nothing occurs in reality, neither inside nor outside... there is no room for activity. This doesn't mean that we cannot perceive apparent constant change - actually all we perceive is constant change - but reality itself is not changing in the slightest.

Let me try to explain it like this: Reality is like air - the same air can fill a square container as it can fill a round one - the air doesn't change, while the container seems to change... but the container is not real (there really is no container, there is only air appearing as a container), only the air is real... We though only see the container (the form, the concept, a thing) and believe it is actually real while actually the opposite is true - the "invisible" air is real and the form is just an "illusion".
But we call this illusion existence, or life, we believe it has a start and an end, and countless steps in between... quite amazing

This is true regardless of whether or not the concepts in question are true or false as they still exist either way

Yes, they exist, but they are not real.