Who or What Is God?

[sthitapragya]

The problem with your theory is that as soon as you talk about it, it becomes a known and therefore it is immediately proved false.

And allow me to explain why?

Why we tend to overthink this..



All that we know is by virtue of thought, and yet we can't even know thought itself, because every time we look at thought we don't see thought, we just see thoughts about thought. Even the thought we are talking about is created by the knowledge that is given to us.
So the thought is a self- auto-perpetuating mechanism. The body is not interested in that at all. The actions of the body are responses to the stimuli,and it has no separate, independent existence of it's own.

Unfortunately, time is the one that has created the beginning and the end, and it is interested in permanence, whereas the functioning of the body is immortal in it's own way, because it has no beginning, it is not born, so it has no death. So there is a death to the thought, but not to the body.
Thought tends to perpetuate itself, it does not want to come to an end. The mind doesn't exist, but even so it wishes to believe it is immortal.

It is interested in creating an artificial immortality of an entity, self.It knows in a way that it is coming to an end and it's survival, it's continuity,
it's status quo depends upon the continuity of the body. But body is not in any way involved with the thought, because it has no beginning, it has no end.

It is the thought that has created the two points - this is the birth and that is the death. So our illusion that We have a mind is born out of fear.

You explanation proves that you think you know and I don't. Which means you know. Which means you don't know. Therefore I am right.

See what I mean? You tell the world your theory and it immediately collapses on itself.

[sthitapragya]

That is my point. How do you know I am over thinking this? It is because you are sure have found a flaw in my thought process. Which means you claim to know something I do not. You say, "without knowledge of myself I am nothing." that is a declaration. It is something you claim to know. How can you make that claim? Everything you write is in the form of declaration. You claim to know what others do not. All the time. How does that work?

You are constantly pointing out that there is nothing to know which itself is a declaration that you know.

What I know is available for all to know. For all is this knowing. The trouble with you is you keep turning this message into an egoic battle of who is right and wrong, and it's not about that, but you are too blind to see that. Why don't you try and listen to what's being said rather than keep taking this personally and literally.

How can this know a thing unless it also knows not a thing? what is known is a thing, the knower of the thing is not a thing, it is that in which things appear. That in which the known appears in unknown. That's how it knows. How frigging simple is that?

The conversation we are having together now arguing about what is true or untrue, who is wrong or right is nothing more than silence sounding. How frigging simple is that?

See? You think it is simple and that implies you think I cannot understand which means I cannot know till I understand which means I do not know which means you know. Which according to your theory means you do not know. Which means you are wrong. Your theory again collapses on itself.

You say that this conversation we are having is nothing more than silence sounding. You say this because you believe I do not know this otherwise you would not be telling me. Which means you know and I don't know. Which according to your theory means you do not know. Which means you are wrong. Your theory again collapses on itself.

[Dontaskme]

See? You think it is simple and that implies you think I cannot understand which means I cannot know till I understand which means I do not know which means you know. Which according to your theory means you do not know. Which means you are wrong. Your theory again collapses on itself.

You say that this conversation we are having is nothing more than silence sounding. You say this because you believe I do not know this otherwise you would not be telling me. Which means you know and I don't know. Which according to your theory means you do not know. Which means you are wrong. Your theory again collapses on itself.

I'm simply replying to your constant barrage of rebuttals. Because you are still in seeking mode. I'm not saying I know something and you don't. You are saying that and projecting at me. I'm only saying stuff what I know from my own experience. You can take it or leave it, but you don't seem to be able to do that without first trying to justify it as either wrong or right, you are like a barking dog chasing it's own tail.

What I'm talking about is not even a theory,

I have no idea what you know or don't know....not that it's any of my business what you know or not.
I can't give you the answers to the answers you've already got, but you seem to think I've got them all and you haven't...how strange are you?

I've already got all my answers...and yes they were very simple. I found them all by myself. I only had to ask one question in the desire to know anything, and that was ''who is it that want's to know''?....and bingo there was the answer the whole time...staring me in the face.

[sthitapragya]

See? You think it is simple and that implies you think I cannot understand which means I cannot know till I understand which means I do not know which means you know. Which according to your theory means you do not know. Which means you are wrong. Your theory again collapses on itself.

You say that this conversation we are having is nothing more than silence sounding. You say this because you believe I do not know this otherwise you would not be telling me. Which means you know and I don't know. Which according to your theory means you do not know. Which means you are wrong. Your theory again collapses on itself.

I'm simply replying to your constant barrage of rebuttals. Because you are still in seeking mode.

This is what I mean again. Why do you assume I am in seeking mode? Because I have not found the answer you have. There is an inherent assumption you make that since I do not see what you see, I am in seeking mode, which implies that I have not found what you found, which means I have found something wrong. Which implies you are right and I am wrong.

I'm not saying I know something and you don't. You are saying that and projecting at me. I'm only saying stuff what I know from my own experience. You can take it or leave it, but you don't seem to be able to do that without first trying to justify it as either wrong or right, you are like a barking dog chasing it's own tail.

You are doing the same thing again without even realizing it. You imply that I should either take or leave stuff which you KNOW from your own experience. Which again implies that you KNOW stuff which other people do not know. Which implies that what they know is wrong and what you know is right.

What I'm talking about is not even a theory,

I have no idea what you know or don't know....not that it's any of my business what you know or not.
I can't give you the answers to the answers you've already got, but you seem to think I've got them all and you haven't...how strange are you?

Since you don't know what I know or don't know, why would you assume I don't know what you know?

I've already got all my answers...and yes they were very simple. I found them all by myself. I only had to ask one question in the desire to know anything, and that was ''who is it that want's to know''?....and bingo there was the answer the whole time...staring me in the face.

That is good. The problem is when you want to talk about what the answer was. As soon as you tell someone what the answer you found was, you are implying that you have an answer someone else does not. It implies you know something they do not know. And this is what I am pointing out to you. You might have an answer to YOUR questions. But you cannot talk about them because they are YOUR answers. And this is not my theory. I am simply pointing our your own theory to you. Your theory might be right. Unfortunately it is a theory that is so airtight, that the minute you talk about it, it collapses on itself.

[Dontaskme]

Unfortunately it is a theory that is so airtight, that the minute you talk about it, it collapses on itself.

How can I prove you I am 'It'?

I cannot!

How can you prove I am not 'It'?

You cannot!

[sthitapragya]

Unfortunately it is a theory that is so airtight, that the minute you talk about it, it collapses on itself.

How can I prove you I am 'It'?

I cannot!

How can you prove I am not 'It'?

You cannot!

So why talk about It at all?

[Dontaskme]

Unfortunately it is a theory that is so airtight, that the minute you talk about it, it collapses on itself.

How can I prove you I am 'It'?

I cannot!

How can you prove I am not 'It'?

You cannot!

So why talk about It at all?

I'm not talking, there's just talking ....appearing as words on a computer screen. Why? because it's just what's happening.

Why is the earth round? why is the sky up and not down? why is the grass green? why does the grass grow all by itself?

[sthitapragya]

So why talk about It at all?

I'm not talking, there's just talking ....appearing as words on a computer screen. Why? because it's just what's happening.

Why is the earth round? why is the sky up and not down? why is the grass green? why does the grass grow all by itself?

Of course you are. You might say you are not and delude yourself with crap like that, but if y words just appear on the computer screen, show me by doing it without a username. Don't talk absolute crap as if you are Jesus or something. That is just plain irritating and makes you sound like you think you are a messiah with serious delusions of grandeur or something. And if this is all you can dish out then spare me.

Words are appearing on the screen. What nonsense. I dare you to do it without a username. Come on. Do it.

[Dalek Prime]

Actually, nothingness is nothingness. This is existence. Massive difference.

Who is here / there to know this is existence ?

Is it the seer?

Is it the thinker?

Is it the sensor?

Is it the belief?

Hmm, I guess the knower is just going to have to be good old mr nobody aka nothingness...
...massive difference between existence and nothingness?... I think not,... more like same difference....actually!

Unless of course you can actually hold up the belief/ thought/knower/seer in front of your eyes and look at it, and then say to yourself... hey, so your the one that knows existence is ..so your the belief/thought /knower/seer of existence.....do you think this is possible, hmm, I don't think so...guess that isn't going to happen any time soon.

.

It's you and me. And I think we are talking about it. It's not that tough to suss. It's when we both go back to nothing that this conversation will end in our heads.

[Melchior]

''Been looking for you everywhere...how beautiful it was you who was looking''

Who's on first.

What's on second.

https://youtu.be/WQXwt83hYkE

[Melchior]

EU Math:



https://youtu.be/MS2aEfbEi7s

[Hobbes' Choice]

You don't get it, HC. The ancients believed it! The ancients! And there is a picture! This is evidence of infinity expressing itself. What more do you want?

I get it a lot more than you think. I've studied ancient history. This is 'evidence' of a picture. It is not evidence of a non intensional concept 'expressing itself', because concept have no volition.


What more do I want? There is nothing here at all. To want more is to have something, you have nothing here.

[sthitapragya]

You don't get it, HC. The ancients believed it! The ancients! And there is a picture! This is evidence of infinity expressing itself. What more do you want?

I get it a lot more than you think. I've studied ancient history. This is 'evidence' of a picture. It is not evidence of a non intensional concept 'expressing itself', because concept have no volition.


What more do I want? There is nothing here at all. To want more is to have something, you have nothing here.

And HC lost his ability to identify sarcasm.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You don't get it, HC. The ancients believed it! The ancients! And there is a picture! This is evidence of infinity expressing itself. What more do you want?

I get it a lot more than you think. I've studied ancient history. This is 'evidence' of a picture. It is not evidence of a non intensional concept 'expressing itself', because concept have no volition.


What more do I want? There is nothing here at all. To want more is to have something, you have nothing here.

And HC lost his ability to identify sarcasm.

Okay - I did think it weird that you were saying it.

I think I've lost my sense of irony by eating my own tail.