Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

[Dontaskme]

I have acknowledged My mistake. But what I was confusing this with, or relating this with, is when you say things like, "the knower is unknowable" and/or ..., which is beyond the Mind's understanding. To Me, the knower is very knowable and there is nothing beyond the Mind's understanding.

The perceiver is the perceiving, perception and perceived all in the same moment.

The very act of perceiving means the perciever cannot be the object it perceives....when the object is perceived to be the perceiver, this is a false perception...because the perceiver can only know itself as the perceiver...and not the object.

The knower is this immediate knowing one with the knowing...there is nothing outside of this immediate knowing... who or what the knower is no one knows...to know, you also have to not know....that's why I said the knower is unknowable.... all knowledge is illusory Ken.


You know this already don't you Ken?...

[Dontaskme]

I said you did not answer the actual question of HOW God actually gives. If you did, then highlight your answer for all of us here to see it.

God is the zero in the word G0D ....that's all God is...God is inside the word God...how does God happen?....same way a rainbow happens, as it appears, that's who really knows?....the seer that cannot be seen knows.

There is happening..but no thing is happening.

.

[ken]

.
In the way objective and subjective is used here does not have to do with the amount of people.

Do you mean, in the way objective and subjective are used here, by you'?

Objective in relation to the outside world and us recognizing that we are part of that world.

What do you mean by "outside world"? Outside of what exactly? And, how can there be an "outside"?

Also do you really think there would be any person here who does not recognize that they are a part of "that" world? Whatever you mean by "that" world?

To Me, there is no 'outside'.

In effect, you did not chose the time and place of your birth. Not your race, or your name; your family or social position. We haven't chosen anything in our lives or our reality.

Of course a child did/does not choose those things, BUT as a responsible adult you will have chosen things and continue to choose things. Including, but not limited to, choosing how you look at and see others, for example in things like "race" and "social positions". Some, responsible, adults choose not to look for, thus they do not see, what some call, "race" and "social positions".

What we normally consider ourselves is actually a completely objective thing that we have become attached to.

What do you normally consider your 'self'? What is your answer to Who am I?

I agree that what most people consider them self to be is an actually completely objective thing, in which they become very attached to, but the actual truth is a 'person' is an objective thing but sadly people become so attached to what they assume and believe is true, that is themselves, that they end up believing (in) totally subjective things, which could be totally false.

Subjective, in this case, refers to a universal law, such as what Ouspensky may describe as, The Law of Three.

]...[
.

Do you mean subjective, in the case, of how you are using it?

[ken]

I have acknowledged My mistake. But what I was confusing this with, or relating this with, is when you say things like, "the knower is unknowable" and/or ..., which is beyond the Mind's understanding. To Me, the knower is very knowable and there is nothing beyond the Mind's understanding.

The perceiver is the perceiving, perception and perceived all in the same moment.

The very act of perceiving means the perciever cannot be the object it perceives....when the object is perceived to be the perceiver, this is a false perception...because the perceiver can only know itself as the perceiver...and not the object.

The knower is this immediate knowing one with the knowing...there is nothing outside of this immediate knowing... who or what the knower is no one knows...to know, you also have to not know....that's why I said the knower is unknowable.... all knowledge is illusory Ken.


You know this already don't you Ken?...

I have already told you that I know who AND what the Knower IS. And, the answer is very quick, simple and easy to find, see, and KNOW, once you KNOW-HOW to do it.

You claim that no one knows what the knower is, but I say I already KNOW what the Knower is.

If I recall correctly I have already asked you to clarify what do you mean by 'Illusory'?

[Dontaskme]

I have already told you that I know who AND what the Knower IS. And, the answer is very quick, simple and easy to find, see, and KNOW, once you KNOW-HOW to do it.

You claim that no one knows what the knower is, but I say I already KNOW what the Knower is.

If I recall correctly I have already asked you to clarify what do you mean by 'Illusory'?

Knowing is not knowing. Not-knowing is knowing.

That's why it is illusory to say 'you know'...You don't know anything, You are the known. No you has ever been seen, you are only known...in this conception.

.

[]...[]

.



Yea, I think if you look back at the post you are referring to you will find that I am defining the words objective and subjective exclusively in a philosophical context as it relates specifically within this thread.


You can think of outside and inside philosophically as those terms in their exclusive relationship to consciousness.

For example, inside could represent self-consciousness or a higher consciousness viewpoint. Outside may be everything else.

* Use these terms & definitions as YOU relate to them. Your own definitions will evolve as you delve deeper into your own consciousness and philosophy in general.

]...[




.

[ken]

I said you did not answer the actual question of HOW God actually gives. If you did, then highlight your answer for all of us here to see it.

God is the zero in the word G0D ....that's all God is...God is inside the word God...how does God happen?....same way a rainbow happens, as it appears, that's who really knows?....the seer that cannot be seen knows.

There is happening..but no thing is happening.

.

Are you here saying that you can or can not explain how God gives?

Are you asking the question, how does God happen?, from an open perspective and waiting for an answer, or are you asking it from a rhetorical perspective?

How can the answer you gave, which is, ".... same way a rainbow happens, as it appears," then be followed logically by "that's who really knows? Are you asking open-ended questions looking for clarification or are you doing some thing else?

Your answer "... the seer that cannot be seen knows" is in relation to what exactly?

Some times you say "the knower cannot be known" but then other times you say "the seer that cannot be seen knows", which one do you propose is factual?

The reason I say I already KNOW what the Knower IS is because I have already SEEN the Seer. ALL things can be SEEN, thus understand, and thus KNOWN, once you discover and/or learn HOW to do it.

If you insist that the seer that can not be seen knows, then how can you also insist that the knower can not be known at the same time?

If the Seer KNOWS, then the Knower can be known by the Seer, which incidentally IS the same thing, just described or labelled in two different ways.

[ken]

I have already told you that I know who AND what the Knower IS. And, the answer is very quick, simple and easy to find, see, and KNOW, once you KNOW-HOW to do it.

You claim that no one knows what the knower is, but I say I already KNOW what the Knower is.

If I recall correctly I have already asked you to clarify what do you mean by 'Illusory'?

Knowing is not knowing. Not-knowing is knowing.

That's why it is illusory to say 'you know'...You don't know anything, You are the known. No you has ever been seen, you are only known...in this conception.

.

Do 'you' KNOW this?

I NEVER said 'you know'. I said 'I know'. Looking at the 'you' and the 'I' from a truly objective viewpoint, then how they are two completely different things can be noticed, seen, and understood.

[ken]

.



Yea, I think if you look back at the post you are referring to you will find that I am defining the words objective and subjective exclusively in a philosophical context as it relates specifically within this thread.


You can think of outside and inside philosophically as those terms in their exclusive relationship to consciousness.

For example, inside could represent self-consciousness or a higher consciousness viewpoint. Outside may be everything else.

* Use these terms & definitions as YOU relate to them. Your own definitions will evolve as you delve deeper into your own consciousness and philosophy in general.

]...[




.

Just because you use the word 'philosophical' and 'exclusively' here does not mean that what you say will make more sense to others.

This is YOUR thread, so that is why I am just trying to gain a perspective of where YOU are coming from.

But to Me there is NO inside nor outside of consciousness. Either there is awareness of some thing or there is not.

If you can answer the question Who am 'I' sufficiently, then I will know 'you' have reached Self-consciousness, which is from the highest viewpoint. Once, and if, you have reached that point and thus have gained that advantage point, then you will KNOW that there is NO outside.

There is NO "your own consciousness". Once, and if, you open up enough, then you will understand just how deep one can go.

[Dontaskme]

Are you here saying that you can or can not explain how God gives?

NO THING IS GIVING....God is just a conceptual idea aka (not-a-thing) appearing/giving of itself as and through everything....everything is the same as not-a-thing...it's the same ONE without a second.....that how it's explained.

Are you asking the question, how does God happen?, from an open perspective and waiting for an answer, or are you asking it from a rhetorical perspective?

Sorry I keep putting question marks all over the place...they are like notes to self ..a habit i keep doing.

How can the answer you gave, which is, ".... same way a rainbow happens, as it appears," then be followed logically by "that's who really knows? Are you asking open-ended questions looking for clarification or are you doing some thing else?

I'm posting as notes to self...other people reading will take what i write or leave what i write...that which knows a rainbow is the seer of the rainbow that can't be seen, hence the appearance of rainbow is illusory knowledge. The rainbow doesn't actually exist, it's an empty image of the imageless seer. The rainbow's existence has about as much autonomy as a photographic image...it's an illusion appearing real, because seeing is real, that which is seen is not.

Your answer "... the seer that cannot be seen knows" is in relation to what exactly?

All things are known, but never seen, there is here only imageless consciousness in which images arise, images of the imageless....emptiness looking at fullness. Fullness cannot look at emptiness as there is no thing to see...the seer is seen in the image, but the image is as empty as the seer because it is inseparable from the seer.

Some times you say "the knower cannot be known" but then other times you say "the seer that cannot be seen knows", which one do you propose is factual?

It's a fact that there is seeing...but what is seeing is uncertain and possibly unknowable....who knows what consciousness or light is..it's even a mystery to itself, since it is the mind that makes up the story of self knowledge, even though the mind has never been seen.

The reason I say I already KNOW what the Knower IS is because I have already SEEN the Seer. ALL things can be SEEN, thus understand, and thus KNOWN, once you discover and/or learn HOW to do it.

If the seer is seen in the seen...then there is no seer, except an empty image.

If you insist that the seer that can not be seen knows, then how can you also insist that the knower can not be known at the same time?.

No ''thing'' has ever been seen. Things are only known as conceptual ideas...no thing has seen an idea, therefore knowledge is an illusion .Ideas are known - no idea how or by whom.

If the Seer KNOWS, then the Knower can be known by the Seer, which incidentally IS the same thing, just described or labelled in two different ways.

Yes, they are the same one knowing. One with the knowing.

Reality is a verb.

.

[Dontaskme]

I have amended your post to be a bit better.

The ''you'' is ''not a thing'' watching.

Do you mean the 'you' is not a physical thing, or not a thing at all?

There is no you because there is no other than you.

You are everything and not-a-thing.

.

No need to add concepts to describe THIS. ''physical'' no need for that, it's just a concept.

We are only talking about THIS immediate presence which is without concept.

.

I really like talking with you Ken...so thanks...you like to get right down to the wire, which I like.

.

[ken]

The ''you'' is ''not a thing'' watching.

Do you mean the 'you' is not a physical thing, or not a thing at all?

There is no you because there is no other than you.
'
You are everything and not-a-thing.

Here I would say, 'I' am Everything, which is made up of every thing, whereas, 'you' (ken included) are people. ALL 'people' are made up of the exact same two things, which are thoughts and emotions. Both of which, obviously, can not be seen. Therefore, 'you' can not been seen from the physical eyes, but every thing can be seen from the Mind's Eye. What can be seen from this Eye is also understood, thus known.

In this regard, there is no other I, which can see and know ALL things, including what Its Self is, and because It is made up of and IS Everything, then that is how It knows ALL things. But there are just as many 'you' as there are human bodies.

When you say there is no other than you? How are you defining the 'you'?

No need to add concepts to describe THIS. ''physical'' no need for that, it's just a concept.

We are only talking about THIS immediate presence which is without concept.

.

I really like talking with you Ken...so thanks...you like to get right down to the wire, which I like.

.

I like to get down to the deepest of levels where ALL under-standing comes from and lays. But if and when people try to tell Me that I can not know certain things, then there is not much use talking. I am only able to explain things if and when people are open, AND, I am only able to understand things when people explain them, which needs two-way communication and clarification.

[Dontaskme]

I have already told you that I know who AND what the Knower IS. And, the answer is very quick, simple and easy to find, see, and KNOW, once you KNOW-HOW to do it.

You claim that no one knows what the knower is, but I say I already KNOW what the Knower is.

If I recall correctly I have already asked you to clarify what do you mean by 'Illusory'?

Knowing is not knowing. Not-knowing is knowing.

That's why it is illusory to say 'you know'...You don't know anything, You are the known. No you has ever been seen, you are only known...in this conception.

.

Do 'you' KNOW this?

I NEVER said 'you know'. I said 'I know'. Looking at the 'you' and the 'I' from a truly objective viewpoint, then how they are two completely different things can be noticed, seen, and understood.

All knowing appears from Not Knowing.

Just as all form appears from the formless.

Everything is an appearance of no thing / not-a-thing.

.

I am that and you are too..

.

[Dontaskme]

When you say there is no other than you? How are you defining the 'you'?

The you is the unknown I am in which everything appears as known.

You can know that you are as it is self-evident...but it stops there, that's it. You can't go any further...else you step into illusory story land.

.

[ken]

Knowing is not knowing. Not-knowing is knowing.

That's why it is illusory to say 'you know'...You don't know anything, You are the known. No you has ever been seen, you are only known...in this conception.

.

Do 'you' KNOW this?

I NEVER said 'you know'. I said 'I know'. Looking at the 'you' and the 'I' from a truly objective viewpoint, then how they are two completely different things can be noticed, seen, and understood.

All knowing appears from Not Knowing.

Can you explain this better and/or elaborate?

Just as all form appears from the formless.

Can you explain this better and/or elaborate?

Do you agree and accept that there are physical planets, stars, continents, oceans, and animals?

Everything is an appearance of no thing / not-a-thing.

Again, can you explain this better and/or elaborate?

.

I am that and you are too..

.

Who/what is "that" exactly?

And, are you say 'you' and 'I' are the exact same "that", whatever the "that" is?

By the way I am pretty sure I can explain exactly what it is that you are trying to explain, and show how it can all be proven scientifically. But I am just trying to work out why you explain things the way you do.