Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:27 am
Dontaskme wrote:Silence is the truth. ...
If only.
Silence is this immediate biological presence recording itself live right here and now. How does it know it is recording itself?

It knows by replaying the recording. There is nothing here and now with you except the recorded version of yourself.

A recording is not the silent immediate biological presence, it's an artificially constructed version of yourself.

.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Arising_uk »

Lots of non-truth there then.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:00 am Lots of non-truth there then.
Quite right, one could simply say the truth is there is no truth, truth being just another arbitrary concept arising here nowhere.

.

Every single living creature is alone in it's own aloneness - we all share that same nowhere herenow silent unknown presence walking the razor edge of not-knowing existence.

.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Arising_uk »

Silence please I beg of you. :wink:
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by ken »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:20 am
ken wrote: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:53 pm
The 'I' is NOT ken, nor dontaskme. Is that understood?
Yes, understood.
You are referring to the pure 'I' beyond all attributes, and NOT the troubling judgemental existential 'i' that likes to think it is the observer and knower. It wrongly identifies with itself by attributing an attitude of 'Right' and 'Wrong' doings....whereas, the pure 'I' is unconcerned with such banal trivialities?
Would dontaskme say that, because the 'I' is illuminating 'what IS', then the 'I' could be somewhat concerned with what IS true, what IS right, and what IS wrong, and trying to shine that knowledge onto human beings? Could the pure 'I' be trying to enlighten human beings, and has been trying to do this for centuries?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:20 amThe pure 'I' has no such concerns or agendas, it simply illuminates "what is", be it material or immaterial, relative or absolute, hidden or revealed. And one such "what is" illuminated is the unreality of thoughts.
If the 'I' simply illumates 'what IS', then that 'illuminating' could suggest that the 'I' is shining a light on what IS actually right and wrong? The illuminating light just being a guiding light for human beings to follow?

dontaskme wrote, "And one such "what is" illuminated is the unreality of thoughts", is that a dontaskme perspective of things or is that a perspective coming from the pure 'I'? Because to Me 'thoughts' exist. Thoughts are real and NOT unreal. Some thoughts might be completely disillusioned, false, wrong, and incorrect, but even those thoughts are still real, right? If a thought exists, no matter what type of thought it is, it is real. Does dontaskme agree with this?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:20 am
ken wrote: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:53 pmSo, WHY does dontaskme speak so much here in this forum trying to tell others what the truth is from dontaskme's perspective?

Why does dontaskme just shut-up and let the Truth speak for Itself? Why does dontaskme appear to have a NEED to express the truth as dontaskme sees it?
Because the mind is incapable of shutting-up, it likes to take centre stage, it likes to think it is the observer forgetting that the real observer is the often neglected ever shining illuminating permanence always behind the mind's impermanence illuminating it for what it is/not.
IT'S called ENTERTAINMENT.

Image
If you want to elaborate on what the 'mind' is exactly, and how it works, then feel free to support what you say here.

I have already explained how and why human beings, themselves, try to take centre stage. Part of the reason is because the real pure 'I', within all people, actually IS at centre stage and It also does have the right to take centre and want and do only for Its Self. Because the 'I' is the One and only, and every thing else are just parts of this One, including ALL human beings, the 'I' only speaks for and only does for EVERY thing, any way. People just confuse this Self-centredness with their own personal self. Human beings think themselves as being some thing special, above and beyond other things. This can be seen and evidenced just about any where human beings are. Human beings do not shut-up. The one and only Mind, however, is silent. This is HOW It can see, understand, and thus, KNOW ALL things.

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:20 am
ken wrote: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:53 pmI WAS talking about HOW to find truth and expressing that process correctly. I was NOT talking about how to express truth correctly. A big difference that seems to have been overlooked. The Truth, although silent as you also agree with, IS only fully understood and KNOWN to be thee Truth when EVERY thing IS in agreement. But getting to this point, understanding, and knowing is a far way off for those human beings who are NOT open.
The two I's will never agree, they are opposing opposites, so the opposite is also true. Never the twain shall meet. Two minds can never meet.
Why did dontaskme now say, "The two I's will never agree"? There are NO two I's. There is ONLY One I. dontaskme said that they understood that the 'I' is the pure One, at the beginning of this post, but now dontaskme does not seem to understand that.[/quote]

The 'i' does NOT have a mind, so there are NO two minds to meet. There is only One Mind, which is the 'I', that IS at the center of ALL things, Everything.

Of course human beings, the i's, do not always agree with the pure One 'I', human beings do not even agree among themselves, they do not even agree with one's own self on many occasions, but there can be and IS agreement on some things. Those things, which ALL are in agreement on, IS 'what IS' the Truth.

There are, however, as many differing 'set of thoughts' as there as many differing human bodies, but contrary to popular belief there are NO different minds, and, 'thoughts' are also NOT minds.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:20 amFortunately, one simply need not do anything at all to be at perfect rest, peace and in truth right now. This is it. You're IT.

.

Good day.
Again, dontaskme is trying to relay 'what IS' known by the pure 'I', but unfortunately dontaskme does it such a misinterpreted, misunderstood and unable to be supported way, that what they are doing is actually causing more confusion, than clarity, for others.

I have already explained that the 'I' is One. If a person uses the term 'you', then they are obviously referring to another. So, it does not make sense to say some thing like "You're IT". There obviously can not be a 'you', which refers to another, that is IT. 'IT' being the pure 'I'.

What dontaskme is trying to say and get to is right. But surely dontaskme can recognize the language, terms, and words that they are using just does not work. If it did, then dontaskme could use language, terms, and words to clarify exactly what they mean.

The 'I' is IT, of which there is ONLY One. 'you' is just another 'i', of which there are many. So, 'you' are NOT IT. Only 'I' am IT. HOW I KNOW this is correct, and can be wholly and completely supported and backed up with evidence and proof, IS because I have the full support of absolutely EVERY thing. When one can see from the perspective of ALL, then 'what IS' is plainly obvious. To be able to see from the perspective of ALL just takes being completely and fully OPEN. To become completely and fully, thus truly, OPEN comes from being truly HONEST.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by ken »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:28 am
ken wrote: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:53 pm
What has a cat told dontaskme about the truth of reality (without ever saying a word)?

If the word speaking dontaskme can not put that into words, then does dontaskme expect other human beings to just accept that a cat can tell them about the truth of reality, just because dontaskme says that this is the truth?
Silence is the truth.

'i' gains only when 'i' ascertains supremacy and imposes that authority upon other.


But there is nothing really for 'i' to gain. 'i' was born, or came into existence, and will eventually not exist anymore. So, what could 'i' possibly gain that is really worth any thing?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:28 am In other words, hell is other people trying to get inside your head, or heads trying to get inside other heads.
Although there is truth in that one trying to get into the head of another would be some what hell-like, especially if the other does not want another in there. But i am not sure why dontaskme would say this. It is very easy to get inside the heads of others, but only if and when others want to let you in. If and when there is a truly peaceful world, without any fear of ridicule, blame and punishment, then ALL people will just be being truly honest with each other. Thus no one will have to try to get inside the heads of others anymore because ALL people are letting others in unconsciously. Just sharing truest thoughts is allowing others inside one's self.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:28 amNo two heads can meet head to head, there simply is no head, but heads nevertheless want to give head.

The problem arises only when you too much identify with your supremacy over other subjects concerned.
That is only some thing human beings try to do. NO human being is superior than another.

When dontaskme uses the word 'you' here, who is it that is actually being referred to?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:28 amIn personal relationships, how can you wish other subjects to be the way you want?
Easy. Because of previous experiences any person can wish for any thing. Even wishing for those things that can never be attained.

When the word 'subjects' is used here, what is meant by that?

If 'subjects' means lesser ones, then To Me that is a very distorted way of thinking for a human being. Also, ALL people will ONLY do what they want to do. People do not do what others want them to do just because they want you to do it. If you want others to be the way you want them to be, then you will become very disappointed, and very quickly.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:28 amMay be you can just tell and advise. It is the prerogative of the subjects to decide upon to accept or reject it. May be you are Right. Also may be you are Wrong.

.
What is right and what is wrong is KNOWN by collective agreement of EVERY thing. If and when EVERY thing comes together as One peacefully, in agreement, then human beings are becoming more like God and reaching a more God-like stature. By the way coming together in agreement as One peacefully, is coming together in harmony. Coming together in harmony leads to living a much more wanted life. The reason you human beings are suffering, living in conflict with one another now, and have been for centuries, is so that you will learn by your mistakes until eventually you ALL will be living in peace and harmony together as One. This would happen a lot quicker and simpler if you ALL just shut-up and just listened. The Truth is here for ALL to see and understand right NOW. If you ALL just stop assuming and believing you know what is true and right, and just wanted to change yourselves, for the better, then the life that you all want to live could start actually beginning.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Dontaskme »

ken wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:33 amAgain, dontaskme is trying to relay 'what IS' known by the pure 'I', but unfortunately dontaskme does it such a misinterpreted, misunderstood and unable to be supported way, that what they are doing is actually causing more confusion, than clarity, for others.
This is also 'what IS' known by the pure 'I',



There is no one/thing else to blame, no claim, no blame.

.

I AMImageAlways
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Arising_uk »

How can you be alone with yourself given all you've said about there being no 'you', 'I', etc, etc?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:27 pm How can you be alone with yourself given all you've said about there being no 'you', 'I', etc, etc?
alone with myself means alone with the presence of I am.

There is only the I am presence, everything else comes and goes in that. Including the ideas of 'you', 'I', etc...No one owns I am presence, it is an only child.

.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Arising_uk »

All children have parents.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:04 pm All children have parents.
Yes, that is true, but the only child I am referring to is the son of a barren woman..aka the christ consciousness, the immaculate conception.

But if you want to talk about parents in your context, then who was/ is the parent of the very first human? ..that's what I'm talking about.

.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:Yes, that is true, but the only child I am referring to is the son of a barren woman..aka the christ consciousness, the immaculate conception. ...
There is no such thing as 'the son of a barren woman'(unless of course she had him when she wasn't) nor 'immaculate conception' as parthenogenesis does not apply to mammals. No idea what this 'christ consciousness' is, other than being nice towards others.
But if you want to talk about parents in your context, then who was/ is the parent of the very first human? ..that's what I'm talking about.
We're not sure as abiogenesis is still an unknown.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:35 pmNo idea what this 'christ consciousness' is, other than being nice towards others.
Christ being the logos. Basically the universe comes into being through language / knowledge, in other words, it's all made-up. Consciousness being the silent unknown observer of all knowledge known in the seeing...one with that seer.

Arising_uk wrote: Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:35 pmWe're not sure as abiogenesis is still an unknown.
Of course it's unknown, and is why anything known is an illusion appearing as if real.

A wall in you're house only exists because the word says it does, without the word, the wall doesn't exist. It's just an unidentified piece of space debris for all we know...could be just about anything you care to make-up.

And that you that makes it all up is imagination.

.
Post Reply