Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

[ken]

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.

But HOW can the 'you' be unknown when I KNOW exactly what the 'you' IS and What 'I' am also, by the way? In other words I KNOW who 'you' are and who 'I' am too.

If both or either of these things are unknown to you, then that is fine. But please refrain from saying some things are unknown. Unless of course you can prove that that is an actual fact.

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.

.

HOW do you know you step into illusory story land?

Have you been there?

Have you delved into ALL things as deep as one can go?

I am quite sure that if you discovered and learned things like this by yourself, and did not write from others, then you would already KNOW the Truth. But, The moment you follow someone,( including yourself), you cease to follow the Truth.

[Dontaskme]

But HOW can the 'you' be unknown when I KNOW exactly what the 'you' IS and What 'I' am also, by the way? In other words I KNOW who 'you' are and who 'I' am too.

I don't know how. All I know is that I am...and that's enough.

If both or either of these things are unknown to you, then that is fine. But please refrain from saying some things are unknown. Unless of course you can prove that that is an actual fact.

One doesn't need to prove one is - one is simply self-evident.

who or what or how that one is ...I have no idea.

HOW do you know you step into illusory story land?

Have you been there?

I am there right now.

Have you delved into ALL things as deep as one can go?

Yes.

I am quite sure that if you discovered and learned things like this by yourself, and did not write from others, then you would already KNOW the Truth. But, The moment you follow someone,( including yourself), you cease to follow the Truth.

That is correct.

[Arising_uk]

There is not a someone who is speaking. Speaking is an appearance of sound an auditory illusion heard as words appearing from no thing to no one. This is known, but not by I ...

I really consider this absolutely wrong. To be in possession of speech is to be the joint creator of something new in the universe, meaning. Speech, words, language create inter-subjective(you can call it objective if you like) understanding between subjective beings, i.e. it allows one to communicate one's thoughts(perceptions if you like) about one's world to another to see if there is understanding or agreement about them, meaning. Having a language also pretty much confirms that there is an external world and that there are others in it as it seems impossible for a single subjective entity to create the kind of language we use, what use would it be to such an entity?

The you doesn't make statements, you are the statement.

There is truth that to think the 'I' that language allows as the Body that is the actual I is a mistake but it is also a mistake to think that the you is the thinking and not the thoughting.

[]...[]

.



No big deal but I'm not sure thoughting is an actual word. -Except, of course, in like an urban dictionary or something.


Other than that, it's a good post!


You sound mellow. Have you been partaking?

~ Bill Wiltrack ~


.

[Arising_uk]

No big deal but I'm not sure thoughting is an actual word. -Except, of course, in like an urban dictionary or something. ...

All words are actual words and I doubt you'll find it in an urban dictionary as its a philosophical term I've made up to describe 'thinking' without language, i.e. a sequence of thoughts.

You sound mellow. Have you been partaking?

I pretty much always sound like this when talking to others who respond.

No, I gave up such things a long time ago as whilst fun they are not that conducive to action.

[]...[]

.




Cool...I'm down with the made-up word thingy. Good on you!


Actually, ]...[ kind-of represents thinking without language... Go figure.



.

[Arising_uk]

All words are made up at some time, you think they fall from the sky?

What thought does this symbol represent?

[ken]

But HOW can the 'you' be unknown when I KNOW exactly what the 'you' IS and What 'I' am also, by the way? In other words I KNOW who 'you' are and who 'I' am too.

I don't know how. All I know is that I am...and that's enough.

Are you saying here that the 'you' might be able to be known? Or, are you sticking with your absolute statement that the 'you' is the unknown?

If you admitted that the 'you' is still unknown by you, but the 'you' could be known by others, then I would let this be. But if and when you make statements that I see are untrue, then I will continue to ask clarifying questions.

Also, knowing that 'I am' is enough in relation to what exactly?

If knowing that 'I am' was really and truly enough, then I would see that would also mean that you would not be here, trying to express the ideas of others.

If both or either of these things are unknown to you, then that is fine. But please refrain from saying some things are unknown. Unless of course you can prove that that is an actual fact.

One doesn't need to prove one is - one is simply self-evident.

I did NOT ask you to prove that one IS. You said, some things are unknown, and I asked you to stop saying that unless you could prove that some things are unknown. But obviously you can not do that because 'you' are unable to KNOW what every person knows or does not know.

Some things may well be unknown to you, which you have proven enough times already here, so that is not in dispute at all. What is in dispute is your absolute statements as they are in relation to others.

who or what or how that one is ...I have no idea.

So, 'you have no idea' is what we can agree on here.

If you are at all interested in knowing who, what, and how that one is, then you will discover those answers. But just be forewarned and just to add more confusion there is two. There is one who thinks, and, there is One who knows. And, differentiating them will be just one of the many hurdles you will have to overcome, especially considering where you are exactly now.

HOW do you know you step into illusory story land?

Have you been there?

I am there right now.

Are you aware of how saying that you are at the illusory story land level comes across?

To Me, this implies that you could have absolutely NO actual idea about that what you are trying to express here.

Have you delved into ALL things as deep as one can go?

Yes.

But if you are stuck at the illusory level, then HOW would you KNOW that you can not go deeper?

Just may be the greatest illusion you are facing now is the belief that you have looked at all things as deep as you can?

Would 'you have gone as deep as you have gone, so far,' be a far more correct statement, than stating that you can not go any deeper?

The Truth is unless you KNOW the future you do NOT know if you can go deeper or not. And, from My perspective, (for what it is worth), you can go much deeper with far more things you could delve into.

I am quite sure that if you discovered and learned things like this by yourself, and did not write from others, then you would already KNOW the Truth. But, The moment you follow someone,( including yourself), you cease to follow the Truth.

That is correct.

We again agree here.

[Dontaskme]

There is not a someone who is speaking. Speaking is an appearance of sound an auditory illusion heard as words appearing from no thing to no one. This is known, but not by I ...

I really consider this absolutely wrong. To be in possession of speech is to be the joint creator of something new in the universe, meaning. Speech, words, language create inter-subjective(you can call it objective if you like) understanding between subjective beings, i.e. it allows one to communicate one's thoughts(perceptions if you like) about one's world to another to see if there is understanding or agreement about them, meaning. Having a language also pretty much confirms that there is an external world and that there are others in it as it seems impossible for a single subjective entity to create the kind of language we use, what use would it be to such an entity?

While this is true within the dream of separation.

In the absolute sense ...Speaker, speaking and spoken are one in the same moment. There is no ''individual speaker''

Albert Einstein discovered that as an atom appears as a light-wave and a particle, so too does language appear as a sound-wave and a word at the same moment. This explains the quantum nature of language as do atoms explain the quantum nature of matter.





Language is identified by the sound the language is made up of. It is obvious that language is sound, because a foreign language appears as sound. This indicates that any language is sound to imply that a word in a language is sound.
It is also obvious that the human ear receives sound-waves that appear as words of a language in the mind. As sound appears as language, it implies that language is an illusion of sound in the mind.

The sound that is heard or listened to is identified by a thought as a word. A thought, however, is invisible and the invisible cannot be heard or listened to. This implies that the spoken words that are heard and listened to are sounds and not real words.Spoken words are heard and listened to in order to understand the meaning of the spoken words.Foreign spoken words are sound and not words that are understood. This implies that a word of a language that is spoken and understood is just sound that is understood as words. This implies that a word is nothing but sound.

This implies that the spoken is ONLY the speaking by the speaker, and neither this word nor that word. This means that the speaker, speaking and the spoken is one, meaning light, and that what is spoken is sound and not real words.

.

I'm only interested in what is true, not what the world of illusory people try to impose upon me as being true.


.

[Dontaskme]

But HOW can the 'you' be unknown when I KNOW exactly what the 'you' IS and What 'I' am also, by the way? In other words I KNOW who 'you' are and who 'I' am too.

I don't know how. All I know is that I am...and that's enough.

Are you saying here that the 'you' might be able to be known? Or, are you sticking with your absolute statement that the 'you' is the unknown?

If you admitted that the 'you' is still unknown by you, but the 'you' could be known by others, then I would let this be. But if and when you make statements that I see are untrue, then I will continue to ask clarifying questions.

Also, knowing that 'I am' is enough in relation to what exactly?

If knowing that 'I am' was really and truly enough, then I would see that would also mean that you would not be here, trying to express the ideas of others.

If both or either of these things are unknown to you, then that is fine. But please refrain from saying some things are unknown. Unless of course you can prove that that is an actual fact.

One doesn't need to prove one is - one is simply self-evident.

I did NOT ask you to prove that one IS. You said, some things are unknown, and I asked you to stop saying that unless you could prove that some things are unknown. But obviously you can not do that because 'you' are unable to KNOW what every person knows or does not know.

Some things may well be unknown to you, which you have proven enough times already here, so that is not in dispute at all. What is in dispute is your absolute statements as they are in relation to others.

who or what or how that one is ...I have no idea.

So, 'you have no idea' is what we can agree on here.

If you are at all interested in knowing who, what, and how that one is, then you will discover those answers. But just be forewarned and just to add more confusion there is two. There is one who thinks, and, there is One who knows. And, differentiating them will be just one of the many hurdles you will have to overcome, especially considering where you are exactly now.

HOW do you know you step into illusory story land?

Have you been there?

I am there right now.

Are you aware of how saying that you are at the illusory story land level comes across?

To Me, this implies that you could have absolutely NO actual idea about that what you are trying to express here.

Have you delved into ALL things as deep as one can go?

Yes.

But if you are stuck at the illusory level, then HOW would you KNOW that you can not go deeper?

Just may be the greatest illusion you are facing now is the belief that you have looked at all things as deep as you can?

Would 'you have gone as deep as you have gone, so far,' be a far more correct statement, than stating that you can not go any deeper?

The Truth is unless you KNOW the future you do NOT know if you can go deeper or not. And, from My perspective, (for what it is worth), you can go much deeper with far more things you could delve into.

I am quite sure that if you discovered and learned things like this by yourself, and did not write from others, then you would already KNOW the Truth. But, The moment you follow someone,( including yourself), you cease to follow the Truth.

That is correct.

We again agree here.

Ken, I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are going on about.

Reading your replies obscures my bright pristine shining mirror through which I see clearly with clarity.

.

I'm going to leave you alone now to wallow in your mud bath. . enjoy!

As for me, I'm all mud bathed out...good bye.


.

[ken]

I don't know how. All I know is that I am...and that's enough.

Are you saying here that the 'you' might be able to be known? Or, are you sticking with your absolute statement that the 'you' is the unknown?

If you admitted that the 'you' is still unknown by you, but the 'you' could be known by others, then I would let this be. But if and when you make statements that I see are untrue, then I will continue to ask clarifying questions.

Also, knowing that 'I am' is enough in relation to what exactly?

If knowing that 'I am' was really and truly enough, then I would see that would also mean that you would not be here, trying to express the ideas of others.

One doesn't need to prove one is - one is simply self-evident.

I did NOT ask you to prove that one IS. You said, some things are unknown, and I asked you to stop saying that unless you could prove that some things are unknown. But obviously you can not do that because 'you' are unable to KNOW what every person knows or does not know.

Some things may well be unknown to you, which you have proven enough times already here, so that is not in dispute at all. What is in dispute is your absolute statements as they are in relation to others.

who or what or how that one is ...I have no idea.

So, 'you have no idea' is what we can agree on here.

If you are at all interested in knowing who, what, and how that one is, then you will discover those answers. But just be forewarned and just to add more confusion there is two. There is one who thinks, and, there is One who knows. And, differentiating them will be just one of the many hurdles you will have to overcome, especially considering where you are exactly now.

I am there right now.

Are you aware of how saying that you are at the illusory story land level comes across?

To Me, this implies that you could have absolutely NO actual idea about that what you are trying to express here.

Yes.

But if you are stuck at the illusory level, then HOW would you KNOW that you can not go deeper?

Just may be the greatest illusion you are facing now is the belief that you have looked at all things as deep as you can?

Would 'you have gone as deep as you have gone, so far,' be a far more correct statement, than stating that you can not go any deeper?

The Truth is unless you KNOW the future you do NOT know if you can go deeper or not. And, from My perspective, (for what it is worth), you can go much deeper with far more things you could delve into.

That is correct.

We again agree here.

Ken, I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are going on about.

Reading your replies obscures my bright pristine shining mirror through which I see clearly with clarity.

.

I'm going to leave you alone now to wallow in your mud bath. . enjoy!

As for me, I'm all mud bathed out...good bye.


.

Now you know how all the other people feel, when you go on the way you do.

I also asked you six very simple clarifying questions, in direct response to what you wrote, surely you could understand these questions?

[Dontaskme]

Now you know how all the other people feel, when you go on the way you do.

I also asked you six very simple clarifying questions, in direct response to what you wrote, surely you could understand these questions?

You are the one who is a mess not me.

Don't project your own unwanted mess on other people.

Listening to you, is like carrying the weight of the whole universe in my mind, it's just so damn heavy.


Consider yourself officially dropped.

.

[ken]

Now you know how all the other people feel, when you go on the way you do.

I also asked you six very simple clarifying questions, in direct response to what you wrote, surely you could understand these questions?

You are the one who is a mess not me.

But I never said you were in a mess. I just said now you know how others feel when they listen to you.

Don't project your own unwanted mess on other people.

Do not know what you are referring to here.

Where is the mess, and who is, the mess that you talk about, unwanted by?

Listening to you, is like carrying the weight of the whole universe in my mind, it's just so damn heavy.

There is NO "my mind". Unless of course you can sufficiently and accurately explain this and/or define what the 'mind' actually is, and then explain who/what the thing is that supposedly has a mind.

Also, the whole Universe is as light as can be, and knowing about the whole Universe is very up-lifting.

Consider yourself officially dropped.

.

Okay.

[Dontaskme]

Now you know how all the other people feel, when you go on the way you do.

I also asked you six very simple clarifying questions, in direct response to what you wrote, surely you could understand these questions?

You are the one who is a mess not me.

But I never said you were in a mess. I just said now you know how others feel when they listen to you.

Don't project your own unwanted mess on other people.

Do not know what you are referring to here.

Where is the mess, and who is, the mess that you talk about, unwanted by?

Listening to you, is like carrying the weight of the whole universe in my mind, it's just so damn heavy.

There is NO "my mind". Unless of course you can sufficiently and accurately explain this and/or define what the 'mind' actually is, and then explain who/what the thing is that supposedly has a mind.

Also, the whole Universe is as light as can be, and knowing about the whole Universe is very up-lifting.

Consider yourself officially dropped.

.

Okay.

I'm dropping your heavy mental baggage, it's a mess...in my opinion.

.

[ken]

You are the one who is a mess not me.

But I never said you were in a mess. I just said now you know how others feel when they listen to you.

Don't project your own unwanted mess on other people.

Do not know what you are referring to here.

Where is the mess, and who is, the mess that you talk about, unwanted by?

Listening to you, is like carrying the weight of the whole universe in my mind, it's just so damn heavy.

There is NO "my mind". Unless of course you can sufficiently and accurately explain this and/or define what the 'mind' actually is, and then explain who/what the thing is that supposedly has a mind.

Also, the whole Universe is as light as can be, and knowing about the whole Universe is very up-lifting.

Consider yourself officially dropped.

.

Okay.

I'm dropping your heavy mental baggage, it's a mess...in my opinion.

.

Fair enough. Like I said now you know how others feel when they read your words.