Public, Immutable, Decentralized, Open, Ledger

[Dontaskme]

Except that elsewhere you claim there is no myself?

There is here NO SELF claiming itself.

To know you are is to know you're not.
To know you're not is to know you are.

Then you really ought to stop making statements.

You don't make statements. Statements make You.

[Lacewing]

There is here NO SELF claiming itself.

To know you are is to know you're not.
To know you're not is to know you are.

You don't make statements. Statements make You.

What is this intended to accomplish other than justifying any stupid thing you say or do?

[Arising_uk]

There is here NO SELF claiming itself. ...

Did someone say something?

To know you are is to know you're not.
To know you're not is to know you are. ...

Sorry is someone speaking?

You don't make statements. Statements make You.

That explains shitloads.

[FlashDangerpants]

In Soviet Russia TV watches you.

I have amended your post to be a bit better.

[ken]

.


The reason that my use of the words subjective and objective here may be the opposite of what you are accustomed to has to do with perspective.



.

Of course that is the case. Every thing after all is in relation to perspective, and as I say, Everything is relative to the observer. Although that is the case, how do you propose one individual person can have a more objective view of things while a united group of people has a more subjective view of things?

I propose the opposite would be more in line with the truth, and I see this as being obvious. But how I see things may be wrong. So, I will await your explanation.

[ken]

Because God is the giver, your name is a gift from the giver, but not all gifts are received with the unconditional love in which they were given. All un-wanted gifts are automatically returned to sender. If you are not open to receive, the giver cannot give.



Enjoy the gift, but focus on the giver.

.

I do not care if you answer a question or not that I pose to another person, but this is what you wrote to Me when I answered a question that you posed to another person;
"I was posing the question to S57 ..but then you chimed in assuming I have not yet learnt the answer...I know you like to do that sort of thing...but you are preaching to the already converted with me, so congratulations for being as smart as me.

It's up to S57 to answer or not...I will await reply from S57."

Which to Me seems a bit hypocritical.

Ah yes, I replied BACK to you, pointing out to you that I was waiting for an answer from S57...and while I was waiting, you chimed in saying the question was easy to know or understand when one knows HOW...assuming I didn't already know HOW...ALTHOUGH I DID...
Which to me seems a bit hypocritical to assume that other people, namely, me, don't know what they perfectly do know.

You must have assumed that about me, otherwise why reply to me specifically, why couldn't you have just gone straight to S57's quote and replied to that poster directly?

I don't mind people chiming in on my posts ..but make it about the poster in reference to the discussion only, don't make it about me in communication with that person as if I didn't know what I was talking about.

My apologies I was not clear.

You have repeatedly stated that the perceiver can not be perceived. So, that is your answer. I did NOT assume any thing here.

I say, that the perceiver can be perceived, once you know how to do it. I KNOW what the perceiver is because I KNOW how to perceive the perceiver, therefore I HAVE answered this. So, again, no assumption made here on My part.

You now state that you know HOW, yet you still insist that the perceiver can not be perceived. So again there is no assumptions being made by Me. You are saying that about yourself.

As for your response here, you did not answer the actual question I was posing. I asked HOW does God supposedly give ...?

HERE, in this thread I was trying to help you with your question, because I knew the answer, that you didn't...otherwise you wouldn't have asked HOW?

Asking for clarity BEFORE you make assumptions helps.

I asked HOW does God give, so that I could use the answer/s given as more examples of HOW human beings say things without really knowing what they are saying and/or are talking about. I will also show the amount of times that people do NOT provide relative answers to My clarifying questions as just more examples of HOW human beings have said things without actually knowing what they are saying and/or are talking about. But, if the right answers are given, then they will be great examples of showing just HOW human beings can find, and thus know what, the right answers are, all by themselves.

You are making an assumption that I do not know HOW God gives.

This is another issue. But where did I make that assumption?

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.

You say you know the answer and that you were trying to help. But you NEVER described HOW God gives. All you did was just more or less say, God is the giver, "because God is the giver". You never actually explained HOW God gives. Unless of course if and when you highlight where you provided this earlier.

My answer is...We can only describe the how not prescribe the how.

If that is your answer, then it speaks for itself, in that you have not actually explained nor showed HOW God gives.

Finding and providing the answer to HOW God gives is just as easy to find and provide as is finding and providing the answer to HOW the perceiver can be perceived? Again, the answers to both of these are easily found and known once you know-HOW to do it.

By the way, from your perspective, what is the difference between 'describe the how', and, 'prescribe the how'?

Hope this clears up any confusion...

Not yet.

we are all smarter than we think...but this is not a competition to see who's the smartest.

Why did you bring smartness and competition into this discussion. These two things are just about as far away as could be from what I am actually looking at and discussing here.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE we're all basically the same smart ASS U ME

.
But if I am correct I still have not assumed any thing here.

Lets' celebrate and own our own ass.

.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... -stuff.jpg

[Dontaskme]

There is here NO SELF claiming itself. ...

Did someone say something?

To know you are is to know you're not.
To know you're not is to know you are. ...

Sorry is someone speaking?

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

''You don't make statements. Statements make You.''

That explains shitloads.

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

.

[Dontaskme]

In Soviet Russia TV watches you.

I have amended your post to be a bit better.

No 'thing' can watch you, you are the watching that cannot be watched.

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

A ''thing'' is the ''watched'' by that which is ''not a thing''...

Not a thing..no thing is watching you. You are the watching.

In other words...

There is not a thing looking out of your eyes....appearing as every thing. Everything is an appearance, there is no solid thing anywhere, things are just empty images of no thing.

.

[Dontaskme]

You have repeatedly stated that the perceiver can not be perceived. So, that is your answer. I did NOT assume any thing here.

I don't recall ever saying the perceiver cannot be perceived. If I have, where have I said that?

I say, that the perceiver can be perceived, once you know how to do it. I KNOW what the perceiver is because I KNOW how to perceive the perceiver, therefore I HAVE answered this. So, again, no assumption made here on My part.

I also know the perceiver can be perceived. If you knew this as well...why reply to my question to S57...why not go straight to S57 with your reply...this was my only gripe.

You now state that you know HOW, yet you still insist that the perceiver can not be perceived.

No I don't, where have I stated the perceiver cannot be perceived?

[]...[]

.





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


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

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


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

]...[



.

[Dontaskme]

I asked HOW does God give, so that I could use the answer/s given as more examples of HOW human beings say things without really knowing what they are saying and/or are talking about.

Then you should have included the underlined part so that people would have known why you wanted to know how?
Otherwise, people like me are just going to trump up with the absolute answer, that you don't seem to like, preferring relative answers instead.

.

[ken]

I asked HOW does God give, so that I could use the answer/s given as more examples of HOW human beings say things without really knowing what they are saying and/or are talking about.

Then you should have included the underlined part so that people would have known why you wanted to know how?
Otherwise, people like me are just going to trump up with the absolute answer, that you don't seem to like, preferring relative answers instead.

.

But you did NOT give an answer besides "Because God is the giver". That, to Me, certainly does not provide an answer, let alone and absolute answer, of HOW God gives.

I also said if you did provide an answer to the question I posed, then highlight it for all of us to see.

[Dontaskme]

.





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


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

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


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

]...[



.

Excellent post.

Always straight from the heart Bill. Like an arrow to my heart.

.

[ken]

You have repeatedly stated that the perceiver can not be perceived. So, that is your answer. I did NOT assume any thing here.

I don't recall ever saying the perceiver cannot be perceived. If I have, where have I said that?

I apologize profusely, I can not find where you have stated that exactly that way. From the way I have been reading some of your writings I thought that that is what you have been alluding to;

Jan 11, 2017 "There is no perceiver, there is only perception which is beyond the minds understanding." The moment you follow someone you cease to follow the Truth.

Nov 11, 2016 "... we can never distinguish the perception from the perceiver," What is truth

Oct 09, 2016 10:57pm "That which is perceived cannot itself perceive can it? ....how can the perceiver be perceived by that which the perceiver is already perceiving?.. and who would that perceived other one be other than the perceiver itself?" Proof that all is ONENESS.

Are the questions asked here not rhetorical questions at all, and thus really are just clarifying questions asked in the hope that other's will answer them? Because if they are, then they can be answered.

You have also stated, (Oct 25, 2013 8:45pm), "There is no perceiver, there is only perception which is beyond the minds understanding. The mind will claim it because what else is available, but it's all imagined." The moment you follow someone you cease to follow the Truth.

Which in a way could be seen to mean or imply that because there is no perceiver, so then the "perceiver" can not be perceived, but I do admit it is not the exact same as saying the perceiver can not be perceived.

I say, that the perceiver can be perceived, once you know how to do it. I KNOW what the perceiver is because I KNOW how to perceive the perceiver, therefore I HAVE answered this. So, again, no assumption made here on My part.

I also know the perceiver can be perceived. If you knew this as well...why reply to my question to S57...why not go straight to S57 with your reply...this was my only gripe.

I will have to honestly admit that I thought you have previously stated that the perceiver can not be perceived, therefore I was making that assumption that you did not know that the perceiver can be perceived. That is why I replied to you and not surreptitous57. I note that surreptitous57 also says that the percevier can be perceived. I also note that what you have stated previously was, "the perceiver cannot be the perceived." Again I apologize profusely. My mistake, I had read your words wrongly.

You now state that you know HOW, yet you still insist that the perceiver can not be perceived.

No I don't, where have I stated the perceiver cannot be perceived?

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.

[ken]

In Soviet Russia TV watches you.

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?