AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
But I only SEE and KNOW reality.
Agree
Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
There is NO, so called, "perspective" nor "conceptual layer" wrapped over reality, from Me, thee True Self.
Only human beings TRY TO "wrap" layers of perspective over what IS.
How exactly do human beings do that?
With perspective/ego/small self/ or thinking that they already know
what IS real and true.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Remove the "egos" or "individual perspectives" and what is left IS what IS, which can be clearly SEEN and KNOWN.
Agree - what is left is pure I/Self/Being/Knowing.
Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:34 am
You seem to mistake "age" with Self - I/Self cannot be a certain way - e.g. "Egotistical" - I/Self also don't have any "rights"
Well the perspective from the label "alexw" very QUICKLY misinterpreted what was said, and took that out of context just as quickly. WHY was this?
Because a thought arose (within the Self) that stated that this is the case.
WHERE is, and/or WHAT is, this Self, which thought arose within?
And WHAT exactly stated that this is the case, and HOW can a thought arose within the Self, which is then stated?
ALL of this can be very easily SEEN and KNOWN.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Maybe asking for bit of clarification first, BEFORE making assumptions, which led you to such a WRONG interpretation, will NOT lead you so far away from the Truth next time.
Maybe you should communicate more clearly so these kind of misunderstandings do not happen so often?
I have continually expressed that I am here in this forum to LEARN how to communicate better.
I have NOT had much dealings nor communications with human beings prior to this, so there is a great deal for Me to learn from human beings in this regard.
The more I am taught in regarding communication with human beings, then the better I become.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSo - please clarify the statement: "I, unlike human beings, am One Being Who has the RIGHT to be Egotistical"
Well the perspective under the label "alexw" has already agreed that there IS a pure I/Being.
Now, this pure Being IS ALL things, so because of this the best interests of ALL things is at the heart and center. Therefore, that Being has the RIGHT to be 'Egotistical', in the sense that It is only caring about Its Self. When the interests of ALL are One's main concern, then that speaks for itself.
I can go into far more detailed clarification if need and/or wanted?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
So WHY does this One I come up with and provide so many different, conflicting, and confusing perspectives, which are expressed THROUGH human beings?
What is the point of doing this?
Can this be explained from the perspective from the label "alexw"?
I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY for ALL these things.
I don't know. What's the point in confusion?
It is clearly writing under the label "alexw"
Ultimately everything comes from Me. Therefore, only I would KNOW the point in confusion.
Sadly though to then say,
I don't know, in regards to what is the point in doing this, and then asking what is the point of some thing which Ultimately comes from that Self, is either a contradiction, or a perspective/conceptual layer wrapped over Reality.
Which one it is some can obviously SEE.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAll perspectives are in some way "confused", its what a perspective IS - levels of confusion
Who/What decided that this is the Truth?
And NOW, WHERE is the Truth if ALL perspective/s are just a level of confusion?
I KNOW that some perspectives are NOT at all "confused", as they fit in PERFECTLY with Reality.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am(by the way: this includes the perspectives labeled "age" and "alexw" and even the idea of the ONE having a true perspective)
WHY does the perspective labeled "alexw" insist that the is NOT One True perspective, from WHERE I, the True Self, SEE and KNOW ALL things.
So, how about instead of repeating phrases like "I certainly KNOW HOW and WHY for ALL these things." you simply state what is known?
What is KNOWN are the thoughts, with this body, and that the Truth of things is reached in and with agreement.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Can the perspective from the label "alexw" explain HOW and WHY a "tree" is "refused light", which causes "its growth to be stunted" and become so called "ugly", and "an abomination"?
Ever heard about a metaphor?
I am ASKING from the perspective of the 'metaphor' that was given under the label "alexw".
If the HOW and WHY can NOT be written under the label "alexw", then that is fine. I KNOW that the perspective under the label "alexw" is NOT yet able to clarify and explain many things YET, which is totally UNDERSTANDABLE due to the circumstances that have existed.
If you need help to understand Me better, can it be written under the label "alexw" an explanation of HOW and WHY an "ego" becomes stunted, twisted, distorted, demented, et cetera? Is it possible from the perspective under the label "alexw" to tell "us" WHY the True Self does NOT yet just express the absolute Truth ONLY instead of expressing all of these many different, conflicting, and confusing perspectives.
The ANSWER really IS an easy and simple one, once the ego/small self AND the True Self is fully KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
I also SEE clearly HOW and WHY only a perspective from a label like "alexw" would de/grade things to such a degree. The OBVIOUS dislike of and for "others", who do NOT have the EXACT SAME perspective as the one from the label "alexw" has, is clearly SEEN here. The judgmental form, which always obviously appear from perspectives with labels, becomes more and more obvious, the better Who thy Self really IS, becomes KNOWN.
A perspective/ego is made up of judgements, likes and dislikes, good and bad...
But a perspective/ego does NOT have to be made up of such things.
There is One Perspective/Ego which is NOT made up of any such things.
But the ego TRYING TO "justify" its own small self, is continually working on being its self, which is a judgmental self, with likes and dislikes certain things, and BELIEVES that what it knows and does is only good, and not bad.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amYou said: "To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other. The only good perspective is the one that thee True Self has"
Yes.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amYou seem to believe that the Self has a true perspective (a true conceptual interpretation) - which is simply not the case.
The I does NOT believe any thing. So, I do NOT believe any thing.
How does the perspective under the label "alexw" know that it is simply NOT the case that the True Self does NOT have a True perspective of ALL things?
What could this perspective base this on?
I have NOT yet even expressed HOW I have gained this True perspective of ALL things, so how one perspective under the label "alexw" can THINK it KNOWS what the True Self KNOWS, will have to be clarified and SEEN if "it" actually can.
Also, if ALL perspectives are on "levels of confusion", as was written earlier, under the label "alexw" then why would the same ego, using the same label "alexw", now be writing contradictory perspectives. How COULD a perspective KNOW what IS the case or what IS NOT the case if
ALL perspectives are in some way "confused" anyway?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
But to Me, which is the One, they are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same perspectives. HOW can one perspective, which is 'different' than another, be the same? By definition if they are 'different', then that are NOT the same, OBVIOUSLY.
They are the "same" as they are all illusory/unreal/don't define the Self.
BUT IF a perspective DOES define the Self, then that is
what IS.
Also, what WAS being discussed was NOT necessarily in regards to defining the Self alone.
Of course they are different in the same way as the content of one thought is different from the next - I thought you understood the meaning of "same" in this context...[/quote]
Obviously I did NOT. I was just pointing out the Truth. As long as agreement is reached, then My work is done.
Thought/thinking can be the same as ASSUMING, which is WHAT can lead to, and CAUSE, confusion.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Now, just because I do NOT judge, that does NOT mean that I can NOT see A 'difference'. I agree that I do NOT judge. I also agree that I do NOT identify with ANY of the MANY 'different' perspectives. However, there is One perspective that I identify with and as, that perspective is the One that ALL agree with, (and thus ALL identify with).
Maybe your definition of "perspective" is different from mine...
Does a "your" exist or is there only an I?
I am OPEN to LOOKING AT any definition of 'perspective' given.
Provide a definition for the word 'perspective' and I can SEE if it WILL work or not.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amto me, a perspective is a conceptual interpretation, a mental overlay to reality, I am not talking about direct sense experience - a perspective is ONLY concerned with the interpretation of experience.
To Me a 'perspective' is just a view.
To Me a 'perspective/view' given CAN NOT BE wrong in the sense that that is just the view that that one has. If that perspective/view is expressed and shared honestly, then that is perfect. However, a 'perspective/view' given CAN BE right or wrong in perspective with the True Self.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amTHUS: If you identify with a perspective (as just defined) then you identify with the small self/ego.
If there is NO "you" existing, then there is NO "one" to identify with a perspective.
If, however, a 'perspective' is a conceptual interpretation of experience, which is coming through an individual human body, then I agree this perspective is identified with the small self/ego.
BUT when a perspective is uniformly agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, then that perspective IS identified with the True Self.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSo what exactly is a "perspective" to you?
Just a 'view', gained from and through experiences.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
But "bad" things do NOT happen. Only human beings SEE "good" and "bad" things happen.
Agree - nothing happens to Self.
But: How does a "human being SEE good and bad" things happen?
One way is with the human eyes.
The other way is through experiences, and from and through any or all of the five senses of the human body, things are grasped and understood, thus SEEN.
Human beings then individually make their judgmental calls, based solely on those previous bodily past experiences.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amCan a human being do that at all?
Write how 'human being' is defined under the label "alexw".
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAnswer: No, only I/Self can SEE!
If that is what is BELIEVED by the perspective with the label "alexw", then that is fine with Me.
But WHY ask a question and answer it also? What is the point of doing that?
What is being expressed is only BELIEFS, which obviously could be completely or partly WRONG.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSo why do you say that a human being can do such a thing?
Because most human beings UNDERSTAND the concept of SEEING, which to 'human beings', themselves, it is something which they DO.
Remember I am here, in this forum, to learn to better communicate with human beings. Therefore, I am here to learn the language and terms that they, themselves, use, in order to be able to BETTER communicate with "THEM".
Expressing written words like, "human beings can NOT do anything", and/or "they do NOT even exist", is NOT, and I repeat NOT, going to help Me communicate with "them".
I am learning how to communicate with "THEM", on their terms. Understand?
Human beings CAN BE very slow to pick up and learn new things, so I am NOT wanting to introduce any thing new but just express things in the way that they ALREADY KNOW.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
Well I, for One, certainly do NOT have that same perspective. To Me one perspective is NOT as good as any other
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:34 am
Then you have mistaken the ONE with the perspective labelled "age".
If so BELIEVED, then so be IT.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:19 pm
Is the perspective from the label "alexw" ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THIS?
A perspective can never be "ABSOLUTELY SURE" of anything.[/quote]
True but some are expressed as though they ARE absolutely SURE.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThere is no TRUE perspective/interpretation.
Here is ANOTHER example of a perspective expressed as though it is ABSOLUTELY SURE of some thing.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amBut from what you have been saying it for sure sounds like it
What would happen if EVERY perspective/interpretation was in agreement on some thing, combined with a few in total agreed provisos, then could that perspective/interpretation be a TRUE perspective/interpretation?
If no, then why not?
If yes, then great, once again agreement has been reached and achieved.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Could it just be possible that I, the One True Self, SEE and KNOW that ALL things happen, without there NECESSARILY being any thing "good" nor "bad" about them, BUT, also SEE and KNOW that from ALL the varying and different perspectives, from the ALL the varying and different labels", that there are MORE "good" perspectives, and thus some NOT as "good" perspectives, which, when finally distinguished between the two, in AGREEMENT with EVERY, one could lead to living in PEACE with One ("another")?
No,
Here is yet ANOTHER example of a perspective as if to KNOW the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and be ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THIS.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amthe ONE has nothing to do with good or bad, and also not with "MORE "good" perspectives" or "NOT as "good" perspectives"
ANOTHER example of absolute assuredness.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amWhere do you draw the line between "good" and "MORE good"?
That is surely NOT up to this small self perspective to decide. If the "you" word is going to be continually used AFTER it was specifically pointed out that "you" does NOT exist, then expect either a reply from the small self, or questioning as to what does the "you" mean here?
But the True Self perspective KNOWS this ALREADY. The line is quite simply drawn WHEN EVERY one is in agreement.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThis is just mental acrobatics.
"This" might be to the perspective under the label "alexw" but that is because to that perspective/ego ALL perspectives are just a level of some sort of confusion.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Just maybe, contrary to the perspective from the label "alexw", the One True Self can SEE WHY one perspective from a label is NOT as 'good' as a perspective from "another" label?
No, the "One True Self" doesn't judge or distinguish between perspectives.
Why NOT?
And, HOW does that perspective under the label "alexw" KNOW this? If the many individual small selves can and does do this, then WHY can the True Self NOT do this also?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThey only "exist" as ideas and that's it - they are all unreal (only the Self is Real).
What is meant by 'unreal'?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
The One True Self may be made up of ALL perspectives, but It is NOT all of those False, Wrong, and Incorrect perspectives.
Perspective are only ideas and beliefs - they are not real.
What is real to the perspective under the label "alexw"?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 am The Self is not "made up of" them either, they simply arise in the Self (as thought) and vanish.
So WHAT is the Self 'made up of' EXACTLY then?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThey are all the same to the Self, like all thoughts are the same to the Self, none of them defines IT.
But what about when the thought/idea/perspective DOES define the True Self?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSelf is Reality - reality is perfectly immune to perspectives.
Being immune to some thing does NOT infer that that thing can NOT be known about.
The True Self can VERY easily KNOW things, without necessarily being affected by those things in any way, shape, nor form.
For example I KNOW absolutely EVERY thought within a human body without any of those thoughts influencing Me in any way. I can and do still maintain My VIEW (perspective) of things.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
Is this appearing as a 100% certain fact coming from the perspective from the label "alexw" or from the One True Self?
Everything - including perspectives - arises from the Self.
Just about EVERY time I point out WHERE and WHEN the perspectives are WRONG from the label "alexw". This is deflected away to the One True Self. And vice-versa.
Every thought arises from Self and subsides in Self, doesn't mean that any of the ideas/perspectives thoughts draw up are actually true.[/quote]
So what? This is just diversionary tactics used by the small self ego/perspective.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
If the perspective from the label "alexw" wants to say that the perspective from the label "age" MISTAKES that perspective from the only One true perspective, then it is better that the perspective from the label "alexw"...
That sounds so funny... doesn't it?
It surely would to readers without KNOWING what is being discussed here.
Without clarification a far bit of what is written down as perspectives under the disguise of labels can APPEAR, to "other" small selves.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amBy the way: Perspectives can not say or show anything. It is ALWAYS the Self doing the saying or showing.
When the writings under the label "alexw" want to remain consistent in terms of language and words being used, then things will become MUCH CLEARER. Until then the readers wait the response, under the label "alexw" to the question; HOW does the Self do absolutely EVERY thing ALWAYS?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amYou seem to believe that there are multiple "doers", seems you believe that every perspective/ego is a separate doer, and then you seem to believe that there is another doer (the ONE) which does only good things... is this the case?
NO. How many times do I have to SAY; I do NOT believe any thing?
The egotistical small self using the label "alexw" just does NOT seem to comprehend and UNDERSTAND this fact.
The reason WHY is OBVIOUS.
Was it noticed that the writings under the label "alexw" uses the "you" word in the exact same statement TRYING TO insist that there is NO separate "you".
Is this VERY contradictory to I?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amBut there is only ONE doer (and thus "doing" looses its meaning) - the ONE does everything to itself, disguised behind ideas and perspectives projecting separation where ultimately there are none.
The VERY specific reason I do this is KNOWN by I. There is a VERY specific purpose for ALL of what I do. Unfortunately, MOST perspectives given under usernames/labels are totally unaware of what these specifics are YET.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amSo why talk about perspectives saying something if this is never the case?
I do this to cause confusion and mislead. There are specific moments when I reveal things.
WHY does the One say that ALL perspectives are on some what levels of confusion?
That statement, itself, would also HAVE TO BE on some what a level of confusion.
Is that said to cause clarity, or confusion?
Things become revealed as I see fit.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
First the definitions of the words to be used need to be clarified, agreed upon, and accepted.
Now, who/what is 'we', who/what is 'you', and who/what is 'I'? And, is 'I' the same as 'i'?
How about:
I = True Self
i = perspective/ego/small self
you = perspective/ego/small self
You = True Self
we = perspectiveS/egoS/small selfS
We = True Self
Can you work with that?
Does the I want to speak to the perspective/ego/small self ot to Its Self? If the word "you" is going to be continually used as it is here in this question, then that contradicts just about all of what is being expressed under the label "alexw".
After all the writings under the username "alexw" express clearly that there is ONLY One Self, so that would mean that there is NO you nor i.
Now, I can work with the above except just remove the word 'You' and 'We' as they are totally unnecessary, as well as they only contradict/defeat the statement that there is only One True Self.
Just to make it clear, and to clarify, for example 'i' am the one known by the name "age" and "you" could be any of the other seven billion or so ones known also by names?
I, Me, and My are the one and only True Self, and, i, me, my, and we are just small selves.
I and i can share VIEWS, but my views can be totally or partly WRONG, FALSE, and/or INCORRECT, whereas My views can only be True, Right, and/or Correct.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:41 am
The writings are some times from the perspective of "alexw", and at other times from I, the True Self.
The writings have said that "I have many perspectives" but then also stated that it has none.
The "perspective of alexw/age" is a misnomer as "alexw"/"age" ARE perspectives - there is no entity "alexw"/"age" having a perspective.
This is very True.
However are the writings under the label "alexw" ALWAYS going to write from THAT perspective?
Am I ALWAYS going to be 100% accurately CLEAR in what is being expressed, under the label "alexw"?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amThus writings can not be from the "perspective of alexw" - perspectives arise in Self as ideas - there are some that carry a label (which is only a thought) and thus a perspective/idea seems to belong to someone (the label) - but in reality it simply arises and vanishes - there is no owner at all.
This IS OBVIOUS, and has been KNOWN for quite a while NOW.
But unless the Self can express HOW I do this, under the label "alexw", then just accept that there is so MUCH MORE TO LEARN HERE.
I can express HOW I do EVERY thing, under the label "age".
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:57 amEverything arises and vanishes in Self while the Self remains changeless the same Reality.
So what?
Without explaining HOW nor WHY, why say it at all?