Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:06 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:03 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:45 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:18 am

'I', God, am BEING.

As PROVEN 'this' can be explained in words very simply and very easily.


Now explain the ACTUAL ORIGINAL SOURCE of this explanation?
The Mind, and/or the Universe, HERE-NOW.
But that is just a belief.

If not a belief...then show the mind as evidence for the claim - does the mind have an image that can be physically seen by the claimer?


.

Age
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Age » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:43 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:06 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:03 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:45 am




Now explain the ACTUAL ORIGINAL SOURCE of this explanation?
The Mind, and/or the Universe, HERE-NOW.
But that is just a belief.
What is just a belief?

I do NOT have a belief. Unless of course you can prove me wrong.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:06 am
If not a belief...then show the mind as evidence for the claim - does the mind have an image that can be physically seen by the claimer?


.
No, and that is why I say God, in the spiritual sense, is the Mind.

The Mind is obviously invisible to the physical eyes, just like thoughts are also, and just like the wind is as well.

And just like what the word 'Spirit' implies or refers to - an non physically seen thing.

Where do you think KNOWING comes from?

If we cut open a human body, and it would not matter how many pieces we cut it up into, we we never physically see the Mind, the thoughts, the thinking, the internal feelings, and the emotions.

Did you assume or believe that only what can be physically seen can be used as evidence for claims?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:59 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:06 am
If not a belief...then show the mind as evidence for the claim - does the mind have an image that can be physically seen by the claimer?
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:43 am
No, and that is why I say God, in the spiritual sense, is the Mind.

The Mind is obviously invisible to the physical eyes, just like thoughts are also, and just like the wind is as well.
Then no physical eye has ever seen God....So no God has ever been seen...so can that which is invisible have an existence ? or even be known except as a word that only implies the non physical quality of that word?

So if like you say the words imply or refer to an non physical seen thing, then the words are not actually saying anything are they, for they are in essence empty of any substance except the invisible idea they represent.

So why do you assume empty words can explain the invisible? what would that show?
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:43 am
And just like what the word 'Spirit' implies or refers to - an non physically seen thing.


User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:46 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:15 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:16 pm
So, I only express what I want to say to those that are Truly interested, and thus Truly OPEN.
But nobody cares except you.
I KNOW.

This is WHY I do NOT start a thread in this forum.

Adult human beings only care about expressing their own views about what they believe is true. They do not care about what "others" think and see.

This is WHY I say what I want to express I will save for another day.
But if there is only God/Consciousness.

Then there is no OTHER conscious of this consciousness. Consciousness can only be conscious of itself alone.
These ''others'' that think and see is just a BELIEF in Consciousness where no such 'other' exists. There is no consciousness that can be concious of another consciousness... Consciousness is totally unconscious of ''other consciousnesses'' BECAUSE there is ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS.

In speaking of evolution it is necessary to understand from the outset that no mechanical evolution is possible. The evolution of man is the evolution of his consciousness. And 'consciousness' cannot evolve unconsciously.

Being aware of being awareness is to me the most fundamental thing to know and the only KNOWN THERE IS

What ever awareness turns attention to, which can only be ITSELF, that's when awareness become conscious of itself.
The experience of self-awareness itself is the cause by which consciousness arises. Moments in an eternal now. .moment after moment.
A thought, a smell, a sight, a feeling, a taste, a sound. .experiencing it, knowing it, being conscious of it and letting it go. .time and time again infinitely.



Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:15 pm
Just to inform you via knowledge...there is here only PRESENCE which is a welcoming OPEN stillness, which is the ground of what we are.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:46 am
The words under the label "dontaskme" certainly do not SHOW a PRESENCE of welcoming OPEN stillness at all.
But the 'label' DOES NOT have any awareness...the label is just an idea KNOWN....in what is ALWAYS OPEN STILL SILENT PRESENCE AWARENESS.

This is why you and I get all twisted up in the wrong I ...the labeled I is not the true I

And is why this cannot be put into words, for all is relative, and the relative has no access to the absolute. The absolute is the relative. Not the other way round.


.

Age
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Age » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:31 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:59 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:06 am
If not a belief...then show the mind as evidence for the claim - does the mind have an image that can be physically seen by the claimer?
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:43 am
No, and that is why I say God, in the spiritual sense, is the Mind.

The Mind is obviously invisible to the physical eyes, just like thoughts are also, and just like the wind is as well.
Then no physical eye has ever seen God....
But they have. They see God, in the physical sense, as the Universe, Itself.

Or, are you telling me what occurs?
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:59 am
So no God has ever been seen...so can that which is invisible have an existence ?
But I just explained how God is seen with the physical eyes, and, everything that can not be seen with the physical eyes are SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD, with the Mind's Eye.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:59 am
or even be known except as a word that only implies the non physical quality of that word?
You are so far astray now that it will be hard to get you back on track again.

Can the wind be seen with the physical eyes?

Does the wind have power?

I have already explained a few times already that 'God, in the physical visible sense, is the Universe, Itself, and, 'God', in the spiritual non visible sense, is the Mind, Itself.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:59 am
So if like you say the words imply or refer to an non physical seen thing, then the words are not actually saying anything are they, for they are in essence empty of any substance except the invisible idea they represent.
When words like 'emotions', 'wind', 'thoughts', 'Mind', et cetera are used by you, are they also not actually saying anything are they?

You have a real different way of looking at and seeing things.

I am not aware of another adult human being who considers words that are used to describe those things, which are not able to be seen with the physical eyes, are not actually saying anything.

Those words are used to describe the very things that cannot be seen with the physical eyes.

So why do you assume empty words can explain the invisible? what would that show?

They explain what cannot be seen with the physical eyes but can show to the Mind's, or God's Eye, ALL things.

If you cannot see, understand, what the words of feeling joy, happiness, peace and harmony are explaining and showing, then so be it. But these plus many other things can not be seen with the physical eyes, but, from Awareness and/or KNOWING we can KNOW and UNDERSTAND what they ARE.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:43 am
And just like what the word 'Spirit' implies or refers to - an non physically seen thing.

How long have you been under the illusion that if some thing can not be seen with the physical eyes, then it can not be seen, understood, and/or known either?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:31 am

If you cannot see, understand, what the words of feeling joy, happiness, peace and harmony are explaining and showing, then so be it.
But the word JOY does not EXPLAIN what JOY is... Don't you understand? this is what I am trying to tell you.

If the word JOY is what JOY is ...then explain in words to another what JOY is to you, and see if that WORD JOY can adequately explain the concept so that every SINGLE OTHER body can understand your interpretation of what Joy is to you..in the EXACT same way as you've described it....which is what you believe can happen. And that's all I'm saying, in that describing experiences in words can never match up exactly from person to person.

It's like trying to explain in words what LOVE is to you to another one....the other one is going to have no clue about what you are going on about until that other one has experienced the feeling LOVE for itself...and even then it won't nescessarily match up exactly.

One simply cannot put feelings into words as I keep repeating to you. Gosh it's hard work discussing this with you Age.

And yes you are right, I do not think like you nor will I ever, I can only think like me. From my own DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

AND that's all that I am trying to point out here, which you seem to fail in understanding this, even when it's being pointed out to you not just by me but other nondual posters here at this forum.

.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3838
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:50 am

Age wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Language is more complex than thought because it has to be learned therefore thought existed first because it is natural
A baby can think for itself on a very primitive level but it cannot read or write or speak without being taught those skills
Well since you were a baby then how did you think without language ?
To me thought and language are two separate things so are not the same
Even if they are the same I will still treat them as if they were separate

surreptitious57
Posts: 3838
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 am

Age wrote:
I have already explained a few times already that God in the physical visible sense
is the Universe Itself and God in the spiritual non visible sense is the Mind
That is what those words specifically mean to you but not necessarily what they mean to someone else
But you are stating these definitions as if they were objectively true even if this was not your intention

So it would therefore be better to say this instead [ with only one already ]

I have already explained a few times that to me God in the physical sense
is the Universe Itself and God in the spiritual non visible sense is the Mind

Age
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Age » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:38 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:46 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:15 pm


But nobody cares except you.
I KNOW.

This is WHY I do NOT start a thread in this forum.

Adult human beings only care about expressing their own views about what they believe is true. They do not care about what "others" think and see.

This is WHY I say what I want to express I will save for another day.
But if there is only God/Consciousness.

Then there is no OTHER conscious of this consciousness.
Who ever even said there was?
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
Consciousness can only be conscious of itself alone.
Correct.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
These ''others'' that think and see is just a BELIEF in Consciousness where no such 'other' exists.
This is what I have been saying.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
There is no consciousness that can be concious of another consciousness...
Considering I have been saying there is just Consciousness, then this stands to reason.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
Consciousness is totally unconscious of ''other consciousnesses'' BECAUSE there is ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS.
But Consciousness is not unconscious of any thing. Consciousness, by definition, is conscious of EVERY thing that is happening and occurring.

Consciousness is aware of the way the brain works, and how the human brain thinks it is conscious and aware. But really only Awareness, or Consciousness, is Truly aware and Truly conscious of EVERY thing that is going on.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
In speaking of evolution it is necessary to understand from the outset that no mechanical evolution is possible.
The word 'evolution' just refers to and means 'change'. Nothing else, and obviously the Universe, Itself, is changing. Through change a species has evolved with the intelligence to create a language, and use words, to describe and define absolutely EVERY thing there IS.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
The evolution of man is the evolution of his consciousness. And 'consciousness' cannot evolve unconsciously.
The Universe, Itself, has evolved into being Truly aware and conscious of Its Self.

The Universe has evolved into Consciousness, Itself. This has come from, and IS, the Mind, Itself, which is ALWAYS OPEN.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
Being aware of being awareness is to me the most fundamental thing to know and the only KNOWN THERE IS.
And as 'I' have been saying, for a while now, Consciousness is able to KNOW Its Self.

Consciousness, the Knower of ALL-things, KNOWS Itself.

The Universe has come to KNOW Thy Self, and as 'I', Consciousness, Awareness, or God, have continually been saying here, in this forum, this can be explained, very simply, and be understood, very easily. This is because 'I' am Awareness, Itself, thee Knower of ALL-things.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
What ever awareness turns attention to, which can only be ITSELF, that's when awareness become conscious of itself.
Which is what 'I' have been saying all along.

When there is complete and FULL OPENNESS, then what becomes KNOWN is that 'I' am AWARE of ALL-things. What becomes consciously KNOWN is, Who and what 'I' actually am, which is God, or Life and Existence, Itself. 'I' exist, in physical visible form, as thee one and only whole Universe, itself, and, in spiritual non-visible form, as thee one and wholly OPEN Mind, Itself.

The Truly OPEN, spiritual invisible, Mind part of Self, is what allowed the, Truly ALL, physical visible, Universe, to evolve, or change in shape and form, so that 'I' could discover, learn, understand, and reason, or just become conscious of Who and what 'I' am, or, literally, 'My' Self.

Thee one and only Universe, Itself, has become conscious of Itself, and is constantly HERE-NOW Truly Aware of ITSELF.

'I' ALWAYS instinctively KNEW who, and what, 'I' am. This was, however, just previously unconsciously KNOWN. What was, and is, preventing and stopping this KNOWING from coming to light, or being revealed, to 'you', human beings was/is just the assumptions and beliefs being made constantly by 'you', beings. To BE-come Consciously Aware of thee Truth of things, then just STOP assuming and believing that 'you' already know what is true, right, and correct. Letting go of that "self", which is not a real self anyway, but just an illusion of a "self, or just a dreamed up "self", and once that has been let go and gone, then thee True Self can and will APPEAR.

Become, and BE, OPEN, always, then ALL can and will be revealed.

Thee True Self only reveals It Self in, and through, Honesty. To become Truly Self-Aware, so as to be able to truly answer the question, Who am 'I'? properly and correctly, then what is needed to to be Truly Honest, from which there is only OPENNESS, and from being Truly OPEN, Truly Honest, and Truly Wanting to change, for the better, then, and only then, one can discover and become thy True Self.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
The experience of self-awareness itself is the cause by which consciousness arises. Moments in an eternal now. .moment after moment.
A thought, a smell, a sight, a feeling, a taste, a sound. .experiencing it, knowing it, being conscious of it and letting it go. .time and time again infinitely.
Of which all of this is very simple and very easy to do, that is; Once 'you' know HOW. Only once 'you' have the know-how of some thing, only then you can do it.

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:15 pm
Just to inform you via knowledge...there is here only PRESENCE which is a welcoming OPEN stillness, which is the ground of what we are.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:46 am
The words under the label "dontaskme" certainly do not SHOW a PRESENCE of welcoming OPEN stillness at all.
But the 'label' DOES NOT have any awareness...
I NEVER said it did.

Were not the words under the label "age" read, and/or understood?

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
the label is just an idea KNOWN....
The label is just an identify of where those thought/words are coming from.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
in what is ALWAYS OPEN STILL SILENT PRESENCE AWARENESS.
Of COURSE there IS an 'ALWAYS OPEN STILL SILENT PRESENCE AWARENESS'. BUT, within that 'ALWAYS OPEN STILL SILENT PRESENCE AWARENESS', there are about six billion human beings all wanting to be heard, and listened, to over each other.

But, as I have continually said and pointed out, what is being said that is in disagreement is of not real importance nor issue to Life, nor in relation to Life and living. What is Truly important is what ALL-OF-US agree with.

Instead of 'yelling' over the "top of each other" and we just sat down peacefully together, then working out what it is that we ALL agree with, then we can and will SEE thee actual Truth of things.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
This is why you and I get all twisted up in the wrong I ...the labeled I is not the true I
I agree the label I, to 'you', "dontaskme", is not the true I. I have KNOWN this since the first time you have said it. It is very common knowledge of non-dual speakers to talk about there is no "I".

But, I do not get all twisted up in the wrong I. I just use the label I differently than you, and "others" do. This can be clearly seen throughout my writings when I have specifically mentioned what the difference between 'I' and 'i' is, from my perspective.

I KNOW EXACTLY what you have been meaning all along here and have been trying to say and express here. I have as of yet just not been able to express how I already know what you are saying and meaning, but also express that what I am saying and meaning is not usually what 'you' and "others" are thinking and assuming I am saying and meaning.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
And is why this cannot be put into words, for all is relative, and the relative has no access to the absolute.
Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Because ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing IS relative to the observer, then what one observer is expressing that is not in agreement with absolutely EVERY one as One, then it is obviously not of that much importance anyway and is just some thing which has obviously only come about from their own personal past experiences.

But it is 'THAT' what IS discovered to be in agreement with absolutely EVERY one, as One, and thus IS relative to that One Observer only is what can be put into words, and is what is Truly important anyway.

What it is that comes from and IS relative to and from the perspective of thee One - Everyone, which is what can be explained very simply, and also be understood very easily.

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:30 am
The absolute is the relative. Not the other way round.


.
From the perspective of absolutely Everyone as One, then whatever is agreed with and accepted is thee absolute. This is HOW thee absolute Truth of things is gained and SEEN, and also, by the way, HOW the knowledge of what is right and wrong in Life is also obtained and gained.

Age
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Age » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:10 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:31 am

If you cannot see, understand, what the words of feeling joy, happiness, peace and harmony are explaining and showing, then so be it.
But the word JOY does not EXPLAIN what JOY is... Don't you understand?
I understand this. But I have never been talking about "JOY", nor have I ever been talking about explaining JOY.

Do you understand this?

Also, do you understand that people can talk about JOY and "other" people can KNOW what they are talking about?

If you do not understand this, then the reason people can and do KNOW what "others" are talking about, like when talking about JOY is because ALL people have and share common experiences.

So, ALL-OF-THIS can be and is very simple to explain, and just as easy to understand. That is once I KNEW HOW to explain ALL-OF-THIS. Explaining what JOY is has never been about any thing discussed here. But, anyway, JOY is an internal feeling or emotion.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
this is what I am trying to tell you.
Okay, but I will continue to tell you 'this' can be explained, very simply and very easily.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
If the word JOY is what JOY is ...then explain in words to another what JOY is to you, and see if that WORD JOY can adequately explain the concept so that every SINGLE OTHER body can understand your interpretation of what Joy is to you..in the EXACT same way as you've described it....which is what you believe can happen.
How many times do you have to be told before you come to realize and understand; I do NOT believe any thing?

So, I do NOT believe what you allege I believe here.

Now, what I would say to "another" about what JOY is, to me, is; To me, 'joy' is a feeling greater than just pleasure or just happiness, and then if they wanted to know more, then I would ask them clarifying questions about the way they feel during certain experiences until we came together in a shared agreement of a feeling that we would both agree is the felling of 'joy'. Besides that i would also explain that JOY is just a human emotion.

By the way, WHY would you BOTHER with 'trying to' find out if I can explain one of the 450 or so feeling words and how that one feeling word of JOY is, TO ME, to find out if that way I describe JOY, to ME, could be adequately explained so that what the concept or interpretation of what JOY is, just to ME, personally, could be understood by EVERY SINGLE "body", in the EXACT SAME WAY?

What would be the purpose of doing this exercise?

Are you aware that this would be an impossible task, as that body that 'you' are in will not be around long enough in relation to EVERY OTHER body?

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
And that's all I'm saying, in that describing experiences in words can never match up exactly from person to person.
I NEVER said it could.

But I also know that through agreement 'things' can be worked out and understood, very simply and very easily by the way.

I am the one who has continually said, Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. And, when, and if, you come to ever looking at and considering my other ideas and views, then you will understand why I say this. In short, EVERY thing is relative to the observer BECAUSE OF the past experiences they have had.

We also can not describe what 'red' is to another. But what we CAN DO is agree on 'this color is red'. Even though the 'red' 'i' see, and which 'you' agree with is 'red', might actually be a 'blue' color, to 'me'. We will NEVER know. But as long as we are in agreement and accept that 'this' is 'it', then that is all that matters in Life.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
It's like trying to explain in words what LOVE is to you to another one....
Which, like every thing else, can be done very easily and very simply also.

This reminds me, have I ever mentioned, to you, that 'this' can only be explained and understood very simply and very easily ONLY to those who are Truly interested in discovering, learning, understanding and/or becoming wiser?
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
the other one is going to have no clue about what you are going on about until that other one has experienced the feeling LOVE for itself...and even then it won't nescessarily match up exactly.
If you say so and believe this is what WILL happen, then this is what WILL happen, to and for you.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
One simply cannot put feelings into words as I keep repeating to you.
In relation to feeling words, if I recall correctly, this post and maybe one or two of your other posts is the only time you have said 'one simply cannot put feelings into words'.

If this was absolutely true, then when one says to 'you', 'I feel sad', or, 'I feel joy', are you saying that they simply cannot put feelings into words, and so you would have absolutely no idea how that person is actually feeling?
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
Gosh it's hard work discussing this with you Age.
If you believe so, then it must be true, to you.

But, for me, it is extremely easy discussing things with you, or ANY one "else".

Although I can see how often what I am actually saying and meaning is completely misinterpreted and misunderstood, I can also keep discussing things because I KNOW what is being said and meant, most of the time. But, because people believe their own assumptions to be true, and believe them to be true, then I just let them be. If they do not ask me any clarifying questions and/or do not challenge me on what I say, and instead just want to insist what they say is true, then so be it.

I have no need to be heard and understood here, in this forum. This is just a stepping stone.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
And yes you are right, I do not think like you nor will I ever, I can only think like me. From my own DIRECT EXPERIENCE.
Which is more or less just what I have been saying.

If, for example, from your own DIRECT EXPERIENCE you have learned and now understand that words can not explain things, then that is just your own view, from your own DIRECT EXPERIENCES. But, as I have said, you can not tell me what I can not do, because of what I KNOW and UNDERSTAND from my own DIRECT EXPERIENCES.

You can tell me that you can not explain and understand things with words, which I have already accepted and agreed with, wholeheartedly by the way.

But, do you still believe you have the ability to tell "others" what they can or can not do?

If 'you' have NOT lived their DIRECT EXPERIENCES, then obviously 'you' do NOT have the ability to tell them what they can or can not do.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
AND that's all that I am trying to point out here, which you seem to fail in understanding this,
But I have understood the above, before I even started discussing these things with you.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:56 am
even when it's being pointed out to you not just by me but other nondual posters here at this forum.

.
Or, just maybe I ALREADY 'understand'.

And, I am just pointing out another view, which is not yet understood by some posters here, in this forum.

Age
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Age » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:12 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:50 am
Age wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Language is more complex than thought because it has to be learned therefore thought existed first because it is natural
A baby can think for itself on a very primitive level but it cannot read or write or speak without being taught those skills
Well since you were a baby then how did you think without language ?
To me thought and language are two separate things so are not the same
Even if they are the same I will still treat them as if they were separate
That is okay with me, if that is what they are, to you. But, what you said here did not answer the question I posed.

Age
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Age » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:21 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 am
Age wrote:
I have already explained a few times already that God in the physical visible sense
is the Universe Itself and God in the spiritual non visible sense is the Mind
That is what those words specifically mean to you but not necessarily what they mean to someone else
VERY, VERY, VERY True.

I wish this was remembered more often.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 am
But you are stating these definitions as if they were objectively true even if this was not your intention
I apologize profusely for not adding the words 'to me' to absolutely EVERY sentence I make. But I have said previously that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing I say and write here, in this forum, is from my perspective only, and so absolutely EVERY thing I say and write here, is 'to me'.

But I also KNOW not every one here would have seen this yet.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 am
So it would therefore be better to say this instead [ with only one already ]

I have already explained a few times that to me God in the physical sense
is the Universe Itself and God in the spiritual non visible sense is the Mind
As I said above, "I apologize profusely for not adding the words "to me" to EVERY sentence I write.

Also, just out of curiosity, is this adding the words 'to me' just something that would be better for me only to do, or for "others" as well?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:04 am

Age wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:10 am
I understand this. But I have never been talking about "JOY", nor have I ever been talking about explaining JOY.

Do you understand this?

Also, do you understand that people can talk about JOY and "other" people can KNOW what they are talking about?

If you do not understand this, then the reason people can and do KNOW what "others" are talking about, like when talking about JOY is because ALL people have and share common experiences.

So, ALL-OF-THIS can be and is very simple to explain, and just as easy to understand. That is once I KNEW HOW to explain ALL-OF-THIS. Explaining what JOY is has never been about any thing discussed here. But, anyway, JOY is an internal feeling or emotion.
You still don't understand what I am saying do you?

As long as there is the belief in ''OTHERS'' who KNOW the concept of JOY because they have shared common experiences of JOY....then this whole subject is getting off track again...

The point being made here....Is that YOU only KNOW JOY because You know it...that's ALL YOU CAN KNOW.
So it cannot be a shared experience of ''others''. YOU cannot possibly KNOW if others share the experience...BECAUSE 'others' are just a thought in YOU. The experience of JOY can only be KNOWn to happen in YOU.... These so called shared experiences are projections of YOU, they do not exist outside of YOU.

Getting back on track...The whole premise of this THREAD is about the WHO OR WHAT is the EXPERIENCING of BEINGNESS?

And so all I'm saying ...is that which is BEING, which is blindingly self evident... cannot THEN explain or describe in words what BEINGNESS IS...

Why? because in doing so imposes ANOTHER BEING in the form of a concept on top of what is already BEINGNESS...which IS already silently present and prior to any description or explanation imposed upon it.

So how does SILENT BEINGNESS describe and explain itself? and why would it need to do that, when there is no thing actually explaining or describing itself?

...except what is BELIEVED ?

And so this is what I am saying here, and since you have repeatedly claimed you have no beliefs, then who or what is this ''other'' that can describe and explain SILENT BEINGNESS? ...except a conceptual belief, that is just an illusion anyway.?





.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:24 am

Age wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:10 am

I have no need to be heard and understood here, in this forum.
You can only hear and understand YOU anyway. So any NEED is a need that doesn't need to BE

You simply cannot expect others to be able to hear and understand YOU, because there is no other except what you project from you.

You cannot get outside of you into your projected other, and expect your projection to know what you are talking about, by asking it to clarify for you something that you only believe and think is MISSING...so just who and what are these others that can clarify for you?...when you are only talking to your own projections.. what you only think and BELIEVE to be outside of you when it's all YOU.

So why do you have this excessive obssession of asking for clarification from others that don't exist except as projections of you, just who or what are you talking to? ... who are these ''others'' except a BELIEF that you claim to DO NOT HAVE.

Why is there an obssession to continually drive yourself round the twist getting ever and more entangled in your own net of words trying to explain what cannot be explained...words that just confuse the actual point of this whole topic that is being discussed here. Which is...who or what is it that is trying to explain and describe itself when it doesn't NEED TO?

And yes, it's an oxymoron when trying to explain in words what cannot be explained in words.

And that's what is being discussed here, so I ask you again, please keep on topic.

.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3838
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Reincarnation. Who or what would reincarnate? (explained)

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:48 am

Age wrote:
I apologize profusely for not adding the words to me to absolutely EVERY sentence I make. But I have said previously that ABSOLUTELY
EVERY thing I say and write here in this forum is from my perspective only and so absolutely EVERY thing I say and write here is to me
The problem from my perspective is that you speak from a definitive position - that of someone who knows the absolute truth
So when you are expressing an opinion it can be hard to know if it is just an opinion or the absolute truth
And as you want to communicate better then it might be something you should bear in mind from now on

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests