How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?

[ken]

even though it is the common human experience that any object or event is preceded by some object or event,

Is it really such a common human experience? I would suggest the opposite human experience would be more common. For example if i asked you where did you come from, what would you answer be? Think about how far back you would go.

I bet your experience tells you that it stops and began somewhere.

Now, look into the future and tell me how far you will go. Relatively not that far, am I correct?

"That any object or event is preceded by some object or event" I thought would be common learned knowledge and not common human experience.

Common human experience is being born and dying.

This depends on how fine a point you want to put on it.

The theory is that In the broadest sense the subatomic particles that form the atoms in my body were created in the Big Bang, the beginning of time, and will continue till the end of the Universe, at the end of time. Of course there are much closer beginnings and there could be a closer ending. Are you speaking of human beings, or life on Earth, either are much closer to the now of the present.

Exactly as I said, "I bet 'your' experience tells 'you' that 'it' stop and began somewhere.

If you believe that 'you' began and will end, then 'you' have a tendency to believe that the Universe began and will end also, and then you will try to refute anything that suggests otherwise. Just as I suggested I bet 'your' human experience, of beginning and ending, will tell 'you' that 'it', the Universe, began and stop somewhere. 'Your' own response states, "... the Big Bang, the beginning of time, and will continue till the end of the Universe, at the end of time. There is NO proof the Universe began nor that It will end.

It was you who wrote, "there is no reason to expect that the Universe will conform to human experience. Human experience is much more limited that the Universe." Yet by your own response here you are doing exactly what the much more limited human does, i.e., put a limited human experience onto something we humans do not know yet, which I bet you would.

The truth is the Universe may or may not have a beginning. We do not know if there was or was not a before the so called big bang.

The difference between you and I is I am completely open to the Universe either being infinite or finite. Your response proves you are not open.

What I have been trying to point out all along is if a person continues to believe and thus say that the Universe was created in the big bang or the Universe was created by a god or that the Universe is eternal and/or infinite, without proof, then they are not open - to learn the truth.

The truth again is the Universe may or may not have a beginning.

[ken]

Where the hell do some of you get the absolutely stupid notion that we or other conscious beings share 'self'? I can guarantee you I don't share doodley squat with any of you boneheads.

Who are the 'some of you'?

Who or what is the 'self' you are referring to here. Your use of the word 'we' actually implies a shared self somewhere.

Who is the 'you' that you guarantee to?

Who are the "boneheads" that you say, "I don't share doodley squat with..."??

[ken]

What is cannot be known....what is known is illusory since nothing can be known of what is.

Is this anything like when I said, the only thing we can be sure of, i.e., know, for sure, is the thoughts within the head.

Can you do me a favor dontaskme, when I actually doaskyou a question, can you please answer it for me. I ask questions so that i am able to get somewhat better clarity on what is that you are actually saying.

"What is cannot be known" does that in any way relate to when I said, "I am looking at the blue sky"? I will make it easy for you to clarify for me, is that a Yes or a No.

Is the "what is..." for example a blue sky, and the "cannot be known" part be close to the same as when I said we can not know, for sure, what is a blue sky? Again, just a Yes or a No would suffice here.

The ''what is'' IS ...but it can't be known what the ''what is'' is......it's known that it is ..but NOT what it is....the seer or knower would have to be outside the seeing itself looking on itself to know it.

If that is what you believe, then so be it. That just proves you are not open to the Truth.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer. So, if 'you' are unable to see that just maybe the truth is that 'It' IS actually able to see and know what 'It' IS, then obviously what is stopping you from seeing and knowing this Truth IS you, yourself. Your own belief in something IS blinding you from seeing and thus stopping you from knowing the Truth.

That which is without colour appears as all colour.
That which is without sense appears as all senses.
And so on....

''what is'' IS as it appears, given form, shape, and colour by thought and known, but thoughts are without form,shape and colour...so what that is can never be known....no one has ever seen the colour blue or red...the colour blue or red are known ideas known by that which is unknowable. Reality is pure fantasy, it's born of pure intangible perception that is without source or location. There does appear to be a point of reference where a thought arises within the mind/body mechanism,(location) but even that is just another thought about the prior thought believed to be located in the body /mind...even that thought is of no location....there is nowhere only herenow nowhere.

You say you KNOW all this but you also insist that you can not even know who you, yourself, the one who is saying all this, is.

[ken]

But it's obviously known else it could not and would not be appearing.

You are right in that it may be obviously known but until you have an idea you are unable to explain 'it'. I will prove this fact again. Answer this:

What is the 'it' in "it's obviously known else 'it' could not and would not be appearing?

It's called IT because no one knows what IT is.....only that IT is....call it ISNESS

You continue to persist with saying, "no one knows what IT is, YET i have told you numerous times that IT can not just be known but also that I know what IT is.

Only as IT appears as all appearances...can the unknown be known, but not known by a someone, not known by a person, IT as IT appears as every thing is not a thing ..yet appears as all things...things arise in no thing....given meaning via idea/thought....which are not things, only ideas/thoughts about things....as things are known via the thought about them, it is not known what or who that knower/thinker is apart from the thought.....the thinker cannot separate itself from the thought...it's one unitary action.....The thinking is the thinker itself. The thinker cannot get rid of the thought because the thought is not a thing... The world is an imagined dream, dreamt by no one...

Just because a 'person', the thinker and the thinking itself, can not know what IT is does not mean that there is some thing that can know what IT is. As I have explained previously 'I' know what IT is. Until 'you', the thinking thinker, becomes truly open and inquisitive, then you will NEVER know what 'I' am and know.

There has to be a frame of reference an awareness or no thing in place before an appearance of thing is known by the no thing....without the awareness there is no thing happening, no thing known...just pure awareness without an object.

The pure awareness without an object...is totally unknowable since it's one without a second.

If 'Life', IS the Universe, which is made up of ALL things, then that includes all physical things as well as all non-physical things like consciousness, awareness, and pure awareness. If this can be known, then 'It', ALL things, can be known by 'Its Self'. 'I' have just shown you now 'It' CAN and actually DOES know 'It' is Thee One and only 'Self'. 'My' 'Self' does know that 'I' am 'It', ALL things. Thee Creator and the creating of ALL things. Always have been and always will be creating ALL things right HERE and right NOW.

Take that anyway you like, but that is Thee Truth. So, do not do the human thing and be so sure of your little self when in fact you do not know.

'I' can prove that 'It' can know 'Its' 'Self'. 'You' can not prove that 'It' can not know 'It'.

[Dontaskme]

The ''what is'' IS ...but it can't be known what the ''what is'' is......it's known that it is ..but NOT what it is....the seer or knower would have to be outside the seeing itself looking on itself to know it.

Ken wrote: If that is what you believe, then so be it. That just proves you are not open to the Truth.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer. So, if 'you' are unable to see that just maybe the truth is that 'It' IS actually able to see and know what 'It' IS, then obviously what is stopping you from seeing and knowing this Truth IS you, yourself. Your own belief in something IS blinding you from seeing and thus stopping you from knowing the Truth.

Ken, there is no observer. There are no relationships in reality. Who's the fricking observer? that's what I'm on about....yeah the things are known as they appear, but your missing the point... things are known but who knows them, and from what, where or why they appear is unknown....In a sense the things are relative in that they are ideas known as they arise, but the things are ideas only... things are known yes via the idea....but what I'm saying is the ideas are not known, no one knows what an idea is or how they arise and to whom they are arising, the one to whom they arise is just another idea, .that's what I mean.....so who is the observer OTHER than the idea/thing itself that knows what the idea is ?

I've already explained all this in another post which you commended and said I had the answers. Now you say the opposite, you confuse me now, can't you make up your mind about my truth?
If there is just absolutely everything...then who is going to be the observer relative to that everything? it would have to split itself in two...please tell me if you understand what I've said.

[Dontaskme]

The IT - the THIS IS IT is not known...but the appearance of IT as in IT'S raining is known via the experience of droplets of water coming from the sky.

You did not answer my question.

If 'It' is appearing, then what is the 'It' that appears, to you anyway? You actually said, 'It' is obviously known, so what is the 'It' that is supposedly obviously known?

The appearance is known....but it's not known who knows the known.....there is no knower ..there is only knowledge are illusory things/ideas. One knows the word rain...but not what rain is...or one knows the word water, but not what water is...do you see?

Although you do now say 'It' is not known, but you say 'It' still appears. So again what is 'It' that still appears, to you.

IT appears, but only as a concept known....via the idea about IT......it's not known what is appearing because the IT that appears as all things is not a thing, only the thing is known by the no thing. No thing knows what the IT is....ONLY what is imagined.

'I' know what 'It' is, so, 'It' is known. But, I want you to provide us with what appears to you. I will give you a clue on what 'It' is, 'I' have mentioned what 'It' is on a few occasions already. Another clue is in the statement 'It' is raining.

Can you explain what is the 'It'?

No I can't explain what the IT is....simply because there isn't an IT....IT is an idea, the IT is the idea, an idea can't know itself because it doesn't actually exist, IT'S an appearance that comes and goes, appears and disappears...who knows where it comes from or where it goes, maybe nowhere now here..no one knows.... where is here? what is now? all concepts/knowledge....all illusions....it's not an entity that knows itself. And it doesn't need to know itself because it already is it. This is it, but there is no entity outside of this that knows it...The entity is born of the idea, it's born of the mind....only the mind is born ...and what is a mind, I've no idea except the idea.

If not, then does not in of itself mean 'It' is not known nor that it could be known. If you can not answer that question, then all that means is 'you' do not know what 'It' is.

Like I've already said, there is no entity here to know what it is because it already is that one without a second. There is no you to know you because there is NO OTHER than you...what the YOU is is just what it appears to be in the conception. sometimes it's a tree, or a bird or a bear or what ever it conceives itself to be as a concept........that which knows all concepts is not a concept it is no thing NOTHING.

[Dontaskme]

If 'Life', IS the Universe, which is made up of ALL things, then that includes all physical things as well as all non-physical things like consciousness, awareness, and pure awareness. If this can be known, then 'It', ALL things, can be known by 'Its Self'. 'I' have just shown you now 'It' CAN and actually DOES know 'It' is Thee One and only 'Self'. 'My' 'Self' does know that 'I' am 'It', ALL things. Thee Creator and the creating of ALL things. Always have been and always will be creating ALL things right HERE and right NOW.

Yes of course, but this is not known by a someone. It is known but not by you or I...there is no you or I except the idea.

This is known by no one.

I have been consistently clear throughout on this.

[Dontaskme]

Ken: Take that anyway you like, but that is Thee Truth. So, do not do the human thing and be so sure of your little self when in fact you do not know.

NO.. it is not the truth. The truth cannot be known.... The truth IS and you are IT....KNOWN ....that which is already known cannot know.

ken: 'I' can prove that 'It' can know 'Its' 'Self'. 'You' can not prove that 'It' can not know 'It'.

You don't need to prove it, because you are already IT... YOU are known....but not by you...the known cannot know anything, for that would require a knower of the known...and there is only knowing one without a second. The known is known in and as the known as it appears to itself, but the knower of the known is impossible to know....that would be like looking behind you to see who is seeing/knowing...not happening.



How can I prove you I am 'It'?

I cannot!

How can you prove I am not 'It'?

You cannot!

[Dontaskme]

You say you KNOW all this but you also insist that you can not even know who you, yourself, the one who is saying all this, is.

I the character don't know this. What seemingly comes out of this characters mouth in the form of words is silence sounding. An idea arises I am talking..but no one is talking, it's just what's appearing from the no thing of pure silence. That's the contradiction ...it's divine contradiction. It's the subject/object duality at play with itself.

Can't have a subject without an object...can't have an object without the subject....subject can objectify itself as a thing known as seen.

But an object cannot subjectify itself and know that one...that would be like the eyeball being able to see itself...or the tooth being able to bite itself.

The KNOWN & SEEN is dream story arising in nothing...all illusory nothings...appearing real.

[Dontaskme]

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer.

There is no observer. There is ''observing'' known instantly in the very act of a thing known as it appears to no one.

The act of seeing and the thing seen is one action, the seeing cannot be separated from the thing seen, it's one unitary action. A thing appears only as it is seen and known instantly one with the seer knower. The seer and knower can never be seen or known because it is the seeing and knowing. There is no relationship.

Any relationship of object seen and known by subject is illusory...since the seer and knower cannot be seen or known by an object...the object is the known, the seen.

[ken]

Is this anything like when I said, the only thing we can be sure of, i.e., know, for sure, is the thoughts within the head.

Yes, but thought is only fantasy believed to be real, why I say believed.. is because while there is belief there is no believer.

The belief is the believer and where is that...no idea.

'You' may have no idea,

BUT,

'I' know.

[Dalek Prime]

Where the hell do some of you get the absolutely stupid notion that we or other conscious beings share 'self'? I can guarantee you I don't share doodley squat with any of you boneheads.

Who are the 'some of you'? People on this forum.

Who or what is the 'self' you are referring to here. Your use of the word 'we' actually implies a shared self somewhere. No it doesn't. I used 'we' clearly to say we humans don't share consciousness.

Who is the 'you' that you guarantee to? Dalek Prime. You quoted me, idjit.

Who are the "boneheads" that you say, "I don't share doodley squat with..."?? Whomever is claiming shared consiousness.

Are you too stupid to read?

[ken]

The ''what is'' IS ...but it can't be known what the ''what is'' is......it's known that it is ..but NOT what it is....the seer or knower would have to be outside the seeing itself looking on itself to know it.

Ken wrote: If that is what you believe, then so be it. That just proves you are not open to the Truth.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer. So, if 'you' are unable to see that just maybe the truth is that 'It' IS actually able to see and know what 'It' IS, then obviously what is stopping you from seeing and knowing this Truth IS you, yourself. Your own belief in something IS blinding you from seeing and thus stopping you from knowing the Truth.

Ken, there is no observer. There are no relationships in reality. Who's the fricking observer? that's what I'm on about....yeah the things are known as they appear, but your missing the point... things are known but who knows them, and from what, where or why they appear is unknown....In a sense the things are relative in that they are ideas known as they arise, but the things are ideas only... things are known yes via the idea....but what I'm saying is the ideas are not known, no one knows what an idea is or how they arise and to whom they are arising, the one to whom they arise is just another idea,

BUT 'I' have told you numerous times already that 'I' am the One that knows all these things that 'you' say no one knows.

I have been trying to get you to see that for and by yourself. If you answered ALL of my questions openly and honestly, then you would be on your way to understanding this and knowing what 'It' is also. I have also just been waiting, patiently, for you to ask me some clarifying questions also. When I started reading your reply here I though, 'Great you had started asking me some questions', "Who's the fricking observer?", you asked, which i was just about to answer, but then you wrote, "that's what I'm on about".

By the use of that last statement you are in fact not asking me anything about who is the observer. What you are doing is talking to yourself. You are asking yourself, and because you yourself could not answer that question, then your response is, "that's what I'm on about", as though just because you yourself can not answer that question, then, to you only, that means no one else is able to answer that question also. This then leads to your belief, "No one can answer this", which while you continue to hold onto dearly and closely leads to even being able to see that just maybe it is actually able to be answered. This obviously is apparent in and by the rest of your reply.

The Truth is until you are open to the fact that just because 'you' yourself can not answer a question that in of itself does not mean some one else can not answer the question. JUST MAYBE 'I' CAN answer that questions, and ALL other meaningful questions also. You will never know until you ask AND are open to responses. But as I have said previously if you just answer the questions I ask of you openly and honestly, then you will find the answers by yourself. You will also discover they fit in to make the puzzle clearer for "your" or Thee Self.

.that's what I mean.....so who is the observer OTHER than the idea/thing itself that knows what the idea is ?

Do you really want the answer this time? Are you open to there being an answer NOW? Are you prepared to look at this from the truly open Mind?

Answer these three questions honestly, then I will tell you my answer. By the way 'my' answer may or may not be right. I am open to it being completely wrong with evidence and proof.

I've already explained all this in another post which you commended and said I had the answers. Now you say the opposite, you confuse me now, can't you make up your mind about my truth?

I have noted at least twice before you have the answers, and that that surprises me. I am not saying the opposite. I still say you have the answers, meaning you are very close to the final answers. But that in of itself does not mean absolutely everything you say is 100% true, right and correct. Some of what you say is completely wrong and this does not surprise me, because of your obvious belief in some things that are completely false. Whilst some of what you say is correct and me how you got those answers is what surprises me. You have gone about as deep as one can in finding those answers. What surprises me is you have got TO the answers. What I am very curious about is HOW you go there.

I have asked you to clarify how you got those answers but you are unable to do so, or you have not read my questioning writing properly. Either way I still would like to know how you yourself got to those answers. But just because you KNOW something does not mean you also know how you got there. Like I have explained already. When I am asked a math question/problem, sometimes I can know the answer and sometimes near instantly, without necessarily knowing how I got the answer. Therefore, I have A answer. This answer can then be verified with a calculator if it is right or wrong. However, if I am then asked how did I get the answer, this can take a fairly long time to explain. Sometimes I am not even sure myself how i got the answer, but it does not really matter for a maths problem. The answer can be verified as right or not right by a calculator.

The difference with these meaningful answers that you sometimes provide is they can not be so easily verified, as has been proven countless times to you by people's reactions. Some people actually think you are completely crazy instead of being completely or nearly right. And that is why I say you need to find the right words, with the right definitions, in order to show what you say is right is actually right. There is no calculator that can verify the truthfulness of an answer to a meaningful question.

I have also said that I think showing people the right way in order for them to find the answers by themselves, is the better way for them to KNOW the answers for them self. Unfortunately for you, if you do not know how you got those right answers, then there is no possible way of showing others how to get the right answers also. If you could share with me how you found the right answers, then I can can better words to use and learn how to write better.

If there is just absolutely everything...then who is going to be the observer relative to that everything? it would have to split itself in two...please tell me if you understand what I've said.

I have understood what you said here. BUT what you said is NOT right. The first part is a question but sadly the second part shows your ill gotten belief that stops you from being able to answer the question in the first part. I say what you said is NOT right because 'It' does not necessarily have to split Itself in two.

The simple answer to your first question is Everything. The sum of absolutely every thing (two words is ALL things), which IS Everything (one word). Everything (one word with capital 'E') IS Thee One and only. The One Everything is made up of ALL the many different single things. The One, Everything, however, at Its most fundamental level is actually made up of two separate things. For any thing to exist, including the One, which is made of up ALL things, there needs to be two things to have created It. The One is made up of two basic things, i.e., physical things and non-physical things. These two things can only exist with the other. One could exist but would not exist without the other. (Needs much more explaining at a later date). So although the One would NOT have to split Itself into two to be able to observe what It is, the One is actually made of two, which is what allows Itself to be able to see and know Its Self.

I could explain this in an infinite or, if not infinite, a near infinite (purposely written that way) different amount of ways. I could do this until we found the way that you would fully understand. BUT if you continue to hold the belief that It could not know what It is, then there is no use. No amount of evidence nor proof can override a belief. A belief and a disbelief is what stops human beings from eternal continual learning. I could be using My "time" and "energy" looking for someone else who is already truly open, and who is already truly wanting to find answers that could change them for the better.

Just by being truly Honest, Open and Wanting to by looking to change one's self for the better, instead of looking for answers to prove what one thinks is right, is HOW ALL meaningful answers can be found.

[ken]

You never cease to surprise me dontaskme. You have the answers.

I am very interested in knowing how you got them, especially when you do not know yourself. What path were you on when you come to this realization? Hopefully, you will share with me your path in how you got here.

Deleted reply / because the content was for one showing only, and is now deemed redundant...was my opinion only and not relevant anymore.

Pity you deleted your response before I had a chance to see the one showing only.

Your response may have been very helpful for me.

[ken]

I don't agree.

This can never be revealed using words, words obscure the pure clarity of what it is that's being spoken about.

So why are you trying then? What else could you use?

If this can never be revealed using words, then why use words here and now?

With the use of the right words, words, in of themselves, can in fact clarify to pure clarity.

If you believe your words here, then what are you creating?

I'm Writing purely for the fun of it.

Yes, you are right, but words are still not the same as direct seeing into this silently.

Of course words are not the same as direct seeing. Just like seeing is not the same as direct words. There is obviously no single thing that is exact same as some other different thing, but words can help in clearly seeing, and thus in gaining a clear understanding of, knowledge and Truth.

Words can be the catalyst toward a deeper understanding of ultimate reality, but the ultimate seeing comes from the tacit Self alone, not from the word.

Of course, But 'I', the tacit Self, want to be revealed. Your persistence is proof of this fact.

'I' am teaching how 'you' are also able to become and thus see from the tacit Self to.

'Seeing', can just mean understanding. So, the ultimate understanding comes from the tacit Self alone, but sharing that understanding is best done through words of knowledge.

Sharing only done by words.. yes agreed...understanding however, is an existential resonance and is also experiential to the one seeking.

The easiest way for a human being to learn anything is to be just told it. BUT, human beings do not necessarily learn that way. Some times they will over believe what they are told, for example that 'god is true'. They believe this because it is written in a book, and, the book says it is true. Human beings also under believe what they are told, for example most, if not all children, will not believe the stove is hot, no matter how many times they are told that it is, until they touch the stove for themselves. Children, in these cases are very smart, they need first hand proof before they will just believe (in) something.

Human beings, by their very nature, gain a much more thorough understanding of any and ALL things based on not what they have just been told but rather on their own experiences and observations. Human beings need to be told things and be truly open what they have heard, and then use their own past experiences and observations to verify if what they have been told is true, partly true, or wrong. If human beings start believing or not believing (in) things before the Truth is known, then they are not able to listen to what they are being told. Listening, truly listening that is, IS needed in order to be able to see. Seeing and understanding comes from knowing. Knowing and knowledge is gained from truly listening to what is right in life. Truly listening automatically happens when you are open. You are only open when you are not closed. If you are disbelieving or believing (in) something, then you are not open to anything else, including the Truth. When you are closed you are in the dark and thus can not see. But, when you are truly open you can not help but clearly see the Truth.