The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

[Dontaskme]

Age, please have some respect and see that I do not see the same reality that we are all apart of in the exact same way as you do. And I never will.

WHY do you say 'never will'?

Do 'you' KNOW the future?

All I know is the camera..the all knowing eye never lies.

But 'you' are NOT LOOKING from NOR through the ALL-KNOWING EYE.

'you' are only LOOKING FROM and through the human eyes, and the other four senses of the human body. This is WHY 'you' have a VERY narrowed view and perspective of things. From 'your' perspective 'you' can NOT SEE the big and FULL picture. Thee ALL-KNOWING Eye reveals this, very easily.

Everything is an analogy, it can only reference to something that doesn't exist including language, words, speaking and hearing.

Obviously and completely NOT true.

It doesn't matter what is said or how it's said.... it's meaningless.

This is to 'you', and NOT to 'me'.

Finding meaning in EVERY thing is very SIMPLE, that is; once 'you' learn and KNOW-HOW to do it and SEE it.

The reason there is meaning in EVERY thing is because of what Everything actually IS.

Spoken by no one...heard by no one....experienced by no one.

A weird thing for 'one' to express.

For 'one' to write the words; "spoken by NO one... heard by NO one...experienced by NO one" is a complete contradiction in and of itself.

"That, which does the knowing, can not itself be known, & can not know its self."

But 'I' am that One and 'I' ALREADY KNOW, ALL OF THIS.

'I' KNOW exactly who AND what 'I' am. And, 'I' am NOTHING like that one, known as "dontaskme", imagines 'I' am.

What does this expression say?.....Nothing.

That would all depend on what the expression is in relation to EXACTLY?

What does it mean?....Nothing.

NO thing, obviously.

And yet........there is apparent meaning. Go Figure..........
.

There IS meaning. This is because there is SOME thing.

LOOK please understand that I ALREADY KNOW what 'you' are 'trying to' say. 'you' are just repeating very old views on this.

[Age]

Nope, there is no one speaking, there's just words appearing on the blank screen of your consciousness appearing as a speaking person who wants to understand itself or not.

Who and/or what wants to understand itself?

I ALREADY KNOW thy Self.

Again, that which appears to speak in the form of words, language and knowledge.. NEVER EVER SPOKE
a single word...did you forget that I've said this to you before?

I do NOT care what you have said previously. This is because when I ask you to clarify or explain 'you' say that 'you' can NOT clarify NOR explain. Therefore, it does NOT matter what you have said before.

If that 'self' can not explain its self, then that infers that it does NOT really understand what is said.

Did 'you' forget that what is said IS 'you'? And, if 'you' do NOT yet KNOW 'you', then you certainly do NOT know thy True Self.

Please try to understand that this ''dontaskme character'' only exists as a word appearing in your consciousness,

'you' would first HAVE TO explain what is meant when it is stated 'your' AND 'consciousness'. What is the 'thing' which supposedly has 'consciousness'? What is 'consciousness'? Where is this 'thing' (the 'your') which has 'consciousness'? If this "dontaskme" character can NOT explain this in very simple and easy terms, then that is just MORE evidence that this "dontaskme" character REALLY has NO idea about what is said.

Also, please understand that I KNOW exactly who, what, why, and where this "dontaskme" character IS. I also KNOW how this "dontaskme" character came to be. Now, unlike this "donataskme" character I CAN completely back up and substantiate what I claim.

and that this character has no existence apart or separate from your consciousness.

Would you like to 'try' and explain what 'your consciousness' ACTUALLY MEANS?

No more than the character ''Homer Simpson'' in a tv show exists spearate from the consciousness that is viewing that character

How many 'consciousness' is this "dontaskme" character suggests exist?

LOOK please understand that I ALREADY KNOW what 'you' are 'trying to' say. 'you' are just repeating very old views on this.

...Until you get that simple realisation fixed in you mind,

Once again, another human being using the 'mind' word, in connection with the 'your' word. Now, words are being used, but can the understanding of these words be SHOWN. If so, then do it. Otherwise I will take it that 'you' have NO idea what a 'mind' actually IS and how a 'mind' exists in relation to a 'your'.

you will keep believing that this character dontaskme actually exists as a real thing.

And how many times does it take for this "dontaskme" character to catch on that 'I' do NOT believe any thing?

Please believe me

Please listen to ME. I do NOT believe any thing, so I will NOT just start to believe any thing, including 'you', just because you ask or want 'me' to.

when I tell you there is nothing outside of your own consciousness except what is apparently appearing to be outside it, but is actually your own consciousness appearing to be outside itself as a characterised image.

Once again, WHY does this "dontaskme" make what is essential VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to understand seem so complex and hard to understand?

Also, WHY is it so important for what is said, under the disguise of this "dontaskme" character, to be accepted and agreed with? It is like this "dontaskme" character is NOTHING AT ALL if it is NOT heard, NOT listened to, and NOT accepted and NOT agreed with 100%.

When 'I' tell 'you' some thing, do 'you' listen to it?

If no, then WHY do 'you' expect "others" to listen to 'you'?

'you' have SHOWN that 'you' are completely incapable of listening. But 'you' BELIEVE so strongly that what is said is 100% true and correct, therefore what is said under the disguise of "dontaskme" SHOULD be HEARD and ACCEPTED.

The contradictory nature of 'you', human beings, never ceases to amaze.

And then try to remember that the characterised image out-there, is only your own reflection looking back at you, for you as consciousness have no image of yourself without that image that appears to be out-there to mirror back to you, else you do not exist..please try to understand what I am showing you, in that everyone you believe to exist out-there, is just your own mirror reflecting back at you.

Please understand that ALL OF THIS is OLD KNOWLEDGE, and thus ALREADY KNOWN. Please also understand that the way it is explained from the "dontaskme" character is VERY OLD and the cause of WHY 'you', human beings, still can NOT SEE and GRASP thee actual Truth of things yet.

Correct, that which appears to make a claim never did...why do you always want things that have been said to you a million times already, repeated back to you, what is wrong with you, have you lost your memory?

I do this so that IF you answer, then the CONTRADICTION is even CLEARER. This is to make sure that I am NOT putting words in "your mouth". But where the words come from exactly are KNOWN.

NO, you do not know and understand more than me, you only think you do.

LOL instead of being at all OPEN 'you' JUMP straight into an ASSUMPTION, which, by the way, could not be MORE WRONG.

And the thought thing is just an illusion anyway, so it concerns me not what you think or believe, for I already know and understand SELF...and so it matters not what you think or believe otherwise.

Any human being can say they understand any thing. But to back this up, then they have to SHOW this. 'you' have FAILED EVERY time to SHOW that 'you' Truly understand any of this.

How many times do you want me to repeat that to you, would 500 more times be enough?

WHY do you ask the most ridiculous questions?

Yes probably, yes, we are probably understanding the same understanding but using different words to express our same understanding.

Finally I get 'you' to SEE what I have been saying from the outset.

But, from previous conversations, this will inevitably change.

The difference with 'us' is 'you' BELIEVE that explaining this Self with words is IMPOSSIBLE. Whereas, to 'me' explaining this Self with words is very simple and very easy indeed.

'you' BELIEVE that words will only cause disconnection, whereas I KNOW words can cause Unity.

Well, I could say the same thing about you, so no big surprise there.

In regards to what exactly?

I KNOW what 'you' are talking about. I have just moved on way past that, and want to keep moving forward.

I have no goal or agenda here, you seem to have a very short memory also...I have stated umpteen times already that I come to this forum because I enjoy talking to and about thee nondual self. That's about all there is to it, I enjoy this activity, else I wouldn't do it...please just try to accept that.

Okay, then WHY NOT talk about thee nondual Self, instead of talking about some thing that is NOT thee nondual Self?

If you WANT to talk about some thing and claim that you KNOW it, then it would be better if you could substantiate your claims in some sort of fashion. You have, however, and to your credit, admitted that you have absolutely NO idea how to explain 'that', which is essentially very simple and easy to explain AND substantiate.

Also, I have never once thought I am the only one who knows and understands the SELF...SO stop projecting that on me, which is only your own thought out assumed belief onto me as if it was mine, for it is not..

.

'you' are so BLIND that you can NOT even SEE a Truly OPEN clarifying question posed to 'you' without ASSUMING and BELIEVING that it is some thing else.

Read my question again. There is NO projecting, NO assuming AND NO believing whatsoever. There is just a Truly OPEN question. Just because 'you' BELIEVE otherwise will NOT make it so.

By the way, IF 'you' enjoy talking to and about "thee nondual self", then who and what is "thee nondual self".

Tell thee nondual self who and what it IS, and let 'us' SEE if 'you' get the feedback that you WANT and SEEK from "thee nondual self".

From what 'I' have observed 'you' will NOT like what "thee nondual self" informs 'you'.

LOOK please understand that I ALREADY KNOW what 'you' are 'trying to' say. 'you' are just repeating very old views on this.

'you', once again, make a claim, will 'you' now back this one up?

What is IT that I am 'trying to' say?

And, what are these "very old views" of 'mine', and what is "this" that these "very old views of mine" are on EXACTLY?

SHOW the readers that 'you' do actually KNOW what 'you' are talking about for once.

[Dontaskme]

Who and/or what wants to understand itself?

I ALREADY KNOW thy Self.



I do NOT care what you have said previously. This is because when I ask you to clarify or explain 'you' say that 'you' can NOT clarify NOR explain. Therefore, it does NOT matter what you have said before.

If that 'self' can not explain its self, then that infers that it does NOT really understand what is said.

Did 'you' forget that what is said IS 'you'? And, if 'you' do NOT yet KNOW 'you', then you certainly do NOT know thy True Self.



'you' would first HAVE TO explain what is meant when it is stated 'your' AND 'consciousness'. What is the 'thing' which supposedly has 'consciousness'? What is 'consciousness'? Where is this 'thing' (the 'your') which has 'consciousness'? If this "dontaskme" character can NOT explain this in very simple and easy terms, then that is just MORE evidence that this "dontaskme" character REALLY has NO idea about what is said.

Also, please understand that I KNOW exactly who, what, why, and where this "dontaskme" character IS. I also KNOW how this "dontaskme" character came to be. Now, unlike this "donataskme" character I CAN completely back up and substantiate what I claim.



Would you like to 'try' and explain what 'your consciousness' ACTUALLY MEANS?



How many 'consciousness' is this "dontaskme" character suggests exist?

LOOK please understand that I ALREADY KNOW what 'you' are 'trying to' say. 'you' are just repeating very old views on this.



Once again, another human being using the 'mind' word, in connection with the 'your' word. Now, words are being used, but can the understanding of these words be SHOWN. If so, then do it. Otherwise I will take it that 'you' have NO idea what a 'mind' actually IS and how a 'mind' exists in relation to a 'your'.



And how many times does it take for this "dontaskme" character to catch on that 'I' do NOT believe any thing?



Please listen to ME. I do NOT believe any thing, so I will NOT just start to believe any thing, including 'you', just because you ask or want 'me' to.



Once again, WHY does this "dontaskme" make what is essential VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to understand seem so complex and hard to understand?

Also, WHY is it so important for what is said, under the disguise of this "dontaskme" character, to be accepted and agreed with? It is like this "dontaskme" character is NOTHING AT ALL if it is NOT heard, NOT listened to, and NOT accepted and NOT agreed with 100%.

When 'I' tell 'you' some thing, do 'you' listen to it?

If no, then WHY do 'you' expect "others" to listen to 'you'?

'you' have SHOWN that 'you' are completely incapable of listening. But 'you' BELIEVE so strongly that what is said is 100% true and correct, therefore what is said under the disguise of "dontaskme" SHOULD be HEARD and ACCEPTED.

The contradictory nature of 'you', human beings, never ceases to amaze.



Please understand that ALL OF THIS is OLD KNOWLEDGE, and thus ALREADY KNOWN. Please also understand that the way it is explained from the "dontaskme" character is VERY OLD and the cause of WHY 'you', human beings, still can NOT SEE and GRASP thee actual Truth of things yet.



I do this so that IF you answer, then the CONTRADICTION is even CLEARER. This is to make sure that I am NOT putting words in "your mouth". But where the words come from exactly are KNOWN.



LOL instead of being at all OPEN 'you' JUMP straight into an ASSUMPTION, which, by the way, could not be MORE WRONG.



Any human being can say they understand any thing. But to back this up, then they have to SHOW this. 'you' have FAILED EVERY time to SHOW that 'you' Truly understand any of this.



WHY do you ask the most ridiculous questions?



Finally I get 'you' to SEE what I have been saying from the outset.

But, from previous conversations, this will inevitably change.

The difference with 'us' is 'you' BELIEVE that explaining this Self with words is IMPOSSIBLE. Whereas, to 'me' explaining this Self with words is very simple and very easy indeed.

'you' BELIEVE that words will only cause disconnection, whereas I KNOW words can cause Unity.




In regards to what exactly?

I KNOW what 'you' are talking about. I have just moved on way past that, and want to keep moving forward.



Okay, then WHY NOT talk about thee nondual Self, instead of talking about some thing that is NOT thee nondual Self?

If you WANT to talk about some thing and claim that you KNOW it, then it would be better if you could substantiate your claims in some sort of fashion. You have, however, and to your credit, admitted that you have absolutely NO idea how to explain 'that', which is essentially very simple and easy to explain AND substantiate.




'you' are so BLIND that you can NOT even SEE a Truly OPEN clarifying question posed to 'you' without ASSUMING and BELIEVING that it is some thing else.

Read my question again. There is NO projecting, NO assuming AND NO believing whatsoever. There is just a Truly OPEN question. Just because 'you' BELIEVE otherwise will NOT make it so.

By the way, IF 'you' enjoy talking to and about "thee nondual self", then who and what is "thee nondual self".

Tell thee nondual self who and what it IS, and let 'us' SEE if 'you' get the feedback that you WANT and SEEK from "thee nondual self".

From what 'I' have observed 'you' will NOT like what "thee nondual self" informs 'you'.

LOOK please understand that I ALREADY KNOW what 'you' are 'trying to' say. 'you' are just repeating very old views on this.

'you', once again, make a claim, will 'you' now back this one up?

What is IT that I am 'trying to' say?

And, what are these "very old views" of 'mine', and what is "this" that these "very old views of mine" are on EXACTLY?

SHOW the readers that 'you' do actually KNOW what 'you' are talking about for once.

I'm talking about nothing, that's the only thing I know anything about.

How about you? what are you talking about, how about showing the readers that you do actually know what you are talking about for once.

[Age]

From what 'I' have observed 'you' will NOT like what "thee nondual self" informs 'you'.

There is no such thing as a nondual self.

Sorry to inform you.

The words under the identity name "dontaskme" were;
I have stated umpteen times already that I come to this forum because I enjoy talking to and about thee nondual self. That's about all there is to it, I enjoy this activity, else I wouldn't do it...please just try to accept that.

I find keeping up with ALL of 'your' contradictions "dontaskme" somewhat constant work. There are just so many of them. I am pretty sure I have missed quite a few so far, but as for this one; IF there is NO such thing as a nondual self, then WHY did 'you' write that 'you' enjoy TALKING TO and ABOUT 'thee nondual self'?

You even wanted me to just try to ACCEPT that 'you' enjoy the activity of talking TO and ABOUT 'thee nondual self' but then 'you' turn around and tell 'me' that there IS "no such thing as a nondual self. So who and/or what is this 'thing' which 'you' enjoy talking TO and ABOUT if it is NOT "thee nondual self"?

Also, WHY were 'you' sorry to inform 'me' that there is NO such thing as a 'nondual self'?

Some might say 'you' should be more sorry for 'you' because it is 'you' who enjoys talking TO and ABOUT a thing that 'you' now say does NOT exist.

[Dontaskme]

From what 'I' have observed 'you' will NOT like what "thee nondual self" informs 'you'.

There is no such thing as a nondual self.

Sorry to inform you.

The words under the identity name "dontaskme" were;
I have stated umpteen times already that I come to this forum because I enjoy talking to and about thee nondual self. That's about all there is to it, I enjoy this activity, else I wouldn't do it...please just try to accept that.

I find keeping up with ALL of 'your' contradictions "dontaskme" somewhat constant work. There are just so many of them. I am pretty sure I have missed quite a few so far, but as for this one; IF there is NO such thing as a nondual self, then WHY did 'you' write that 'you' enjoy TALKING TO and ABOUT 'thee nondual self'?

You even wanted me to just try to ACCEPT that 'you' enjoy the activity of talking TO and ABOUT 'thee nondual self' but then 'you' turn around and tell 'me' that there IS "no such thing as a nondual self. So who and/or what is this 'thing' which 'you' enjoy talking TO and ABOUT if it is NOT "thee nondual self"?

Also, WHY were 'you' sorry to inform 'me' that there is NO such thing as a 'nondual self'?

Some might say 'you' should be more sorry for 'you' because it is 'you' who enjoys talking TO and ABOUT a thing that 'you' now say does NOT exist.

How can you feel sorry for one that doesn't exist.

Oh boy, you are my constant amusement Age, thanks for entertaining this phantom ghost called DAM.

Do carry on talking to yourself, as I will do same..It's what IT does apparently.

.

[Dontaskme]

I find keeping up with ALL of 'your' contradictions "dontaskme" somewhat constant work. There are just so many of them

Then why don't you just fuck the fuck off then, and stop contradicting yourself. That would be a most efforless effort to just stop believing and thinking there really is a self that can contradict itself.

.

[Age]

LOOK please understand that I ALREADY KNOW what 'you' are 'trying to' say. 'you' are just repeating very old views on this.

'you', once again, make a claim, will 'you' now back this one up?

What is IT that I am 'trying to' say?

And, what are these "very old views" of 'mine', and what is "this" that these "very old views of mine" are on EXACTLY?

SHOW the readers that 'you' do actually KNOW what 'you' are talking about for once.

I'm talking about nothing, that's the only thing I know anything about.

Okay, BUT this is NOT what 'I' was talking about at all.

Did you MISS what was going on here?

You made the claim that 'you' ALREADY KNEW what 'I' was 'trying to' say. And, I asked 'you' to provide evidence of what it was that I was 'trying to' say.

I was NOT interested in what 'you' were talking about. This is just another one of 'your' twisting things completely around, and 'trying to' deflect away from the real issue.

But at least 'you' have admitted that 'NOTHING' is the ONLY THING that 'you' know anything about.

How about you? what are you talking about, how about showing the readers that you do actually know what you are talking about for once.

Once again, 'you' quickly twisted this around.

REMEMBER it was 'you', "dontaskme" who said, numerous times, that 'you' ALREADY KNEW what I was 'trying to' say. But OBVIOUSLY this is completely and utterly FALSE and WRONG, as evidenced by 'you'.

'you' now ask me "What are you talking about?" and say, "How about showing the readers that you do actually know what you are talking about for once".

My pleasure. But in relation to 'what' EXACTLY?

[Dontaskme]

Also, WHY were 'you' sorry to inform 'me' that there is NO such thing as a 'nondual self'?

Because you assumed I would not like what the nondual self informs.
You are Assuming there is a self that will not like what the nondual self informs itself.
So my response to that is so what, what difference will that make whether it likes it or not if there is no such self anyway.

Some might say 'you' should be more sorry for 'you' because it is 'you' who enjoys talking TO and ABOUT a thing that 'you' now say does NOT exist.

There is no self talking to itself, there is just nothing talking here...and this nothing happens to enjoy talking about this nothing, seriously it's no big HUGE DEAL.

.

[Age]

There is no such thing as a nondual self.

Sorry to inform you.

The words under the identity name "dontaskme" were;
I have stated umpteen times already that I come to this forum because I enjoy talking to and about thee nondual self. That's about all there is to it, I enjoy this activity, else I wouldn't do it...please just try to accept that.

I find keeping up with ALL of 'your' contradictions "dontaskme" somewhat constant work. There are just so many of them. I am pretty sure I have missed quite a few so far, but as for this one; IF there is NO such thing as a nondual self, then WHY did 'you' write that 'you' enjoy TALKING TO and ABOUT 'thee nondual self'?

You even wanted me to just try to ACCEPT that 'you' enjoy the activity of talking TO and ABOUT 'thee nondual self' but then 'you' turn around and tell 'me' that there IS "no such thing as a nondual self. So who and/or what is this 'thing' which 'you' enjoy talking TO and ABOUT if it is NOT "thee nondual self"?

Also, WHY were 'you' sorry to inform 'me' that there is NO such thing as a 'nondual self'?

Some might say 'you' should be more sorry for 'you' because it is 'you' who enjoys talking TO and ABOUT a thing that 'you' now say does NOT exist.

How can you feel sorry for one that doesn't exist.

Maybe that would be a question better asked to a 'one' who does feel sorry?

Oh boy, you are my constant amusement Age, thanks for entertaining this phantom ghost called DAM.

Do carry on talking to yourself, as I will do same..It's what IT does apparently.

.
[/quote]

Who and/or what is 'IT'?

Also, NO acknowledgement NOR reply to my questions regarding 'you' saying 'you' enjoy talking to and about some thing, which 'you' also, contradictory, say does NOT exist.

[Dontaskme]

Once again, 'you' quickly twisted this around.

Aww, diddums, I twisted it around, just like you twist what ever I say around too.

Lets twist again, like we did last summer...twisting, twisting, twisting the night away.

[Dontaskme]

Also, NO acknowledgement NOR reply to my questions regarding 'you' saying 'you' enjoy talking to and about some thing, which 'you' also, contradictory, say does NOT exist.

The truth self doesn't ask questions, questions can only pertain to a false self.

That's why you bore me with your constant need to ask questions and have them clarified.

I've told you I'm not interested in more more more unlike YOU

[Age]

I find keeping up with ALL of 'your' contradictions "dontaskme" somewhat constant work. There are just so many of them

Then why don't you just fuck the fuck off then, and stop contradicting yourself.

SHOW where I have, supposedly, written any thing contradictory.

Remember it is 'your' contradictions that 'we' are LOOKING AT and 'trying to' work out.

IF 'you' provide any that 'I' have made, then 'we' CAN LOOK AT them, as well as work those ones out.

That would be a most efforless effort to just stop believing and thinking there really is a self that can contradict itself.

.

The speed at which 'you' contradict is Truly amazing.

Two sentences are written;
One states "stop contradicting yourself".
The very next sentence states that it would be no effort to just stop thinking there really is a self that can contradict itself. Implying that there is NO self, which could even contradict its self.

So, from one sentence to the next sentence it is worded "stop contradicting yourself" but "there is NO self to contradict itself".

If there is NO self, then WHY do 'you' ENJOY talking TO and ABOUT a self? And, 'one' which 'you' actually call "thee nondual self"?

And, if there is NO self, then who or what is thee 'you' if it is NOT a self, itself?

[Dontaskme]

Who and/or what is 'IT'?

Now why are you asking me, I thought you said all this is very easy and simple to explain and understand, so now what, have you already forgotten what you said earlier, oh my, this is so amusing.

.

[Dontaskme]

SHOW where I have, supposedly, written any thing contradictory.

Not until you SHOW where I have, supposedly, written any thing contradictory.

Remember it is 'your' contradictions that 'we' are LOOKING AT and 'trying to' work out.

And don't forget yours.

IF 'you' provide any that 'I' have made, then 'we' CAN LOOK AT them, as well as work those ones out.

When you provide any that 'I' have made, then maybe we can I suppose.

The speed at which 'you' contradict is Truly amazing.

It's not as fast as the speed of light though is it?

Two sentences are written;
One states "stop contradicting yourself".
The very next sentence states that it would be no effort to just stop thinking there really is a self that can contradict itself. Implying that there is NO self, which could even contradict its self.

So, from one sentence to the next sentence it is worded "stop contradicting yourself" but "there is NO self to contradict itself".

If there is NO self, then WHY do 'you' ENJOY talking TO and ABOUT a self? And, 'one' which 'you' actually call "thee nondual self"?

And, if there is NO self, then who or what is thee 'you' if it is NOT a self, itself?

I've told you before, there is no self enjoying talking to its no self, are you deaf, why do you keep forgetting what I've said to you?

.

[Age]

Also, WHY were 'you' sorry to inform 'me' that there is NO such thing as a 'nondual self'?

Because you assumed I would not like what the nondual self informs.

So, was the only way for 'you' to get out of this one was to then just say now "there is no such thing as a nondual self"?

Is there a "nondual self" or not?

If no, then WHY say 'you' enjoying talking to and about it?

If yes, then WHY now say there is no such thing as a nondual self?

I said "From what I have observed ..."

You are Assuming there is a self that will not like what the nondual self informs itself.

I was only going on what you told me earlier. You even said that you enjoyed talking to this thing. I was NOT aware that you were going to turn things around so much and completely contradict this by then stating that such a thing does NOT really exist.

So my response to that is so what, what difference will that make whether it likes it or not if there is no such self anyway.

And my response to this is that 'you' have succeeded in twisting things around so much that it is becoming almost to hard to keep up with the spinning.

So, instead of just admitting and acknowledging that 'you' would NOT like what "thee nondual self" would inform 'you', instead 'you' just make up some new fantasy story about how "thee nondual self" does not really even exist, now.

Some might say 'you' should be more sorry for 'you' because it is 'you' who enjoys talking TO and ABOUT a thing that 'you' now say does NOT exist.

There is no self talking to itself, there is just nothing talking here...and this nothing happens to enjoy talking about this nothing, seriously it's no big HUGE DEAL.

.

Yet you were the one insisting, not to long ago, that you ENJOY talking TO a 'self'. you even stated; you enjoy this activity, else you wouldn't do it. And, you even begged me to "please just try to accept that".

But now you want me to accept that this "self", which you talk TO and ABOUT, and even ENJOY doing, otherwise you would not be doing it, does not actually exist at all anyway, correct?

Now you want me to accept that there is just 'nothing' talking and that 'nothing' actually has pleasure centers were it has enjoyment from talking about nothing, correct?

If this is correct, and I did accept this, and then began to discuss this and ask questions in relation to this, which you also do not like to admit and acknowledge, will you then turn things around again and just contradict what you have said here as well?