## Proof that all is ONENESS

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Posts: 5095
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

f
daramantus wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:10 am
daramantus wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:03 am

oneness is a myth , just like twoness, threness, it doesnt mean jack
Seriously.........? All myths are related in some degree of truth.......
WHy don't you start a chat with the moron called "dontaskme" , and then listen to his "oneness" theory, and you will understand nothing about anything about no one and how nonsense is this
Your attempt to understand nonduality is entertaining ....and you are not my worst nightmare since I stopped believing dreams were real a long time ago....your ga ga bla bla bla comments are all water off a ducks back mate.

You mention the word proof a lot...rather amusing considering the fact that the idea that anything needs to be proved could only arise where there is a sense of a separate self....something that is unique to humans only, since they are the ones that made up the so called entity in the first place using a bunch of letters from their own concocted alphabet.

Proof is evident in the being or the seeing. This already evident proof doesn’t need a second opinion for who or what other oneness would there be to stand as the prover of the proof that’s already evident...?

Now,...try to understand that for any proof to become known about anything at all ..requires a prover....stop and think before you ask for proof, first thing you need to do is prove there is a prover before you can start demanding proof ...when you can do that, then perhaps I’ll start to take you a little more seriously...

.

Have fun proving a prover....let me know what you find and report back to me with your ideas, and your written explanations of those ideas....this is probably going to get a whole lot more entertaining....bye for now.

.

Posts: 5095
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

Daramantus....there is no separate knower called Dontasme or Daramantus.

There is no separate doer.

The separation is an energetic phenomena unique to the human mind body mechanism expressed through that vehicle as thought..when identification with a thought arises ..this reinforces the idea there is a separate self who owns the thoughts....creating the illusion of a separate knower ....this sense of other is so strong it sticks to the point of no return.

Those that see through the illusion of this duality return to ground base while at the same time are living in the illusion aka the dream of separation. Others never see through the illusion and live in separation for the rest of their lives, which is a tense and defensive way to be often full of confusion fear and misery. People who have awakened to the illusion of separate me still have all the experiences of conceptual knowledge...ie, pain pleasure, misery wealth or poverty etc..but do not take these experiences personally, they can experience the unique capacity to observe theses experiences as temporary illusory visitors that come and go like clouds.
These experiences are energetic in nature they want to exist as everything does, everything is the same energy appearing as different experiences, but notice that when no attention is given to these energetic sensations, is when they dissolve like a puff of smoke..every experience falls away back to the nothingness from where they appeared..they can Only linger when they are being given attention ...that which is given the most attention grows as it feeds off it, ...stop feeding the energy and the thoughts have no chance to settle anywhere or dominate anything....until all that’s left is pure aliveness for no one.

Animals don’t seem to have this strong sense of separate self like humans...if they did they would all be starting up their own religions. That’s what humans have done, they have invented the self and will do just about anything to defend that self at all costs.

.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:23 am
Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:41 pm
f
daramantus wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:21 am

WHy don't you start a chat with the moron called "dontaskme" , and then listen to his "oneness" theory, and you will understand nothing about anything about no one and how nonsense is this
Your attempt to understand nonduality is entertaining ....and you are not my worst nightmare since I stopped believing dreams were real a long time ago....your ga ga bla bla bla comments are all water off a ducks back mate.

You mention the word proof a lot...rather amusing considering the fact that the idea that anything needs to be proved could only arise where there is a sense of a separate self....something that is unique to humans only, since they are the ones that made up the so called entity in the first place using a bunch of letters from their own concocted alphabet.

Proof is evident in the being or the seeing. This already evident proof doesn’t need a second opinion for who or what other oneness would there be to stand as the prover of the proof that’s already evident...?

Now,...try to understand that for any proof to become known about anything at all ..requires a prover....stop and think before you ask for proof, first thing you need to do is prove there is a prover before you can start demanding proof ...when you can do that, then perhaps I’ll start to take you a little more seriously...

.

Have fun proving a prover....let me know what you find and report back to me with your ideas, and your written explanations of those ideas....this is probably going to get a whole lot more entertaining....bye for now.

.

Non duality is a fraud, there is nothing to understand but shitty fallacies, parroting stupid false claims and use some false analogies.

according with the confused puppies called, "Eodnhoj7" and "dontaskme" , reality should be like this image.
Try pi and the golden mean. Pi is considered a transcendental and the Golden Mean as irrational. In these respects you can observe infinity as dually irrational and rational. Infinity as Limitless Limit can observe these two as "Limitless/Irrational/Golden Mean" and "Limit/Reason/Pi". Considering that Pi is literally the universal "line between two points" tell me how the 1 dimensional line is not an infinite structure?

dontaskme wouldnt be a person and there would be no one to answer and no one to talk about anything, in this image, the "observed" and "observer" are one and the same.
Observation observes both and others. In observing others it observes degrees of the self, through unifying universals. Observation is circular in nature, and this circularity allows for a proportional nature to it as "complete". Observation is the manifestation of measurements, in many respects, with the measurement of the self being a primary one through the act of self-reflection.

, objects, without substance, just a big ball of nothing with no one there, and a wholeness, and a confusion of fullness and emptienss, with illusions, people's appearances, and aliens appearing out of nothing to no one, and each person would have the same consciousness, each one would observe it would be the same consciousness, but it wouldnt be separate from anyone, and the wholeness fullness planet that the empty creates out of the aliens simulatory system would be a simulation. real computers? someone to answer to, someone who borns, who is alive? nah, just the mysterious empty fullness big ball , only the utterly all one beings masturbating each for itself, you would be not observing anything and anyone, but another self being who would encounter itself....

makes total sense. this is the WORLDVIEW OF BOTH NONASKME AND THE OTHER IDIOT HERE. of course this world view doesn't exist , not even in cartoons

45465675757.png

only a big ball that doesn't know anything, steve jobs didnt create shit, it was the big ball out of it's power of nothing according to "dontaskme".
If you don't agree with the spherical concept of reality you may disagree with this:
The 24 definitions

1. Deus est monas monadem gignens, in se unum reflectens ardorem.

God is a monad generating a monad, which in the heat (of love) reflects to himself alone.

2. Deus est sphaera infinita cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam.

God is an infinite sphere, whose center is everywhere (and) circumference is nowhere.

3. Deus est totus in quolibet sui.

God is all in any of his.

4. Deus est mens orationem generans, continuationem perseuerans.

God is mind generating a word (with) enduring continuity.

5. Deus est quo nihil melius excogitari potest.

God is that where nothing better can be devised.

6. Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil.

God is that, in which comparison substance (or essence) is an attribute (or feature), and attribute (or feature) being nothing.

7. Deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine.

God is beginning without beginning, process without variation, end without end.

8. Deus est amor qui plus habitus magis latet.

God is love, which the more is hidden the more we (believe to) have it.

9. Deus est cui soli praesens est quidquid cuius temporis est.

God is that, to whom all is present related to (all what belongs to) time.

10. Deus est cuius posse non numeratur, cuius esse non clauditur, cuius bonitas non terminatur.

God is that, whose ability (or competence) is not numbered, whose being is not limited, whose goodness is not terminated.

11. Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter.

God is above (or beyond) being, (is) necessary and by oneself being sufficient unto himself in abundance.

12. Deus est cuius voluntas deificae et potentiae et sapientiae adaequatur.

God is that, whose will equals (or is according) his divine power and wisdom.

13. Deus est sempiternitas agens in se, semper divisione et habitu.

God is working eternity by himself without division and (without having or gaining) an attribute (or feature).

14. Deus est oppositio nihil mediatione entis.

God is the opposition of nothing by means of being.

15. Deus est vita cuius via in formam est, in unitatem bonitas.

God is life, whose way into form is truth, (and whose way) into unity is goodness.

16. Deus est quod solum voces non significant propter excellentiam, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.

God (is the) only one because of his excellence, who is not signed by words, and mind (creatures) do not recognise (him) caused by (their) dissimilarity.

17. Deus est intellectus sui solum, praedicationem non recipiens.

God is the concept (or notion) (derived) from himself alone not suffering (or tolerating) a(ny) predicate.

18. Deus est sphaera cuius tot sunt circumferentiae quod puncta.

God is the sphere having as much circumferences as points.

19. Deus est semper movens immobilis.

God is the immobile (but always) moved (one).

20. Deus est qui solus suo intellectu vivit.

God is (the only one) alone living from his self knowledge (or self - awareness).

21. Deus est tenebra in anima post omnem lucem relicta.

God is the darkness in the soul being left after all light.

22. Deus est ex quo est quicquid est non partitione, per quem est non variatione, in quo est quod est non commixtione.

God is (that), from which all is (or exists) that is (or exists) without (him) being divided (or splited); through him (all) is without (him) getting (or being) changed; in him (all) is without him getting (or being) mixed with it.

23. Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur.

God is that, which the mind only knows in ignorance (or in the state of not knowing).

24. Deus est lux quae fractione non clarescit, transit, sed sola deiformitas in re.

God is light, appearing as without refraction, permeating, but only (being) a divine formation in the things.

who are the observers? according to dontaskme the observers are not really observers someone a one who observes. but the big self is the one who is observing and you're the one who observes through it, but deep down it is all just the big ball. who is really alive that wil ldie? the person you think you are, just because you are in a body? no,you are not someone who will die , not one , not one with consciosuness who dies.... nah, you're the person you think yourself to be, who possess a beautiful body, you do think your body is real and you're inside, that you have a soul, but that's the illusion, this is all a simulation duuuuuh hurr durr

Consciousness is the application of dimensions through perpetual measurement, considering that measurement begins with the application of 1 as unified and 1 as unit or individuation, 1 is a perpetual constant that ties people together.

crtcrcrcrrcrc.jpg

In regards to the math, of course you have to misquote because that is the only rational recourse you have inorder to give the "impression" you are correct. You had no choice in the matter, so keep going with the insults please. To change subject and correct your error:

1 + 1 = 2

however (1 ≡ 1 ≅ -2,1,2) would be the correct quote. That should help your next round of "thoughts".

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:37 pm
Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:56 am
Daramantus....there is no separate knower called Dontasme or Daramantus.

There is no separate doer.

The separation is an energetic phenomena unique to the human mind body mechanism expressed through that vehicle as thought..when identification with a thought arises ..this reinforces the idea there is a separate self who owns the thoughts....creating the illusion of a separate knower ....this sense of other is so strong it sticks to the point of no return.

Those that see through the illusion of this duality return to ground base while at the same time are living in the illusion aka the dream of separation. Others never see through the illusion and live in separation for the rest of their lives, which is a tense and defensive way to be often full of confusion fear and misery. People who have awakened to the illusion of separate me still have all the experiences of conceptual knowledge...ie, pain pleasure, misery wealth or poverty etc..but do not take these experiences personally, they can experience the unique capacity to observe theses experiences as temporary illusory visitors that come and go like clouds.
These experiences are energetic in nature they want to exist as everything does, everything is the same energy appearing as different experiences, but notice that when no attention is given to these energetic sensations, is when they dissolve like a puff of smoke..every experience falls away back to the nothingness from where they appeared..they can Only linger when they are being given attention ...that which is given the most attention grows as it feeds off it, ...stop feeding the energy and the thoughts have no chance to settle anywhere or dominate anything....until all that’s left is pure aliveness for no one.

Animals don’t seem to have this strong sense of separate self like humans...if they did they would all be starting up their own religions. That’s what humans have done, they have invented the self and will do just about anything to defend that self at all costs.

.

"theare is naoh separation man, naoh separata doer, naoh separation, naoh observer, pwerceiver,pelease, agreae witht me, naoh doer, me vs yoo"

you seem to suffer from separation complexity. You really CAN'T accept reality, you can't accept that you are in your home, you are a perceiver of your computer, you are seeing it because you have healthy eyes and healthy rods and cones, if you weren't the perceiver of the object, you wouldn't need eyes if u werent in your body in the central locus of your consciousness. and I'm here in another part of the world, perceiving my computer, that's not even obvious, that's not debatable, you really have problems accepting it, you are like discussing nothing here. It's just that. I don't know why you repeat something that you're clearly wrong, it's laughable.
So according to you, everything is unified as a dividing line?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:41 pm
daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:37 pm

"theare is naoh separation man, naoh separata doer, naoh separation, naoh observer, pwerceiver,pelease, agreae witht me, naoh doer, me vs yoo"

you seem to suffer from separation complexity. You really CAN'T accept reality, you can't accept that you are in your home, you are a perceiver of your computer, you are seeing it because you have healthy eyes and healthy rods and cones, if you weren't the perceiver of the object, you wouldn't need eyes if u werent in your body in the central locus of your consciousness. and I'm here in another part of the world, perceiving my computer, that's not even obvious, that's not debatable, you really have problems accepting it, you are like discussing nothing here. It's just that. I don't know why you repeat something that you're clearly wrong, it's laughable.
So according to you, everything is unified as a dividing line?
according to me, 'everything' is lacking definition, because we don't know everything, so we can't make any theories about it, so, no, I don't believing in any " unifying theory" . and each "theory of everything" has failed in the past. because there is no such thing to begin with. Some people have hard time accepting it, hard time accepting that we don't know the unknown, actually we know little to nothing. We can only know from the frame of knowledge available to us, not beyond it. and what is beyond the beyond and outside it. It's like, there is really no such thing as "everything unified"
If everything is lacking in definition, how can you say that holism is false and mutliplicity is true?

If we can only understand our own framework, is that a unified theory?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:16 pm
Greta wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:41 pm
There is a paradox. Everything is one, yet separate. Those who cannot accept paradoxes will tie themselves in metaphysical knots trying to argue for one aspect or the other.

Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory because most parts of the universe don't communicate with each other. Romantics claim that separation is an illusion because all parts of the universe are connected, even if only with "neighbours". Each side makes correct observations but incorrect resultant assertions.

The human example suggests that, over time, reality is becoming more interconnected (at least within galaxies) as it cools.
Quarks bond to form protons and neutrons, which bond to form atomic nuclei, which bond with electrons to form atoms, which bond with each other to form molecules. Atoms, ions and molecules in larger numbers bond into a considerable variety of organised matter forms - clouds of gas, liquids and solids of various sizes, from dist to planetary subsystems, to planets, stars and galaxies.

The living cell is an aggregate of atoms and molecules in a bonded structure of liquid-solid form. Cells bond to form colonies, organelles, organs and organisms. Organisms of a given species bond to form breeding groups and societies. Human organisms bond to form polities and civilisations.

I would also add that civilisations are bonding via telecommunications and the internet into something that I don't think we have a name for yet, other than "humanity" (or some epithet). Barring accident, it would seem that galaxies left alone for a long time will tend to become ever more integrated, more "one". "Oneness" in a meaningful / practical sense seems more an ideal or future possibility than a current reality.
every thing is not 'one' or 'two' or 'three' so, the number analogy for reality is ridiculous. there is no paradox. the paradox is being created by dontaskme, by his wrong premise you already gave another one which is also wrong. he is saying like if space was in us, but that's clearly wrong. since empty space exist because objects are separate from each other, distant from each other, so it's completely correct to say that we are IN space. even tho space is not a thing, objects are things which separate themselves, which we observe.
How is everything not 1, 2 or 3 if everything is composed of dimensions that manifest through the 1D line?

And what is substance but space individuating itself ad-infinitum as the golden ratio: 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+⋯))))) ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

How is this not 1?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:31 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:21 pm
daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:16 pm

every thing is not 'one' or 'two' or 'three' so, the number analogy for reality is ridiculous. there is no paradox. the paradox is being created by dontaskme, by his wrong premise you already gave another one which is also wrong. he is saying like if space was in us, but that's clearly wrong. since empty space exist because objects are separate from each other, distant from each other, so it's completely correct to say that we are IN space. even tho space is not a thing, objects are things which separate themselves, which we observe.
How is everything not 1, 2 or 3 if everything is composed of dimensions that manifest through the 1D line?

And what is substance but space individuating itself ad-infinitum as the golden ratio: 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+⋯))))) ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

How is this not 1?
LOL, are you quoting me this 'myth' as a proof of anything?
Expressed as a continuous fraction the golden ratio shows a process of continual individuation through 1.

https://www.goldennumber.net/golden-ratio-myth/
"My subsequent analysis, however, shows that their ideal facial features reveal a dozen golden ratios, in both horizontal and vertical dimensions of key facial markers. See image and details further below in this article."

"When this golden rectangle is placed as just described, the bottom of the supporting beam at the top of the columns is at the golden ratio of its height."

I am not even going to bother posting further examples...did you even read the article or did you just google "Golden ratio, Myth" and post the first thing you seen? I did not bother reading the below if this is all you have.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/3044877/th ... ggest-myth

but, even if this was true, that would still not prove anything anything here.
You sir sure like the number ONE, You hate plural, TWO, THREE............don't you?

All rational number is merely a result of 1 mirroring itself ad-infinitum through addition, subtraction, etc. All numbers are merely structural extensions of one. They mirror themselves ad-finitum as "1" through totality.

I hate to admit you're wrong.

I feel like I am arguing with a stupid child that wants his own way at the expense of reason. Go ahead provide some more arguments, let's see what you and your anger possess.

Oneness is mythology, that's all I gotta say.

Greta
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:16 pm
Greta wrote:
Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:41 pm
There is a paradox. Everything is one, yet separate. Those who cannot accept paradoxes will tie themselves in metaphysical knots trying to argue for one aspect or the other.

Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory because most parts of the universe don't communicate with each other. Romantics claim that separation is an illusion because all parts of the universe are connected, even if only with "neighbours". Each side makes correct observations but incorrect resultant assertions.

The human example suggests that, over time, reality is becoming more interconnected (at least within galaxies) as it cools.
Quarks bond to form protons and neutrons, which bond to form atomic nuclei, which bond with electrons to form atoms, which bond with each other to form molecules. Atoms, ions and molecules in larger numbers bond into a considerable variety of organised matter forms - clouds of gas, liquids and solids of various sizes, from dist to planetary subsystems, to planets, stars and galaxies.

The living cell is an aggregate of atoms and molecules in a bonded structure of liquid-solid form. Cells bond to form colonies, organelles, organs and organisms. Organisms of a given species bond to form breeding groups and societies. Human organisms bond to form polities and civilisations.

I would also add that civilisations are bonding via telecommunications and the internet into something that I don't think we have a name for yet, other than "humanity" (or some epithet). Barring accident, it would seem that galaxies left alone for a long time will tend to become ever more integrated, more "one". "Oneness" in a meaningful / practical sense seems more an ideal or future possibility than a current reality.
every thing is not 'one' or 'two' or 'three' so, the number analogy for reality is ridiculous. a thing is ONE, two things are TWO, and from that, you see how wrong is to claim anything about any set of things using a single number, and outside these set of things other set of "things" (by the sake of simplicity calling "things"). there is no paradox. the paradox is being created by dontaskme, by his wrong premise you already gave another one which is also wrong. he is saying like if space was connected integrated with us, or some bs like that, but that's clearly wrong. since empty space exist because objects are separate from each other, distant from each other, so it's completely correct to say that we are IN space. and space is not an 'empty' "something" connected to us. it's empty nothing, even tho space is not a thing, objects are things which separate themselves, which we observe.
Did you see the part where I agreed with DAM's ideas? No? Me neither . DAM and I had our big argument about this some time ago. We are each most familiar with each other's worldviews, but neither of us achieved much understanding of the other's mind so we leave each other alone to do out thang. Every now and then someone tires of the "it's all an illusion" line and has it out with her as I did. At present it is your turn.

Seriously, space actually does not exist, at least not in this universe (a little reminder of late forum member, Obvious Leo, who loved to press this point). Space only exists in a relative sense. For instance, you might have some "space" in your house. Of course the "empty" space is not empty, but filled with the contents of the atmosphere - air, other gases, dust, bacteria and viruses, magnetic fields and other low level radiation (including photons of light), the Earth's gravitational field, neutrinos, dark matter, etc.

What of the cosmos? Again, there is no true space - just a chaotic blend of various fields of gravity, EM energy and dark matter, like ripples in an ocean. Einstein demonstrated that space has substance (hence it can be stretched and bent), so the universe can in fact be looked at as one thing - one ocean of galaxies, stars and black holes. Instead of water connecting the entities it's a mix of various energies, forces and free subatomic waves and particles. So yes, space is logically integrated with us (and I suspect could be much more so in the future).

The notion of oneness, however, is just a universal perspective - as opposed to the perspective from the point of view of a galactic cluster, galaxy, solar system, planet, species, nation, culture, subculture, family, individual, body system, organs, microbiome, molecule, atom or, of course, a subatomic wavicle Which to focus on? I'm interested in a few of those levels, as probably are you, but some such as DAM are more specialised in their interests.

Clearly DAM, and others who embrace the universal/God perspective, are seeking the ultimate, skipping the intermediaries. That is the emotional approach - to simply reach blindly upwards in faith. Personally, I find the details of science more stimulating and inspiring, but each to their own.

Posts: 5095
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

Daramantus....I could say the same about you too, in that you can’t accept reality.

We’re just seeing reality differently that’s all.

I can’t change the way I see it ...it’s how this one here sees it..so all I’m doing is sharing a view. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, because I could say the same about your view.

Daramantus is not the You in question here, neither is dontasme...there is no separate you in existence....there is only oneness looking at itself knowing itself through the reflection of other appearing outside you...

...the reflection is not the knower or the seer.....it is the known and the seen, aka knowledge....aka illusory since we all understand that there is nothing in the mirror but a reflection ...a reflection is the only way I can exist.

Do you not see that?

The You exists before it is known or seen.....it is the ONE seeing itself in the mirror, the reflection is not the seer.

The You only knows itself when it becomes aware of it’s s own reflection. The You IS...but it only knows it is as a reflection ...as the unseen becomes seen, the unknown becomes known.

Daramantus doesn’t see or know, if he did he would be able to know he was being born, he would see himself being born, he would know what it is like to be dead..

Do you not see how silly that is...

Posts: 5095
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

Daramantus...the You is ...only in relation to what you reflect.

Can a reflection separate itself from its reflector , namely a mirror? ... no it can’t ...both the mirror and the reflection are One

That is how reality works.

You cannot prove anything exists outside of yourself separate from you, simply because everything appearing to be separate from you can only exist because you exist, the external cannot be outside separate from you, it is YOU...for without YOU nothing would exist.

You cannot prove a tree or any object or person exists separate from you...because these objects are in the same reality as you. The idea a tree is separate from you is the illusion because the tree needs you to exist before it can exist.
It’s impossible that the tree is separate from you ....to say it is, you would have to be the tree ... but you cannot be a tree or any other object, you can only be the awareness knowledge of such objects...the you can never recognise itself as an object, the you can only be the object less knower /seer of the object inseparable from that knowledge, in other words a mental construction.

There is no proof that other human beings exist outside of you separate from you....to prove they do you would have to be them, and that is impossible..those people exist for you only because you do...if you didn’t exist then nothing else would.
And that is the only You there is....the you in you is the same you in me....for more information on that you need to study this oneness concept more deeply... until it is seen clearly to be the truth of all truths...which is there is no truth.
.

.

Posts: 5095
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

Continuing on...you might then say, well when I die, the world continues without me....but this is only assumed because of the believe in a separate me.

If this separate me exists, and is the knower and the seer, it would know it has died, and it would know that life was still continuing while this me was dead....now that is impossible.

The truth is no separate me was ever born or can die....the belief there is a me is due to the mis-identification between the mirror and its reflection.

It is believing that the reflection is the one alive, not the mirror.

There is only the mirror..aka light of course, reflecting itself everywhere and nowhere, now here.

Posts: 5095
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

Then how is this known you might say.

It’s known because there is no one to deny that life does not exist, nothingness cannot be an experience, only aliveness can be experienced ..it is the experiencing.

I do not know what or who or why there is experiencing ....but I do know there is ...only because I cannot experience nothingness. I cannot experience not being. I am never not here.

.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:44 pm
daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:31 pm

LOL, are you quoting me this 'myth' as a proof of anything?
Expressed as a continuous fraction the golden ratio shows a process of continual individuation through 1.

https://www.goldennumber.net/golden-ratio-myth/
"My subsequent analysis, however, shows that their ideal facial features reveal a dozen golden ratios, in both horizontal and vertical dimensions of key facial markers. See image and details further below in this article."

"When this golden rectangle is placed as just described, the bottom of the supporting beam at the top of the columns is at the golden ratio of its height."

I am not even going to bother posting further examples...did you even read the article or did you just google "Golden ratio, Myth" and post the first thing you seen? I did not bother reading the below if this is all you have.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/3044877/th ... ggest-myth

but, even if this was true, that would still not prove anything anything here.
You sir sure like the number ONE, You hate plural, TWO, THREE............don't you?

All rational number is merely a result of 1 mirroring itself ad-infinitum through addition, subtraction, etc. All numbers are merely structural extensions of one. They mirror themselves ad-finitum as "1" through totality.

I hate to admit you're wrong.

I feel like I am arguing with a stupid child that wants his own way at the expense of reason. Go ahead provide some more arguments, let's see what you and your anger possess.

Oneness is mythology, that's all I gotta say.
numbers are not structural extensions of anything. you're lost
They are not structural extensions of a rational framework that measures?

"totality". there is no "totality" of anything to summarize, to reduct anything to form a calculus of "totality", and in any place, An example, If I born in a room and I never looked outside of my room, and all the knowledge I have is about this room, I can make a theory of the totality of my room and make up a stupid theory of the 1 , 2 , 3 dimensions, invent some stupid calculus and then claim the totality of objects in my room is blah blah........ what about the outside of my room????? I can't know it, I don't know anything about it. , can't you see the obvious?
Actually if the only way to understand the outside world, in a room you never left, was through your room, then by default you could see that "room" is a constant and that there are other "rooms". We know this to be actually true, but it gives evidence that certain frameworks continually structure themselves across time and space. So we can observe certain constants under the assumption of a framework theory arguing other frameworks are possible and reflect the original.

There can't be any unified, or totality, or anything like "oneness".............really, it's in front of your nose and if you can reflect for 10 minutes for yourself your own theory, you will realize you are theorizing a bullshit.
Then is everything is strictly multiple, or divided in nature, how can their be division without observing "units" as 1?
https://goldenratiomyth.weebly.com/the-human-body.html

No mate, if the only "proof" of oneness you have is the golden ratio MYTH then again, you're lost.
Actually that is a proof, not the proof. The only proof of 1 is 1, and in observe 1 we observe dimensions of 1.

1 mirroring what? ad finitum, mirroring 1 , 2..... blah blah... eh , I didnt even read ur theory cuz ur not even making sense, and this isn't applicable to reality, so discarded.

yes I did search 'golden ratio criticism', because I know this is a myth since I first heard about it in a new age forum in 2012, then I researched about it and voilá, new age crap, refuted and outdated..
The golden ratio "myth" you provided only proved how common the golden ratio is. Alongside the continuous fraction element, we can observed the reality of 1 as an individuating unit within reality.

If you're not dontaskme, you have the same separation complexity that he has, but yours is "1" complexity
How can their be no "1", if everything is seperated through "1"?

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:22 pm
daramantus wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:44 am

numbers are not structural extensions of anything. you're lost
They are not structural extensions of a rational framework that measures?

"totality". there is no "totality" of anything to summarize, to reduct anything to form a calculus of "totality", and in any place, An example, If I born in a room and I never looked outside of my room, and all the knowledge I have is about this room, I can make a theory of the totality of my room and make up a stupid theory of the 1 , 2 , 3 dimensions, invent some stupid calculus and then claim the totality of objects in my room is blah blah........ what about the outside of my room????? I can't know it, I don't know anything about it. , can't you see the obvious?
Actually if the only way to understand the outside world, in a room you never left, was through your room, then by default you could see that "room" is a constant and that there are other "rooms". We know this to be actually true, but it gives evidence that certain frameworks continually structure themselves across time and space. So we can observe certain constants under the assumption of a framework theory arguing other frameworks are possible and reflect the original.

There can't be any unified, or totality, or anything like "oneness".............really, it's in front of your nose and if you can reflect for 10 minutes for yourself your own theory, you will realize you are theorizing a bullshit.
Then is everything is strictly multiple, or divided in nature, how can their be division without observing "units" as 1?
https://goldenratiomyth.weebly.com/the-human-body.html

No mate, if the only "proof" of oneness you have is the golden ratio MYTH then again, you're lost.
Actually that is a proof, not the proof. The only proof of 1 is 1, and in observe 1 we observe dimensions of 1.

1 mirroring what? ad finitum, mirroring 1 , 2..... blah blah... eh , I didnt even read ur theory cuz ur not even making sense, and this isn't applicable to reality, so discarded.

yes I did search 'golden ratio criticism', because I know this is a myth since I first heard about it in a new age forum in 2012, then I researched about it and voilá, new age crap, refuted and outdated..
The golden ratio "myth" you provided only proved how common the golden ratio is. Alongside the continuous fraction element, we can observed the reality of 1 as an individuating unit within reality.

If you're not dontaskme, you have the same separation complexity that he has, but yours is "1" complexity
How can their be no "1", if everything is seperated through "1"?
There is obviously 1, 2, 3, 4.......... There are many numbers to describe many objects, and etc.........
Everything is not separate because of numbers, but because of distance.
What is distance but the relation between dimensions rooted in "1" (the line).

There is nothing unified, and there never was, there is no singularity, and nothing is connected.
Okay, prove it.

Your theory doesn't even make sense.

Posts: 5095
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

### Re: Proof that all is ONENESS

daramantus wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:20 am

Daramantus is just a name for this forum, I that am writing in the number of daramantus, I see and I know, you do need to accept this fact. I never saw myself being born, and you don't need to use third person perspective to prove your point. I didnt see myself being born because my consciousness wasn't developed yet, my memories was being formed, until I had 3~4 years old. I'm not separating myself from a name only to call myself an "unborn being"< even if I separate myself from my name, my personality, and my memories, I would still be me, in this body, that born and am alive because of my mother.
The “me” minus the name,personality,memories is likened to the state of being in the womb. That state is oneness.
That’s irrefutable.

The apparent known “me” is the splitting of unconscious oneness into consciousness aka to be known, to become known.
This knowing is sourced in unknowing, aka no thing knowing....the knower is an illusory phantom...albeit appearing as if real as experienced and believed aka imagined.

That which is consciousness cannot be unconscious, for there is only consciousness aka oneness. The apparent split is totally illusory because consciousness is not a thing, no thing aka label is conscious, consciousness appears as all things..aka illusory things known as knowledge. All knowledge is sourced from not a thing, no thing.

Well, if your problem is being afraid of death, because you born and you're a person in a body, and you, the person behind 'dontaskme', see and know things (that's why we differ from knowledge) and you're individual limited self in your body, then I'd suggest you to check Near Death Experiences, your fear of death will be gone.

Or do you prefer to see yourself as an impersonal being, who dont need your body to live, and you need to keep repeating that you're a no-one because you have no personal identity and etc? I dont see yourself as a no-one, I see yourself with ideas that make your own impersonal self, with identity.
All experiences including near death phenomena is “no thing” aka consciousness appearing to have these experiences. This is too simple for some people to grasp.

Bye the way, I never mentioned the idea of fearing death. Fear of death is fear of the unknown, which is yourself. Life does not fear life, it lives a fearless life.

Only the separate self fears losing itself...albeit illusory....this is the freedom and liberation of nondual knowledge.

.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests