Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Age]

Exactly. Your above response is evidence for my claim. You do not take to criticism gracefully.

I do not need to provide evidence, because your actions speak for themselves.

LOL

Laughter instead of acknowledgement.

What exactly would you think that I would or could acknowledge?

That's rather dismissive... this supports my claim that you are an asshole.

So, If I am NOT dismissive, then does that mean I am NOT an asshole?

If you think that being dismissive somehow relates to a hole in an animal's body, so be it.

Is being dismissive your only prerequisite for being an asshole?

I have already asked you about if one were to stop being an asshole, then what would they become? This was just one of MANY clarifying questions that you do NOT answer.

[Dontaskme]

From my perspective, to have or hold a BELIEF is to NOT be OPEN to anything contrary to the BELIEF.

From my perspective you say is to assume there is a ''someone'' to whom a perspective is owned/held...so that in itself is a belief, a belief you have a perspective...

But we are talking about the NONDUAL SELF and not holding to any believing or disbelieving which can only pertain to the sense of individual self.

NONDUAL Self is pure clarity right now in the immediate moment that doesn't require belief or disbelief to BE

To assert whether there is openness implies one is closed...this is back in the land of make belief, the mind of perceptions and assumptions...this is not clarity...assumptions and perceptions are within the PERCEIVER which is neither open nor closed because it's NONDUAL...only the perception is open or closed....and a perception is no thing....do you see the dilemma?

One question..is there anything contrary to the NONDUAL SELF?

.

[Age]

Dontaskme:

Age.. all you've done is described it..you haven't shown it...if the individual Self exists which you say it does, then show it...does the individual self exist as a physical seen thing?

OF COURSE NOT.

Do you understand the term, "I SEE what you mean", when some one is TELLING you some thing? Things can be and ARE 'illustrated' in words, therefore things can be 'SEEN', which also means UNDERSTAND, from WORDS.

DESCRIBING things, with WORDS, is EXACTLY how things are SHOWN, and SEEN/UNDERSTOOD.

You, especially, "dontaskme" KNOW that there is NO PHYSICAL self, therefore WHY would you even ASSUME and/or EXPECT that I was going to POINT to some physical thing?

To SEE something is to understand that no thing has ever been seen...

Are there eyes on animals?

If yes, then do they SEE things?
If no, then could you explain?

and that things are only known not SEEN by no thing.

What you call the "no thing" is just 'some thing', which I have a name for. Just like absolutely EVERY "other" thing has a name for it, so does the thing that you call "no thing".

Also, if "no thing" can KNOW things, then why can "It" NOT see things also?

Which means there is nothing to really understand here and that is the only understanding there is to understand.

IF there is nothing to REALLY understand, then WHY the consistent effort to say some thing, and be heard, from "dontaskme"? I COMPLETELY understand that "dontaskme" BELIEVES that There is nothing to really understand and that That is the only understanding there is to understand. So, that has to NEVER be repeated to me again. But also remember that If that was even somewhat true, then there is absolutely NO point in saying any thing else also. Okay?

WHERE is the "here" where there is nothing to really understand?

And, if that really is the only understanding there is to understand, then by who and/or by what is going to understand this only understanding that there is to understand?

So is this is the two selves you are talking about...the physical and the non-physical?

NO.

BOTH the individual self AND the True Self are invisible to human eyes.

If either or both of these are "non-physical" is a completely different topic for another discussion.

The physical self being the physical body, and the non-physical self being the thought/emotion etc?

This question is moot because I WOULD HAVE answered NO, and did answer NO, to the first question.

If you want to go back and disregard the first question, which was asked from a very PRESUMPTIVE perspective, and then ask another question, from a completely OPEN perspective, instead. Then we can progress and move forwards together in True UNDERSTANDING.

One question, can the physical body be seen?

.

Although completely OFF TOPIC in regards to the individual self and the True Self, but by definition would and could a 'physical' body be seen by the working physical eyes, of a physical human body?

I would say YES. (Unless of course, and until, you can SHOW otherwise).
How would "dontaskme" answer this question?

If "you" say NO, then could you elaborate please.
If, however, "you" say YES, then we are in agreement, correct?

[Dontaskme]

BUT, to me, the SEER is NOT the 'invisible self'.

What is the SEER then..please show it? or describe the SEER if you believe you can? ..but then you don't believe anything so you'll just go on making truth statements that you can't actually show or prove to be the case unless you believe them to be the case.

Just so you know, there is no movie of I without the belief...belief is the dream, clarity is the absence of the believer, and in the absence of the believer WHAT IS left is just pure not-knowing awareness, that neither requires belief or disbeliever to BE

And, to 'SEE' can also mean to understand. Do 'you' understand some of things you do just through words and language?

Words and language are like water colour drawings upon a flowing river, they are illusions. All concepts are known, never seen, they are known by not-a-thing. Understanding that is the only understanding there is.

.

[Dontaskme]

Are there eyes on animals?

If yes, then do they SEE things?
If no, then could you explain?

No eye, nor animal has ever been SEEN. These are KNOWN concepts, known by not-a-concept.
Concepts don't SEE or KNOW anything. They are KNOWN and that which is KNOWN cannot see or know anything.
So what is IT exactly that is seeing and knowing and understanding?

IF there is nothing to REALLY understand, then WHY the consistent effort to say some thing, and be heard, from "dontaskme"? I COMPLETELY understand that "dontaskme" BELIEVES that There is nothing to really understand and that That is the only understanding there is to understand. So, that has to NEVER be repeated to me again. But also remember that If that was even somewhat true, then there is absolutely NO point in saying any thing else also. Okay?

No thing or anyone is saying anything, although it does appear that there is, there is no point to anything, although it does appear that there is...but this is all appearance ..it's all dream story arising and falling within awareness, not really happening, just appearing to happen. Right now, there's just bla bla bla appearing from out of the void, appearing to have meaning or no meaning, depending on what is believed by no thing. Clarity is the cessation of all belief...to see that there's just what's happening to no thing or anyone, and that although it apparently looks like there is a something or a someone making noise via meaningful or meaningless discussion, there is actually nothing making any of this happen.

WHERE is the "here" where there is nothing to really understand?

The here is here. Now here, nowhere..the only place there is...where else is there but here, zero point doesn't move an inch, only words apparently move, and words are fictions, they don't exist. The mind moves, the mind being an aspect of awareness, aka the unmoved mover.. while awareness can't move because it's everywhere at once infinitely. So all movement is an illusion.

And, if that really is the only understanding there is to understand, then by who and/or by what is going to understand this only understanding that there is to understand?

No thing and Everything.

BOTH the individual self AND the True Self are invisible to human eyes.

No human eye has ever been seen, it's a concept known by not-a-thing non-physical non-dual awareness.

Although completely OFF TOPIC in regards to the individual self and the True Self, but by definition would and could a 'physical' body be seen by the working physical eyes, of a physical human body?

I would say YES. (Unless of course, and until, you can SHOW otherwise).
How would "dontaskme" answer this question?

but I never said a physical body can be seen...you did, so you have to show how...or answer this question... not me.

.

[Age]

From my perspective, to have or hold a BELIEF is to NOT be OPEN to anything contrary to the BELIEF.

From my perspective you say is to assume there is a ''someone'' to whom a perspective is owned/held...so that in itself is a belief, a belief you have a perspective...

From my perspective you have misinterpreted what I have said. For starters, I do NOT say is to assume there is a "someone" to whom a perspective is owned/held. And, even if I were to say such a thing, it still would NOT be a belief because I would NOT believe it to be true.

Also, you have taken what I have said/expressed out of context and misconstrued it, leaving you with this misinterpretation.

I will TRY again; There is NO someone to whom a perspective is owned/held. Do you recall when I said that the individual self IS 'thoughts', itself?

If yes, then imagine what is contained within 'thoughts', them self. A 'perspective' its self, is a part of 'thoughts. A 'perspective' is just a view of some thing, which is held within the thoughts within a body. Therefore, if we take the word 'someone' to mean 'an individual self' then 'someone' is, literally, the thoughts within a human body and NOT whom is an owner nor holder.

By the way I do NOT have a belief that I have a perspective. What happens IS; There are perspectives, from within this body, that are shared on computer screens, through these squiggly markings known as "WORDS".

But we are talking about the NONDUAL SELF and not holding to any believing or disbelieving which can only pertain to the sense of individual self.

If "we" are talking about the NONDUAL SELF, then "you" have to let "me" KNOW of WHEN this begins.

This discussion, if we LOOK back, began in regards to the 'individual self'. You asked the question:
When you try to point to the actual location of the individual SELF ...where is it? To which I replied:
That is extremely EASY and SIMPLE to answer and SHOW.

The one who writes under the label "dontaskme", however, BELIEVES that this would be an impossible thing to do. Therefore, "you" are left stuck in "your" BELIEFS.

And "we" have progressed a long way past that now.

IF "we" now want to talk about the NONDUAL SELF, ITSELF, solely then lets begin.

NONDUAL Self is pure clarity right now in the immediate moment that doesn't require belief or disbelief to BE

EXACTLY, and AGREE.

To assert whether there is openness implies one is closed...this is back in the land of make belief, the mind of perceptions and assumptions...this is not clarity...assumptions and perceptions are within the PERCEIVER which is neither open nor closed because it's NONDUAL...only the perception is open or closed....and a perception is no thing....do you see the dilemma?

I do NOT see a dilemma at all. There are NO dilemmas in Life, "here" nor any where.

From My perspective there is only crystal clear CLARITY.

I also SEE how and why the one labelled "dontaskme" would phrase a question like the one just proposed. That is just natural, and ALL of what you said can BE very easily explained and understood.

There are NO problems nor dilemmas in Life. Life Truly IS very simple and easy to UNDERSTAND. Only human beings make problems and see dilemmas in Life. Human beings also are the only ones that make Life, Itself, SEEM hard and complex. When It Truly is NOT.

One question..is there anything contrary to the NONDUAL SELF?

.

NO.

But HOW "you" individual human beings PERCEIVE things leaves "you" BELIEVING that there are "things" contrary to the True (or NONDUAL) Self.

By the way I really LOVE and ENJOY these OPEN clarifying questions being asked out of real CURIOSITY.

The more human beings that REALLY WANT to challenge and question Me, like this, the BETTER for ALL of US.

[Dontaskme]

From my perspective, to have or hold a BELIEF is to NOT be OPEN to anything contrary to the BELIEF.

From my perspective you say is to assume there is a ''someone'' to whom a perspective is owned/held...so that in itself is a belief, a belief you have a perspective...

From my perspective you have misinterpreted what I have said. For starters, I do NOT say is to assume there is a "someone" to whom a perspective is owned/held. And, even if I were to say such a thing, it still would NOT be a belief because I would NOT believe it to be true.

Also, you have taken what I have said/expressed out of context and misconstrued it, leaving you with this misinterpretation.

I will TRY again; There is NO someone to whom a perspective is owned/held. Do you recall when I said that the individual self IS 'thoughts', itself?

If yes, then imagine what is contained within 'thoughts', them self. A 'perspective' its self, is a part of 'thoughts. A 'perspective' is just a view of some thing, which is held within the thoughts within a body. Therefore, if we take the word 'someone' to mean 'an individual self' then 'someone' is, literally, the thoughts within a human body and NOT whom is an owner nor holder.

Okay, I understand and agree with all that except the part where you claim thoughts are within the human body.

By the way I do NOT have a belief that I have a perspective. What happens IS; There are perspectives, from within this body, that are shared on computer screens, through these squiggly markings known as "WORDS".

How do you know that these perspectives are within a human body?

But we are talking about the NONDUAL SELF and not holding to any believing or disbelieving which can only pertain to the sense of individual self.

If "we" are talking about the NONDUAL SELF, then "you" have to let "me" KNOW of WHEN this begins.

The Nondual self doesn't begin, and to begin implies to start...the nondual self has no such concept of itself beginning nor ending.

IF "we" now want to talk about the NONDUAL SELF, ITSELF, solely then lets begin.

NONDUAL Self is pure clarity right now in the immediate moment that doesn't require belief or disbelief to BE

EXACTLY, and AGREE.

To assert whether there is openness implies one is closed...this is back in the land of make belief, the mind of perceptions and assumptions...this is not clarity...assumptions and perceptions are within the PERCEIVER which is neither open nor closed because it's NONDUAL...only the perception is open or closed....and a perception is no thing....do you see the dilemma?

I do NOT see a dilemma at all. There are NO dilemmas in Life, "here" nor any where.

From My perspective there is only crystal clear CLARITY.

I also SEE how and why the one labelled "dontaskme" would phrase a question like the one just proposed. That is just natural, and ALL of what you said can BE very easily explained and understood.

There are NO problems nor dilemmas in Life. Life Truly IS very simple and easy to UNDERSTAND. Only human beings make problems and see dilemmas in Life. Human beings also are the only ones that make Life, Itself, SEEM hard and complex. When It Truly is NOT.

I agree.

One question..is there anything contrary to the NONDUAL SELF?

NO.

But HOW "you" individual human beings PERCEIVE things leaves "you" BELIEVING that there are "things" contrary to the True (or NONDUAL) Self.

By the way I really LOVE and ENJOY these OPEN clarifying questions being asked out of real CURIOSITY.

The more human beings that REALLY WANT to challenge and question Me, like this, the BETTER for ALL of US.

Very good.



.

[Age]

BUT, to me, the SEER is NOT the 'invisible self'.

What is the SEER then..please show it?

I will HAVE TO apologize here profusely. I meant to say the SEER is NOT the 'individual self' I did NOT mean 'invisible self'.

Again SORRY for the confusion this would have caused you.

There is the seer, which is just the 'individual self' AND there is the SEER, which is just the 'True Self'.

The Seer, (capital S), is the Mind, of which there is One ONLY.
The seer, (small s), is the thoughts and emotions, of which there are as many as there are human bodies.

Did I SHOW this better now. Do "you" now better understand what I SHOWING? There is still far more to SHOW and REVEAL yet that could even be imagined so do NOT worry to much if "you" can NOT yet SEE what I am saying and SHOWING.

or describe the SEER if you believe you can? ..but then you don't believe anything so you'll just go on making truth statements that you can't actually show or prove to be the case unless you believe them to be the case.

That lead into one weird and very strong ASSUMPTION very QUICKLY.

But just to CLARIFY there is actually one thing I do BELIEVE. Although I have been continually saying, in this forum, under the label of "age" that is, that I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE "any thing" there is in FACT one thing I believe. I was hoping for some one to pick up on and notice this anomaly from my "other" username first, but considering you have written here what you have I will just bring this to light now.

Anyhow, I only make, so called, "truth statements" from the VIEWS/PERSPECTIVES from within this body. The VIEWS and/or PERSPECTIVES could be partly or TOTALLY WRONG. Is that CLEAR?

What I BELIEVE is that I can do any thing that I Truly WANT TO DO. So, IF I BELIEVE that I can describe the Seer, then that is what I BELIEVE.

To me, the 'Seer' IS the Mind. (Now for "its" correctness or NOT that is another matter.) If you can SEE what I have just described, then I have described the 'Seer'. So, I have made a 'truth statement', from my perspective, that I CAN and just DID actually SHOW or PROVE to be the case. If I BELIEVE them to be the case, as you continue to BELIEVE, or NOT, is NOT some thing I have nor do. And, by you continuing to SUGGEST such a thing just adds more and completely unnecessary confusion to the mix.

Just so you know, there is no movie of I without the belief...belief is the dream, clarity is the absence of the believer, and in the absence of the believer WHAT IS left is just pure not-knowing awareness, that neither requires belief or disbeliever to BE

Have you EVER considered previously WHY I continually said I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE any thing?

If you HAD, then "you" might have related to what "you" are just now starting to RECOGNIZE and SEE.

And, to 'SEE' can also mean to understand. Do 'you' understand some of things you do just through words and language?

Words and language are like water colour drawings upon a flowing river, they are illusions.

HOW does the one called "dontaskme" define the word 'illusion'?

All concepts are known, never seen, they are known by not-a-thing.

IF 'no thing' can KNOW some things, then HOW are they KNOWN if things are NEVER seen?

Understanding that is the only understanding there is.

.

I have said that I ALREADY KNOW that "dontaskme" BELIEVES this, AND, that "dontaskme" does NOT need to keep repeating this. This is WHAT "dontaskme" BELIEVES is the Truth of things. So, enough said on this matter, ALREADY.

[Age]

Are there eyes on animals?

If yes, then do they SEE things?
If no, then could you explain?

No eye, nor animal has ever been SEEN. These are KNOWN concepts, known by not-a-concept.
Concepts don't SEE or KNOW anything. They are KNOWN and that which is KNOWN cannot see or know anything.

If that is what "you" BELIEVE is true, right, and correct, then so be it.

"you" are FREE to BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE absolutely any thing that you WANT to.

Also, If you do NOT want to answer clarifying questions asked to you, but instead just keep repeating the same things that you have for a while now, then this discussion will end like the other ones have.

So what is IT exactly that is seeing and knowing and understanding?

Hang on. Have you or have you NOT been saying, with very STRONG conviction, that there is 'no thing'?

If "you" are asking a Truly OPEN clarifying question, then you will have to SHOW this first before I REPEAT the SAME answer that I gave before. If, however, "you" are just asking that question in a rhetorical way, then I will just leave it.

IF there is nothing to REALLY understand, then WHY the consistent effort to say some thing, and be heard, from "dontaskme"? I COMPLETELY understand that "dontaskme" BELIEVES that There is nothing to really understand and that That is the only understanding there is to understand. So, that has to NEVER be repeated to me again. But also remember that If that was even somewhat true, then there is absolutely NO point in saying any thing else also. Okay?

No thing or anyone is saying anything, although it does appear that there is, there is no point to anything, although it does appear that there is...but this is all appearance ..it's all dream story arising and falling within awareness, not really happening, just appearing to happen. Right now, there's just bla bla bla appearing from out of the void, appearing to have meaning or no meaning, depending on what is believed by no thing. Clarity is the cessation of all belief...to see that there's just what's happening to no thing or anyone, and that although it apparently looks like there is a something or a someone making noise via meaningful or meaningless discussion, there is actually nothing making any of this happen.

Fair enough. If "you" BELIEVE this is true, then that is PERFECTLY FINE. Obviously NO thing agrees with "you" anyway.

WHERE is the "here" where there is nothing to really understand?

The here is here. Now here, nowhere..the only place there is...where else is there but here, zero point doesn't move an inch, only words apparently move, and words are fictions, they don't exist. The mind moves, the mind being an aspect of awareness, aka the unmoved mover.. while awareness can't move because it's everywhere at once infinitely. So all movement is an illusion.

And, if that really is the only understanding there is to understand, then by who and/or by what is going to understand this only understanding that there is to understand?

No thing and Everything.

BOTH the individual self AND the True Self are invisible to human eyes.

No human eye has ever been seen, it's a concept known by not-a-thing non-physical non-dual awareness.

Is there, to "you", ANY physicality at all to the Universe Itself?

I would prefer you just answer my questions, instead of responding by TELLING US what "you" BELIEVE is the Truth. But if you are incapable of doing this or just do NOT want to, then carry on the way you do.

Although completely OFF TOPIC in regards to the individual self and the True Self, but by definition would and could a 'physical' body be seen by the working physical eyes, of a physical human body?

I would say YES. (Unless of course, and until, you can SHOW otherwise).
How would "dontaskme" answer this question?

but I never said a physical body can be seen...you did,

OF COURSE "you" did NOT.

The very REASON WHY I asked that "nothing" that calls itself "dontaskme"; How would "you" answer this question? IS because "you" have NEVER said ANY THING, ever by the way.

so you have to show how...or answer this question... not me.

.

With the working physical eyes, that is HOW.

If an adult human being still NEEDS to be SHOWN HOW they, themselves, can SEE another human body, then their is some thing NOT working fully nor correctly within that brain that is within that adult human body.

[Dontaskme]

BUT, to me, the SEER is NOT the 'invisible self'.

What is the SEER then..please show it?

I will HAVE TO apologize here profusely. I meant to say the SEER is NOT the 'individual self' I did NOT mean 'invisible self'.

Again SORRY for the confusion this would have caused you.

There is the seer, which is just the 'individual self' AND there is the SEER, which is just the 'True Self'.

The Seer, (capital S), is the Mind, of which there is One ONLY.
The seer, (small s), is the thoughts and emotions, of which there are as many as there are human bodies.

Did I SHOW this better now. Do "you" now better understand what I SHOWING? There is still far more to SHOW and REVEAL yet that could even be imagined so do NOT worry to much if "you" can NOT yet SEE what I am saying and SHOWING.

Yes thank you. I can understand better what you are saying and showing.

Sometimes, it seems to the mind, that the showing might mean a literal thing seen.

And since no thing has ever been seen, any showing of a thing is not literal, since things are of the mind or thought which is invisible and can't be shown literally. The nondual self does not exist as a literal thing, it's just an idea.


.

[Dontaskme]

That lead into one weird and very strong ASSUMPTION very QUICKLY.

But just to CLARIFY there is actually one thing I do BELIEVE. Although I have been continually saying, in this forum, under the label of "age" that is, that I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE "any thing" there is in FACT one thing I believe. I was hoping for some one to pick up on and notice this anomaly from my "other" username first, but considering you have written here what you have I will just bring this to light now.

Anyhow, I only make, so called, "truth statements" from the VIEWS/PERSPECTIVES from within this body. The VIEWS and/or PERSPECTIVES could be partly or TOTALLY WRONG. Is that CLEAR?

What I BELIEVE is that I can do any thing that I Truly WANT TO DO. So, IF I BELIEVE that I can describe the Seer, then that is what I BELIEVE.

To me, the 'Seer' IS the Mind. (Now for "its" correctness or NOT that is another matter.) If you can SEE what I have just described, then I have described the 'Seer'. So, I have made a 'truth statement', from my perspective, that I CAN and just DID actually SHOW or PROVE to be the case. If I BELIEVE them to be the case, as you continue to BELIEVE, or NOT, is NOT some thing I have nor do. And, by you continuing to SUGGEST such a thing just adds more and completely unnecessary confusion to the mix.

I understand what you are saying now, and I agree with this mental perspective.

I'm not sure mental perspectives are within the individual body though, as that would be just another mental perspective...do you not think?

.

[Age]

From my perspective you say is to assume there is a ''someone'' to whom a perspective is owned/held...so that in itself is a belief, a belief you have a perspective...

From my perspective you have misinterpreted what I have said. For starters, I do NOT say is to assume there is a "someone" to whom a perspective is owned/held. And, even if I were to say such a thing, it still would NOT be a belief because I would NOT believe it to be true.

Also, you have taken what I have said/expressed out of context and misconstrued it, leaving you with this misinterpretation.

I will TRY again; There is NO someone to whom a perspective is owned/held. Do you recall when I said that the individual self IS 'thoughts', itself?

If yes, then imagine what is contained within 'thoughts', them self. A 'perspective' its self, is a part of 'thoughts. A 'perspective' is just a view of some thing, which is held within the thoughts within a body. Therefore, if we take the word 'someone' to mean 'an individual self' then 'someone' is, literally, the thoughts within a human body and NOT whom is an owner nor holder.

Okay, I understand and agree with all that except the part where you claim thoughts are within the human body.

That is fair enough, but it would help me to understand better; Where do you think 'thoughts' are if not within the human body?

From my perspective, thoughts that are unique, which are expressed from one human body, originated within that human body. 'Thoughts' to me are just a perspective or view gained from what a human body has experienced, therefore thoughts originate from within a human body.

By the way I do NOT have a belief that I have a perspective. What happens IS; There are perspectives, from within this body, that are shared on computer screens, through these squiggly markings known as "WORDS".

How do you know that these perspectives are within a human body?

The VERY REASON there are MANY different perspectives is because there are MANY different human bodies that have had many different previous experiences. The VERY REASON WHY there is conflict in the "world" is because human beings like to express their individual perspective as though it is TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT, which in a way it IS because their perspective is based on what the body has experienced. These individual CONFLICTING, or NOT necessarily RIGHT, perspectives MUST come from within the VERY MANY different human bodies.

There is, however, just ONE perspective, which is actually no where and EVERY where, that IS actually really True, Right, and Correct. That PERSPECTIVE is the ONE and ONLY True One that comes from what the one called "dontaskme" calls 'not-a-thing' but which I call the 'Mind', which by the way is really 'not-a-thing' in the sense that is can NOT be seen anywhere yet It is everywhere.

So, just to reiterate, the individual many "false" or "disillusioned" perspectives are within human bodies, and shared through the illusion of language, but the one and only REAL and TRUE perspective just IS.

But we are talking about the NONDUAL SELF and not holding to any believing or disbelieving which can only pertain to the sense of individual self.

If "we" are talking about the NONDUAL SELF, then "you" have to let "me" KNOW of WHEN this begins.

The Nondual self doesn't begin, and to begin implies to start...the nondual self has no such concept of itself beginning nor ending.

Although this is absolutely True. What I was referring to when I used the "we" word was "you/dontaskme" and "me/age". "age" thought "we" were still talking about the 'individual selves' and did not realize that "dontaskme" was talking about the True or NONDUAL Self. That was only what that confusion was about. Nothing to be concerned about really.

I agree that there is NO beginning to the True Self nor was there NO end also.

IF "we" now want to talk about the NONDUAL SELF, ITSELF, solely then lets begin.

NONDUAL Self is pure clarity right now in the immediate moment that doesn't require belief or disbelief to BE

EXACTLY, and AGREE.

To assert whether there is openness implies one is closed...this is back in the land of make belief, the mind of perceptions and assumptions...this is not clarity...assumptions and perceptions are within the PERCEIVER which is neither open nor closed because it's NONDUAL...only the perception is open or closed....and a perception is no thing....do you see the dilemma?

I do NOT see a dilemma at all. There are NO dilemmas in Life, "here" nor any where.

From My perspective there is only crystal clear CLARITY.

I also SEE how and why the one labelled "dontaskme" would phrase a question like the one just proposed. That is just natural, and ALL of what you said can BE very easily explained and understood.

There are NO problems nor dilemmas in Life. Life Truly IS very simple and easy to UNDERSTAND. Only human beings make problems and see dilemmas in Life. Human beings also are the only ones that make Life, Itself, SEEM hard and complex. When It Truly is NOT.

I agree.

One question..is there anything contrary to the NONDUAL SELF?

NO.

But HOW "you" individual human beings PERCEIVE things leaves "you" BELIEVING that there are "things" contrary to the True (or NONDUAL) Self.

By the way I really LOVE and ENJOY these OPEN clarifying questions being asked out of real CURIOSITY.

The more human beings that REALLY WANT to challenge and question Me, like this, the BETTER for ALL of US.

Very good.

[Dontaskme]

Have you EVER considered previously WHY I continually said I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE any thing?

If you HAD, then "you" might have related to what "you" are just now starting to RECOGNIZE and SEE.

Yes, I understand what you are saying now.

.

[Dontaskme]

Words and language are like water colour drawings upon a flowing river, they are illusions.

HOW does the one called "dontaskme" define the word 'illusion'?

Illusions are empty images appearing to be full.

An image is known, but it is not known how the image appears to be, the source of the known image is imageless and not-known in the same instant.

All concepts are known, never seen, they are known by not-a-thing.

IF 'no thing' can KNOW some things, then HOW are they KNOWN if things are NEVER seen?

Because the knowledge of a thing is a known appearance of not-knowing no thing...so that which appears is inseparable from what it's appearing in.

If the seer is not a thing...then how can that which is not a thing see a thing, the thing is known, but cannot be seen just as the seer cannot be seen. Since the seer is inseparable from the seen. Which tells us that there are no things seen, only known. Remember, the seer cannot see itself, so there is no thing seeing a thing.


We can KNOW that we exist, but we can not see what is knowing this.

.

.

[Age]

What is the SEER then..please show it?

I will HAVE TO apologize here profusely. I meant to say the SEER is NOT the 'individual self' I did NOT mean 'invisible self'.

Again SORRY for the confusion this would have caused you.

There is the seer, which is just the 'individual self' AND there is the SEER, which is just the 'True Self'.

The Seer, (capital S), is the Mind, of which there is One ONLY.
The seer, (small s), is the thoughts and emotions, of which there are as many as there are human bodies.

Did I SHOW this better now. Do "you" now better understand what I SHOWING? There is still far more to SHOW and REVEAL yet that could even be imagined so do NOT worry to much if "you" can NOT yet SEE what I am saying and SHOWING.

Yes thank you. I can understand better what you are saying and showing.

Sometimes, it seems to the mind, that the showing might mean a literal thing seen.

To me, when terms like "to the mind" are used there can be a connotation/perception that there is an individual "mind" within each human body, or, that each individual human being has there own "mind". To FULLY understand what I want to express this perception of "mind" has to be completely lost or gotten rid of. This perception of "mind" is partly the ANSWER to this thread's topic question; 'Why humans can't get rid of their egos?'

The BELIEF that human beings HAVE their OWN "mind" is the very thing that is stopping them from NOT being able to get rid of their egos.

And since no thing has ever been seen, any showing of a thing is not literal, since things are of the mind or thought which is invisible and can't be shown literally.

Get rid of or just replace the word "mind" here with the word "thought" only and the sentence still works the exact same.

There is an actual REASON WHY things APPEAR, seen in thought, but can NOT be "shown literally" or are "just illusions" as "you" say, but before "we" move on I just want to make sure that things are being much better understood now.

The nondual self does not exist as a literal thing, it's just an idea.


.

To me, the True (nondual) Self is more that just an idea. But there is NO rush to explain and understand EVERY thing, in ALL detail, here now, from my perspective.