Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Dontaskme]

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.

I agree...but what the mind does is it attaches the belief that the mind is inside the body which is just more thought...and then claims ownership of every thought that arises creating the illusion of a separate thinker.

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.

Yes I agree.

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.

Yes, I'm following your train of thought very well here.

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.

The nondual self doesn't make a claim to be anything....Any claim is purely a mental projection, an idea...already couched within the nondual self.
So in that respect, it is no thing being everything as imagined.

.

[Age]

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.

I agree that "you" human beings do NOT yet KNOW these things, but do "you" REALLY think/believe that the True Self does NOT yet know; 'how the image appears to be', for example?

The answer and explanation is VERY simple to explain and just as easy to understand.

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.

The inseparability maybe correct, but that in itself does NOT infer that the True Self does NOT yet already have the knowledge of HOW ALL things come to be, which obviously includes ALL these so called "image-less" images and these "no thing" things, et cetera.

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.

Just because a thing is invisible that in itself does NOT mean that it is NOT an actual thing.

The individual seer/individual self is invisible and thus can NOT be seen but it is still a thing, that is; the 'thoughts', itself. Although 'invisible thoughts' may NOT be able to actually see a thing, it is through the physical eyes of a human body that things are seen, which then eventually become 'thoughts' or the 'individual self'.

Since the seer is inseparable from the seen. Which tells us that there are no things seen, only known.

That does NOT tell "me" that, but I can perfectly understand HOW that could be understood, from the way that "you" are saying/describing it.

Remember, the seer cannot see itself, so there is no thing seeing a thing.


.

Again, the seer may NOT be able to literally 'see' itself with vision, but 'it' can 'see' itself through understanding.

Human beings see/understand things through any of the five senses from bodily experiences. Even a human being who is completely blind can still 'see/understand' things.

Also, just "look" at wind. A completely invisible thing that certainly can NOT be seen, but it can very easily be FELT. Through bodily experiences and sensations 'wind' is KNOWN. And, if I was to explain how "windy it is outside", for example, to any person and even a "a blind person" they might reply "I SEE what you mean", meaning they UNDERSTAND what I am saying. That is NOT the best example but "you" SEE what I am getting at, right?

Completely invisible wind is a thing, would you agree? And it has an energy with the ability to be a very strong and powerful force, right?

The individual and True Self are also completely invisible things, both with energy and both with the ability to be a very strong and powerful force. One just has far more energy and a far more ability to be a far greater force.

The seer, or individual self, has the ability to only see, know, and understand SOME things.
The Seer, or True Self, however, has the ability to SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND ALL things.

[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.

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.

I thought I already was answering each clarifying question.

It's not a belief that no animal or eye has ever been seen..it is known directly by auspicious seeing / via understanding...aka no thing knowing itself.

Think about it...an animal, or an eye is just a concept...the only thing that can be known is a concepts ...prior to the concept what is here, what is known??

Concepts are jusst illusory words placed upon the unknown...and then what the mind does is it then mistakes those illusory concepts for actual reality, even though actually reality is prior to any concept known about it, the concept is a false overlay upon the unknown...do you understand that?

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'?

Yes, I have and that's basically the answer to my question.

.

[Age]

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.

I agree...but what the mind does is it attaches the belief that the mind is inside the body which is just more thought...and then claims ownership of every thought that arises creating the illusion of a separate thinker.

From my perspective, the Mind does not do this. 'Thoughts', themselves, do this.

There is NO disagreement on what happens. Just different words being used to describe what happens.

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.

Yes I agree.

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.

Yes, I'm following your train of thought very well here.

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.

The nondual self doesn't make a claim to be anything....

This is RIGHT, the True Self does NOT make a claim to be, or of, any thing.

The True Self just IS.

Have "you" seen the True nondual Self make a claim to be anything? I have NOT.

Any claim is purely a mental projection, an idea...already couched within the nondual self.
So in that respect, it is no thing being everything as imagined.

.

Ultimately, where do ALL mental projections and ideas EXIST? Or, where are ALL mental projections and ideas KNOWN/UNDERSTOOD?

Some might give the answer in the Truly OPEN Mind, through IMAGINATION.

Now, correct "me" if I am wrong, but the Truly OPEN Mind and IMAGINATION are BOTH invisible "things", which obviously can NOT be seen, pointed at, or to, and BOTH are NO where and EVERY where all at the same eternal/no time. Is this somewhat remotely what you would agree with?

[Dontaskme]

The inseparability maybe correct, but that in itself does NOT infer that the True Self does NOT yet already have the knowledge of HOW ALL things come to be, which obviously includes ALL these so called "image-less" images and these "no thing" things, et cetera.

Well there is here only true self / source of all things.

And while it is true that all things are known as and when that knowing arises as and through the instrument of knowing which is always and ever one with the knowing...it is not known how or why all things are known, because reality doesn't question itself...a question can only arise to the sense of a separate self that wants to know...when the mind identifies itself with the body creating the illusion of separation...where there is no such separate self, for the self is always and ever nondual...within which an individual mind is couched albeit illusory.

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.

Just because a thing is invisible that in itself does NOT mean that it is NOT an actual thing.

There is no such thing as an invisible thing...things are images seen...anything seen is a mirage, it's empty at it's core. So in that sense everything is invisible only appearing to be visible.

The individual seer/individual self is invisible and thus can NOT be seen but it is still a thing, that is; the 'thoughts', itself. Although 'invisible thoughts' may NOT be able to actually see a thing, it is through the physical eyes of a human body that things are seen, which then eventually become 'thoughts' or the 'individual self'.

Things are invisible thoughts believed to be real actual things/images, but are in fact empty at their core.

There's just nothing here except in this conception...a concept imposed upon nothing by nothing.

There is here only concepts empty at their core.

Nothing no thing exists.


Before conception..aka language knowledge....there is nothing..not a thing...knowledge is an illusory overlay upon nothing.

So when mind thinks it is seeing a thing called an animal, what mind is seeing is nothing just the label in the mind that the mind has overlayed upon the nothing. And then mind mistakes that label for something when it is in fact nothing.

it is through the physical eyes of a human body that things are seen

Nothing is seen through the eyes of a physical body because this is just more concept.

Things are seen by awareness which is not a thing, therefore all things seen are nought but illusory imaginings in awareness...aka the conceptual dream.

.

[Age]

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.

I thought I already was answering each clarifying question.

If one was to go back and look at just how many of my clarifying questions each are actually getting answered, then you might find what you thought, was actually not correct. Just here now in this post I asked you three questions, of which only two could be answered but you NEVER actually answered the clarifying question but responded to some other thing. My three clarifying questions were:
Are there eyes on animals?

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

"you" proceeded to inform us about No eye, nor animal has ever been SEEN. "you" were explaining what can NOT be SEEN and NOT whether, TO YOU, Are there eyes on animals or not? So, "you" were NOT answering each of just these questions alone, without even going back and looking at ALL of the other clarifying questions that you have not answer.

If you had said some thing similar to; There are NO animals therefore there are NO eyes also, that is; IF you answered my actual clarifying question, then "we" could at least partake in discussing that so that I could gain an understanding and perspective of WHERE EXACTLY "you" are coming from. BUT saying; No eye, nor animal has ever been SEEN, leaves "me" with nothing to discuss other than, from my perspective, that does NOT make sense because I have seen animals and eyes. Therefore, this means that what "you" are saying completely DISMISSES and REJECTS with what I say I actually do.

If what I see is actually REAL or just an ILLUSION is up for discussion. But if I am being TOLD, in very strong terms, that NO thing has EVER been SEEN. Then really what is there to discuss?

It's not a belief that no animal or eye has ever been seen..it is known directly by auspicious seeing / via understanding...aka no thing knowing itself.

If "you" had expressed that from "your" perspective "you" have never seen an animal or eye, then "we" could continue talking and discussing but when "you" are TELLING "me" that NO animal NOR eye has EVER been seen, then that places a completely different perspective on things. Can you SEE the difference here?

Think about it...an animal, or an eye is just a concept...the only thing that can be known is a concepts ...prior to the concept what is here, what is known??

PRIOR to the concept what is "here" and what is "known" can very EASILY be explained and can also very SIMPLY be understood. But from "your" tone and words "you" do NOT appear to be OPEN to this being possible at all.

That is NOT to say that "you" are NOT, but just to say that that is HOW "you" are coming across to "me" now.

Concepts are jusst illusory words placed upon the unknown...

What do you mean by "illusory" and what do mean by the "unknown"?

Would NOT 'some thing' have caused the CONCEPT to appear, in the first place, which then the concept created or is the so called "illusory words"? And are NOT words used to describe 'THAT' what appeared in CONCEPT?

Also, is the "unknown" EXACTLY that what the words are used for to DESCRIBE 'THAT' what "you" say is "unknown"?

Although 'THAT' does NOT exist by the time the CONCEPT appears, words are just a necessary form of explaining 'things' if communication and understanding is wanted.

and then what the mind does is it then mistakes those illusory concepts for actual reality, even though actually reality is prior to any concept known about it, the concept is a false overlay upon the unknown...do you understand that?

It would help if you provided examples. I will give one:

The concept of a 'horse' arises, in RELATION to (if you do not like WITHIN) one human body. Now "you" say that this is an "illusory concept" and without you clarify what "you" mean by this term, I can just go along with the general consensus that the concept of 'horse' is NOT illusory at all, but that it was just based on that one human body seeing a 'horse' with and through the eyes on that body.

OF COURSE 'actual reality' IS PRIOR to any concept, known about "it". But this is NOT necessarily a FALSE overlay upon the "unknown". The "unknown", to you, to that human being who SAW it, IS, IT WAS A HORSE. So, "it" is NOT unknown to that person.

What I understand from what "you" wrote here IS: and then what THOUGHT does is it makes up ANY story that it WANTS to. Just like "you" have done here.

When "you" say, "and then what the mind does is it then mistakes those illusory concepts for actual reality, ....", then if you Truly want "me" to understand "you", then "you" will have to define 'mind' and 'illusory concepts' and explain HOW they are separate things? Because if 'mind' then mistakes 'illusory concept', then this implies/infers that they are separate things.

Also, how could a thing then mistake an "illusory concept"? If a concept is illusory, then the MISTAKE has already been made. And, if there is an "illusory concept" separate of "actual reality", then where, when, and how is the actual DIFFERENCE EVER Truly KNOWN, and by who and/or what?

To me, there really is a Truly simple and easy way to EXPLAIN ALL of the perceived differences and separations and HOW to distinguish between what is actually real and what is just illusory.

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'?

Yes, I have and that's basically the answer to my question.

.

I KNOW. That is WHY I asked that specific question at that specific moment.

The timing for my reference to and about asking rhetorically could NOT have been more precisely timed.

[Age]

The inseparability maybe correct, but that in itself does NOT infer that the True Self does NOT yet already have the knowledge of HOW ALL things come to be, which obviously includes ALL these so called "image-less" images and these "no thing" things, et cetera.

Well there is here only true self / source of all things.

And while it is true that all things are known as and when that knowing arises as and through the instrument of knowing which is always and ever one with the knowing...it is not known how or why all things are known, because reality doesn't question itself...

The True Self does NOT need to question ANY thing, in order to KNOW EVERY thing. The True Self does NOT question any thing as It KNOWS ALL things ALREADY.

Remember that just because the one known as "dontaskme" does NOT yet know some things that that then infers that the True Self does NOT also KNOW HOW and WHY ALL things are known. The True Self already KNOWS HOW and WHY ALL things are known.

Also remember that the PARTLY knowing individual selves, like the ones known as "dontaskme" and "age", are NOT the ALL knowing True Self, Itself.

a question can only arise to the sense of a separate self that wants to know...when the mind identifies itself with the body creating the illusion of separation...where there is no such separate self, for the self is always and ever nondual...within which an individual mind is couched albeit illusory.

The True Self is always and ever nondual. However, the individual self distorts the REALITY of the True Self. For example just like "dontaskme" is doing right here in the quote above. The 'Mind' does NOT identify itself with the body creating the illusion of separation but 'what' does do this is the 'thoughts' within a human body. These 'thoughts' are a separate individual self in the sense that they are different from "other" separate individual human bodies are. This individual self is NOT the True Self that is always and ever nondual.

The True (nondual) Self SEES and already KNOWS the distinguish between these two. Although the individual self is only an "illusory self", as you would say, to these "illusory selves" there ARE different and separate human bodies and therefore different individual selves also. Therefore, to be able to explain what ACTUALLY happens and takes place words have to be ordered into a particular way so that, what "dontaskme" KNOWS is the Truth, can be easily understood by ALL.

"you" would have to admit that although what "you" are saying IS correct, the way "you" express it could come across as being totally contradictory, illogical, and plain right weird at times to some, correct? (The way I express is NO better at all I might add. In fact my way of expressing is probably the worst of all. But I am NOT here to express things yet. I am just here to learn how to express better.)

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.

Just because a thing is invisible that in itself does NOT mean that it is NOT an actual thing.

There is no such thing as an invisible thing...things are images seen...anything seen is a mirage, it's empty at it's core.

So, WHERE and WHAT is the image coming from?

"Empty at its core" infers NO thing or 'not-a-thing' as "you" would say. Now, for absolutely NO thing to be able to produce an image or a mirage, some would find that very HARD to understand.

What ACTUALLY occurs and takes place here is very EASY to understand. But this will NOT be understood if one is under the ILLUSION and BELIEVES that what is seen is a "mirage", an "illusion", and actually "not-a-thing" at all. Although what is seen does NOT actually exist there is an explanation of WHY this phenomena happens and takes place.

For WHAT "you" want to express "you" have to be able to explain SUFFICIENTLY, which means with 100% accuracy absolutely EVERY thing "you" say.

When "you" say 'things' are seen, WHAT are the 'things' which produce "images"?

If "you" are going to say that there are NO things, then WHY is the exact same image produced in so MANY so OFTEN?

But, if "you" were NOT going to say that, then just say what "you" were going to say and WANT to say.

So in that sense everything is invisible only appearing to be visible.

Elaborate on this, if you can. What does "dontaskme" mean when "they" say words like "everything"? And, HOW can "everything" be invisible? How can "you" and "other" people ARRIVE at and with the EXACT SAME 'image/idea' of a 'horse' when the word 'horse' is mentioned, if absolutely EVERYthing is invisible?

WHAT IS "IT", which is "invisible", and which only appears to be visible?

By the way the True Self can very easily and simply EXPLAIN what "you" are TRYING TO say and express so that EVERY one can very easily and simply UNDERSTAND what actually happens and takes place. But the True Self does NOT need to explain this because the True Self is NOT yet saying things like "dontaskme" is saying here. It is up to the one named "dontaskme" to explain "itself" if "it" wants to keep expressing the way "it" does.

If "dontaskme" wants to say things the way "they" do, then either "they" can back up and support "their" claims so that EVERY one can UNDERSTAND or "they" can NOT. We will have to wait and SEE.

Now, the True Self can EXPLAIN what "dontaskme" is TRYING TO speak about. But the True Self ONLY does that if Truly OPEN clarifying questions are asked.

The individual seer/individual self is invisible and thus can NOT be seen but it is still a thing, that is; the 'thoughts', itself. Although 'invisible thoughts' may NOT be able to actually see a thing, it is through the physical eyes of a human body that things are seen, which then eventually become 'thoughts' or the 'individual self'.

Things are invisible

Remember that this is ONLY a view/perspective of the one known as "dontaskme" and it is NOT a view/perspective by nearly ALL "other" human beings.

To propose some thing as though it is thee one and only Truth, then the "one" proposing it NEEDS to be able to support what "they" say with EVIDENCE and/or a sound and valid EXPLANATION in argumentative form.

thoughts believed to be real actual things/images, but are in fact empty at their core.

Yes I KNOW what you say/propose. It just helps us ALL if you can also EXPLAIN it in a way that can be UNDERSTOOD.

Are there "things" empty to the core, or, is there just NO thing at all?

There's just nothing here except in this conception...a concept imposed upon nothing by nothing.

How many human beings does "dontaskme" really THINK will accept and agree with this statement?

There is here only concepts empty at their core.

Nothing no thing exists.

"you" are FREE to BELIEVE absolutely any thing "you" want to.

BUT what "you" are proposing can be EXPLAINED in a way that WILL make sense to EVERY human being.

Before conception..aka language knowledge....there is nothing..not a thing...knowledge is an illusory overlay upon nothing.

So when mind thinks it is seeing a thing called an animal, what mind is seeing is nothing just the label in the mind that the mind has overlayed upon the nothing.

Hang on. The "one" named "dontaskme" keeps INSISTING that there is NOTHING and that NO thing exists, correct?
If yes, but then WHY does this same "one" named "dontaskme" keep also INSISTING that there is a "mind", which SEES nothing, that this "mind" then IMAGINES is an IMAGE of SOME "thing"?

HOW can there be a "mind" if there is "nothing"? Also, HOW can there be "one" named "dontaskme" that keeps on INSISTING things if there is NOTHING?

Either there is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, or, there is SOME thing. There, however, can NOT be both. So, once and for all, which one is it going to be?

And then mind mistakes that label for something when it is in fact nothing.

Depending on "YOUR" answer to "My" last question I will wait to see if this so called "mind" being talked about here actually EXISTS or NOT, first. BEFORE I will comprehend to SEE if what "you" are saying could ever been True.

it is through the physical eyes of a human body that things are seen

Nothing is seen through the eyes of a physical body because this is just more concept.

Things are seen by awareness which is not a thing,

HOW can there be "awareness" but "it" is also not even a thing?

therefore all things seen are nought but illusory imaginings in awareness...aka the conceptual dream.

.

Even a 'conceptual dream' is a thing or are "you", which is just another NOTHING, proposing that 'conceptual dream' is also NOTHING?

If "awareness" and "conceptual dream" is NOTHING and there is absolutely NOTHING, then so be "IT". That is; NOTHING.

But each time "you" express "you" are APPEARING as SOME thing to SOME thing, OBVIOUSLY.

Now, if there is SOME thing, then that means there is SOME thing, which also means that there is NOT no thing.


HAVE "you" NOTICED, by the way, that when "you" were asking clarifying questions earlier that this discussion was leaning towards and leading towards agreement? But now that this discussion has turned around with "you" SAYING and TELLING "HOW THINGS ARE" the discussion has fallen back into disagreement, which is what category MOST discussions in this forum fall into, by the way.

[Dontaskme]

So, WHERE and WHAT is the image coming from?

"Empty at its core" infers NO thing or 'not-a-thing' as "you" would say. Now, for absolutely NO thing to be able to produce an image or a mirage, some would find that very HARD to understand.

What ACTUALLY occurs and takes place here is very EASY to understand. But this will NOT be understood if one is under the ILLUSION and BELIEVES that what is seen is a "mirage", an "illusion", and actually "not-a-thing" at all. Although what is seen does NOT actually exist there is an explanation of WHY this phenomena happens and takes place.

For WHAT "you" want to express "you" have to be able to explain SUFFICIENTLY, which means with 100% accuracy absolutely EVERY thing "you" say.

When "you" say 'things' are seen, WHAT are the 'things' which produce "images"?

Nothing is producing an image. There's just ( Images ) ...what is an image made of ? Answer: who the heck knows?.. maybe made of LIGHT seems the obvious answer...so what the heck is LIGHT? ..again, no one knows, except what words make up. That goes for every question about the nature of existence and being....including what is CONSCIOUSNESS? ..so the pressing question is what is consciousness...and the answer is: who the heck knows..except what words make up...see how words make up reality for the one who wants to know? what else can be used to make up this reality?

See the problem here...? ...words are not what reality is... yet words are all we got to make sense of it...meaning human reality is nought but a fictional story arising from the great big inky deep..which is unsensed and unknown...imagine that?

Words are the only method used to point to what it is we are trying to understand, words can only point to as described, but cannot be the prescription of ULTIMATE TRUTH.... In the Nondual sense, we have only got words to point to a reality that which is ULTIMATELY WORDLESS, so of course this kind of discussion is going to sound paradoxical and contradictive. Please stop being so irritatingly naive about that by keep pointing it out so obviously, just accept that reality in a nutshell is going to be totally irrational.... It's up to the seeker to be able to discern by listening carefully and be able to read past and beyond the literal word to what the word is actually pointing to. People can only understand what is their own unique personal direct experience. We are not all going to agree on the same pointing, because we are all at different levels of human understanding of SELF...that's just the way is it, some people are more awakened than others, get over it.

So from my direct experience...I can say the following with absolute confidence, and do not seek validation, approval or agreement from others what is only and ever my own unique Direct Experience...I'm not saying it is the ultimate truth, and neither is anyone forced to read or accept it.
It's just a POV that's all...one of an infinite points of view that is arsing here now... for no reason or point or purpose, it's just ''what it is'' because it IS

So on with my POV...

ALL images come from the same place the images in a nightly dream come from? so where is that? ..who the heck knows?

Could it be that images are just hallucinations? ..who the heck knows?

HOW OR WHY OR WHERE these images come from ?..who the heck knows? ...except what words want to say about them.This waking dream world is without 'substance', composed solely of colours and sounds and odours and tastes and feelings and meaning.Through the power of Consciousness alone, these arise in concord moment to moment, creating the impression of people and 'things' a world seen from a specific perspective.There are no 'things' out there causing colours and other sensations to be formed into the patterns in which they appear each moment. It is sensations and meaning that together form the appearance of 'things'.

This is not an explanation. The words 'colours/seeing' and 'sounds/hearing' and 'meaning/knowing', etc.. point to the reality that is here now.

Sensations and meaning, the appearance of 'things' are self arising because their source is:

Unseen
Untasted
Unheard
Unsmelled
Unfelt
Unknown
Unchanging

Consciousness cannot be sensed or understood. It is the source of sensing and knowing.Yet the fact of Consciousness seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, smelling, knowing and power is undeniable.The patterns of sensations and meaning seem to arise 'spontaneously' only because the source is unsensed and unknown.Consciousness is not simply a passive witness to what appears. It is not hostage to the faculties seeing, hearing, knowing etc.. The faculites are it and it is the faculties.There is nothing forcing Consciousness to experience anything. It is witness and creator both. This play of life is.. by, through and for Consciousness alone.When the faculites are quiet as in deep sleep or meditation there is nothing to perceive. This state cannot be remembered for there is nothing to know or to sense here. There is no time.

HAVE "you" NOTICED that this discussion has turned around with "you" SAYING and TELLING "HOW THINGS ARE" the discussion has fallen back into disagreement.

I do not care whether you agree or disagree with what's being spoken here. These spoken words are coming from my Direct Experience of Consciousness. As Consciousness I AM the conduit for verbal expression. Words are merely pointing one back to the Self of being, what ever that is? words are also pointing away from being...no word can describe WHAT IS..yet everyword describes WHAT IS..it's REALLY that simple.
Take it or leave it, makes no difference, it's all the one love in action dreaming difference where there is none.

.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

HOW OR WHY OR WHERE these images come from ?..who the heck knows? ...except what words want to say about them.

Images "come from" specific chemicals that are produced in brain-minds. Neuroscientists know and can and do explain this for the benefit
people who aren't experts.

Scientists' words are so explicit that all trained scientists understand each other.

If 'ego' is to be taken to mean sense of self, then people can't live long without egos.

If 'ego' is to be taken to refer to selfishness and misplaced pride then those are caused by fears and misinformation.

[Dontaskme]

Hang on. The "one" named "dontaskme" keeps INSISTING that there is NOTHING and that NO thing exists, correct?

The one named is an image seen. It is something perceived. The perceived cannot perceive...nothing seen can perceive, all things seen are the looked upon aka the perceived aka images of the imageless..consciousness.
The voice is an optical illusion of sound heard as words with meaning...the sound of silence, the voice of the voiceless.

If yes, but then WHY does this same "one" named "dontaskme" keep also INSISTING that there is a "mind", which SEES nothing, that this "mind" then IMAGINES is an IMAGE of SOME "thing"?

There is perception which requires a mind to perceive. The mind sees not a thing since the mind cannot be seen. No thing has ever been seen, things are empty images of the imageless consciousness, therefore an image (things perceived) cannot percieve, images are the perceived...as conceived in this conception.
Images are dreamscape within invisible consciousness. The dream is in Consciousness. The 'you' that seems to be in the dream is merely a dream body composed of coloured images with feelings and thoughts associated with the image. It seems you have a body.. but no head.
As the dream is experienced from one perspective 'you' there are not 'other consciousnesses' experiencing it from the perspective of the other people in the dream. Consciousness is One. Consciousness is always first person appearance, there is nothing outside of your first person conscious arena because it's one...anything that appears outside of it is in it, not outside of it, and it's not even in it....IT IS IT.

HOW can there be a "mind" if there is "nothing"? Also, HOW can there be "one" named "dontaskme" that keeps on INSISTING things if there is NOTHING?

There is no such thing as nothing as and of itself alone. Nothing and Everything are one in the same moment.

Either there is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, or, there is SOME thing. There, however, can NOT be both. So, once and for all, which one is it going to be?

Yes there can be both because Everything exists right now, including the word Nothing.

What you have to understand is that words are not literal things in and of themselves, they are pointers pointing to empty images...aka things.

.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:

HOW OR WHY OR WHERE these images come from ?..who the heck knows? ...except what words want to say about them.

Images "come from" specific chemicals that are produced in brain-minds. Neuroscientists know and can and do explain this for the benefit
people who aren't experts.

Scientists' words are so explicit that all trained scientists understand each other.

If 'ego' is to be taken to mean sense of self, then people can't live long without egos.

If 'ego' is to be taken to refer to selfishness and misplaced pride then those are caused by fears and misinformation.

Just more concepts to describe the ineffable unknowable...chemicals are appearances, so where did these appearances come from ?

Infinite regression problem remains for the one who wants to know.

Questions can only arise to the sense of separate self..aka ego.

But there is only one question to all our answers..who wants to know? no ego has ever seen an ego, it's just an idea.

.

.

[Age]

So, WHERE and WHAT is the image coming from?

"Empty at its core" infers NO thing or 'not-a-thing' as "you" would say. Now, for absolutely NO thing to be able to produce an image or a mirage, some would find that very HARD to understand.

What ACTUALLY occurs and takes place here is very EASY to understand. But this will NOT be understood if one is under the ILLUSION and BELIEVES that what is seen is a "mirage", an "illusion", and actually "not-a-thing" at all. Although what is seen does NOT actually exist there is an explanation of WHY this phenomena happens and takes place.

For WHAT "you" want to express "you" have to be able to explain SUFFICIENTLY, which means with 100% accuracy absolutely EVERY thing "you" say.

When "you" say 'things' are seen, WHAT are the 'things' which produce "images"?

Nothing is producing an image. There's just ( Images ) ...what is an image made of ? Answer: who the heck knows?..

'I' thee True Self does.

maybe made of LIGHT seems the obvious answer...so what the heck is LIGHT? ..again, no one knows, except what words make up.

But 'I' KNOW. The True Self KNOWS ALL.

Even that one labeled "dontaskme" KNOWS that the True nondual Self KNOWS All.

That goes for every question about the nature of existence and being....including what is CONSCIOUSNESS? ..so the pressing question is what is consciousness...and the answer is: who the heck knows.

'I', the True Self, do.

except what words make up...see how words make up reality for the one who wants to know? what else can be used to make up this reality?

But how can there be "words" when according to "you" there are NO things EVER?

See the problem here...?

NO. There are NO problems EVER.

...words are not what reality is... yet words are all we got to make sense of it...

Who/what is the "we" that "you" are referring to here?

If there are NO things, then there is NO "we" also, OBVIOUSLY.

meaning human reality is nought but a fictional story arising from the great big inky deep..which is unsensed and unknown...imagine that?

But what IS "human reality"? And how is that "reality" distinguished from any "other" reality?

And again, HOW could there be ANY "reality" if as "you" propose there are NO things at all?

Words are the only method used to point to what it is we are trying to understand,

But are "words" some thing or no thing? And are "we" some thing or no thing?

Also, 'I' am NOT TRYING TO understand any thing. The 'I' already understands and knows ALL things.

words can only point to as described, but cannot be the prescription of ULTIMATE TRUTH....

Is that an ULTIMATE TRUTH?

Or, is that just the one named "dontaskme's" truth?

In the Nondual sense, we have only got words to point to a reality that which is ULTIMATELY WORDLESS, so of course this kind of discussion is going to sound paradoxical and contradictive. Please stop being so irritatingly naive about that by keep pointing it out so obviously, just accept that reality in a nutshell is going to be totally irrational....

BUT reality is totally rational, simple, and extremely easy to understand. Now that IS the ULTIMATE TRUTH.

It's up to the seeker to be able to discern by listening carefully and be able to read past and beyond the literal word to what the word is actually pointing to.

But "dontaskme" said before that words can NOT point to any thing because there is no thing, anywhere.

People can only understand what is their own unique personal direct experience.

So, are "people" things or not-a-thing?

We are not all going to agree on the same pointing, because we are all at different levels of human understanding of SELF...that's just the way is it, some people are more awakened than others, get over it.

But there is NOTHING to get over.

The 'I' is over EVERY thing ALREADY.

So from my direct experience...I can say the following with absolute confidence, and do not seek validation, approval or agreement from others what is only and ever my own unique Direct Experience...I'm not saying it is the ultimate truth, and neither is anyone forced to read or accept it.

Ah now that is much better.

The words written from that one known as "dontaskme" is JUST a VIEW and PERSPECTIVE, based solely from that bodies unique and individual experiences, of what they THINK is true.

It's just a POV that's all...one of an infinite points of view that is arsing here now... for no reason or point or purpose, it's just ''what it is'' because it IS

So on with my POV...

ALL images come from the same place the images in a nightly dream come from? so where is that? ..who the heck knows?

'I' do.

Could it be that images are just hallucinations? ..who the heck knows?

'I' do.

HOW OR WHY OR WHERE these images come from ?..who the heck knows? ...

'I' do.

except what words want to say about them.

Words do NOT want to say anything. Human beings use words to say what they want to say about things.

This waking dream world is without 'substance', composed solely of colours and sounds and odours and tastes and feelings and meaning.

To you, are these things, things or are they no things also?

Through the power of Consciousness alone, these arise in concord moment to moment, creating the impression of people and 'things' a world seen from a specific perspective.There are no 'things' out there causing colours and other sensations to be formed into the patterns in which they appear each moment.

But are colors, other sensations, and/or patterns, things or not?

It is sensations and meaning that together form the appearance of 'things'.

WHAT forms sensations and meaning if there are NO things at all?

This is not an explanation.

This has become VERY CLEAR.

The words 'colours/seeing' and 'sounds/hearing' and 'meaning/knowing', etc.. point to the reality that is here now.

So is there a reality or is there only an illusion?

Sensations and meaning, the appearance of 'things' are self arising because their source is:

Unseen
Untasted
Unheard
Unsmelled
Unfelt
Unknown
Unchanging

Which completely seemingly contradicts what you just wrote above. So, can you elaborate on this and explain this apparent contradiction at all?

Consciousness cannot be sensed or understood. It is the source of sensing and knowing.Yet the fact of Consciousness seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, smelling, knowing and power is undeniable.

Now "we" are getting somewhere, I hope.

So, 'Consciousness' is an actual thing. Is this what "you" are saying now?

The patterns of sensations and meaning seem to arise 'spontaneously' only because the source is unsensed and unknown.

Some, most?, would dispute and disagree with this wholeheartedly. What would "you" say to them?

Consciousness is not simply a passive witness to what appears. It is not hostage to the faculties seeing, hearing, knowing etc.. The faculites are it and it is the faculties.

So there is now NOT just 'Consciousness' but there are also faculties. Now, if these things are actual and real things, then WHERE do they exist? For "you", at the moment, it might be a bit to hard for you to explain WHERE Consciousness Itself exists, but are "you" at least able to explain WHERE the faculties of seeing, hearing, knowing, et cetera EXIST?

There is nothing forcing Consciousness to experience anything. It is witness and creator both. This play of life is.. by, through and for Consciousness alone.

Agreed.

When the faculites are quiet as in deep sleep or meditation there is nothing to perceive.

Somewhat agree.

This state cannot be remembered for there is nothing to know or to sense here. There is no time.

I do NOT fully see what connection "you" are TRYING TO make here.

The True Self might be able to remember, but since the individual self is in deep sleep or "meditation", then "it" could NOT remember because "it" is virtually nothing in ability to know or to sense here. The fact that there is no actual time is of no real importance that I can see here.

HAVE "you" NOTICED that this discussion has turned around with "you" SAYING and TELLING "HOW THINGS ARE" the discussion has fallen back into disagreement.

I do not care whether you agree or disagree with what's being spoken here.

I also do not really care if you care or not.

I just asked a simple clarifying question. When "you" were continually asking "me" clarifying questions the discussion was completely different, from "my" perspective. I was just wondering if "you" had noticed this also.

These spoken words are coming from my Direct Experience of Consciousness. As Consciousness I AM the conduit for verbal expression. Words are merely pointing one back to the Self of being, what ever that is?

Consciousness from the True Self's perspective KNOWS what that IS.

words are also pointing away from being...no word can describe WHAT IS..

Is "dontaskme" absolutely SURE of this?

yet everyword describes WHAT IS..it's REALLY that simple.

To human beings and the individual self, words can cause confusion just as easily as words can create clarity about what IS. But to Consciousness and the True Self, words, very simply, describe what IS.

It all depends on how "one" is LOOKING AT things, because, Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

Take it or leave it, makes no difference, it's all the one love in action dreaming difference where there is none.

.

Is this "one love" a thing, or not-a-thing?

[Age]

Hang on. The "one" named "dontaskme" keeps INSISTING that there is NOTHING and that NO thing exists, correct?

The one named is an image seen. It is something perceived. The perceived cannot perceive...nothing seen can perceive, all things seen are the looked upon aka the perceived aka images of the imageless..consciousness.
The voice is an optical illusion of sound heard as words with meaning...the sound of silence, the voice of the voiceless.

If yes, but then WHY does this same "one" named "dontaskme" keep also INSISTING that there is a "mind", which SEES nothing, that this "mind" then IMAGINES is an IMAGE of SOME "thing"?

There is perception which requires a mind to perceive. The mind sees not a thing since the mind cannot be seen. No thing has ever been seen, things are empty images of the imageless consciousness, therefore an image (things perceived) cannot percieve, images are the perceived...as conceived in this conception.
Images are dreamscape within invisible consciousness. The dream is in Consciousness. The 'you' that seems to be in the dream is merely a dream body composed of coloured images with feelings and thoughts associated with the image. It seems you have a body.. but no head.
As the dream is experienced from one perspective 'you' there are not 'other consciousnesses' experiencing it from the perspective of the other people in the dream. Consciousness is One. Consciousness is always first person appearance, there is nothing outside of your first person conscious arena because it's one...anything that appears outside of it is in it, not outside of it, and it's not even in it....IT IS IT.

HOW can there be a "mind" if there is "nothing"? Also, HOW can there be "one" named "dontaskme" that keeps on INSISTING things if there is NOTHING?

There is no such thing as nothing as and of itself alone. Nothing and Everything are one in the same moment.

Either there is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, or, there is SOME thing. There, however, can NOT be both. So, once and for all, which one is it going to be?

Yes there can be both because Everything exists right now, including the word Nothing.

What you have to understand is that words are not literal things in and of themselves, they are pointers pointing to empty images...aka things.

.

But that is the point: I do NOT have to understand what "you" say, NOR any thing else. "you" just THINK/BELIEVE that 'I' HAVE TO understand certain things.

Can "you" understand 'that'?

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:
ALL images come from the same place the images in a nightly dream come from? so where is that? ..who the heck knows?

'I' do.

I does not know anything, I is known, but not by I



.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

chemicals are appearances, so where did these appearances come from ?

People differ in perceptions of reality. Social groups tend to have the same or similar perceptions of reality. Chemicals pertain to the modern scientific view of reality, a view that very many people share. but that many people share the same view of reality is no guarantee of the view's truth.

You say "appearances". It may be the case that all views of reality are illusions. It may be the case that there is no order and apparent realities are all artificial creations for making apparent order out of chaos.