No Birth - No Death - No Death - No Birth.

[Arising_uk]

There are two of me? ...

Does it not embarrass you just a smidgeon that you are on a Philosophy forum but have not bothered to read or understand anything about what Philosophy has said?

I don't know what is doing me, except what I make up conceptually as a fiction of my not-knowing. ...

And yet somehow you know that what is growing the grass is growing me?

Well yeah, I prefer the smell of my own shit thanks very much. ...

Still makes it shit.

It's about No birth-No death...can't you read?

Well I can read that this is your assertion but it still means it is about birth and death.

I've already explained all this to you before, so now you just want it all repeated to you again. ...

All you've said is that you are me and we are one, if so then you should be able to tell me what we are thinking?

Claiming you are the thinker, is not what dogs do...try finding the thinker before making such a claim. ...

And why don't dogs do it? Because they are bodies with senses, memory sans language in an external world.

Since I have 'thinking' as that which is done with language and the internal voice I know I am a thinker. Are you saying you do not think in this way at times?

''thoughts'' are not in any body...if they are, then hold one up to me, so I can have a look at it?

Shut your eyes, now imagine a purple spotted kangaroo bouncing through your local supermarket. Voila a thought that you can look at.

IT doesn't live in any world. IT is the world. The world is in IT - IT is not in the world. How many more times would you like me to bark that divine paradox out of my dog?

So basically a version of Spinoza's 'God'.

I have no idea why you think that you can talk or know anything about the noumena or why you think your version of it is any truer than the theists or the materialists versions but since you do I wonder that if the world is in 'IT'(kook caps again) is 'IT' bigger or the same size as the world?

[Arising_uk]

Yes, the you is awareness, there is no you that is aware...there is only awareness aware of awareness as non-conceptual awareness... and also aware of a human being (concept)....awareness is not a human being...it's aware of the concept, the human is just a concept already couched within awareness that knows each concept as it arises in it.
Do you get that? ..there's not two there, there is only one. ...

What did you do to come to this 'awareness'?

Example: does the space define an object in it, or does the object define the space around it?
See how both space and the object in space are inseparably one and the same empty space? the object cannot be separated out of the space it's couched in. ...

So how are you getting this "empty space"?

So what separates this whole inseparable picture?

Space is what you can move through, objects are the things you have to go around.

What is it that says this is space and this is the object in space? thus causing an apparent separation/division. ...

Being a body in an external world.

Also note, that there is no space without an object and no object without space..so what is it that makes the distinction,the differential division?

Being a body in an external world.

Can we know?

We can know that there are objects as we have to go around them.

Does space say it is space?
Does object say it is object?

Space shows itself as being that period between having to go around objects.

What's going on? where is the separation coming from exactly?

From exactly being a body in an external world.

Can anyone here answer what's going on?

Anyone...

Glad to have been of help.

[Dontaskme]

There are two of me? ...

Does it not embarrass you just a smidgeon that you are on a Philosophy forum but have not bothered to read or understand anything about what Philosophy has said?

No it does not embarrass me not reading or understanding anything about what philosophy has said. Why would I be embarrassed about something I have no knowledge of?
If I am breaking any forum code of conduct or rule here then why haven't I been banished to the sin bin or banned all together?

I don't know what is doing me, except what I make up conceptually as a fiction of my not-knowing. ...

And yet somehow you know that what is growing the grass is growing me?

Are you thick? ...do you not understand the conceptual word ( fiction)? It means no one knows...there is a knowing but no one knows it.
Is that too hard to grasp for you?

Well yeah, I prefer the smell of my own shit thanks very much. ...

Still makes it shit.

Well duh! At least I own my own shit, I don't attempt to bury it.

It's about No birth-No death...can't you read?

Well I can read that this is your assertion but it still means it is about birth and death.

Yes it's about birth and dead, the fictional beliefs imposed by no one upon nothing.

I've already explained all this to you before, so now you just want it all repeated to you again. ...

All you've said is that you are me and we are one, if so then you should be able to tell me what we are thinking?

You have a bad memory, I've already explained all this to you, if you can't be bothered to remember what I'd said, then so be it, I'm not your pet parrot.

Claiming you are the thinker, is not what dogs do...try finding the thinker before making such a claim. ...

And why don't dogs do it? Because they are bodies with senses, memory sans language in an external world.

Every creature automatically knows how to exist in it's environment. Animals don't claim thought as belonging to them..that's a human trait, and the human is deluded to think their thoughts are their own. The human brain got too big in that respect. You don't see animals grouping together plotting to blow up buildings, neither do you see them building churches of worship for some God that they believe exists.
Owning ''thoughts'' is very dangerous for the human...''thoughts'' in that respect are very destructive.

Since I have 'thinking' as that which is done with language and the internal voice I know I am a thinker. Are you saying you do not think in this way at times?

I don't know what I AM..I know I Am because it's self-evident, but I have no idea what this I AM presence is or where it comes from or how it came to be. Or what a thought is, or what a thinker is except the thought itself which I have no knowledge of.

Where is the thinker? where is the thought?.... what is consciousness? where does the I (consciousness )begin and end? all these are concepts known...by the only kowing there is. It's not a 'someone' that knows. You are the knowing that cannot be known. It's all ONE.
A conceptual character (fiction) is known ..as and through that body mind mechanism when the concept arises one with the knowin...and while this is known in an instant, nothing else is known, nothing else is happening....if it was, then it would be appearing from this body mind mechanism here...because there is nothing outside of that arena here.
The idea ''over there'' comes from a still motionless centre here. That motionless centre is consciousness, and consciousness is everywhere at once...it's the space in which everything appears...it does not move, is not born and cannot die. Only ''thought'' is born aka the mind.

''thoughts'' are not in any body...if they are, then hold one up to me, so I can have a look at it?

Shut your eyes, now imagine a purple spotted kangaroo bouncing through your local supermarket. Voila a thought that you can look at.

Yes, the thinker and thought is imagination..it's fiction like I keep telling you. An image of the imageless, because the seer is inseparable from the seen. It's all one without a second like I keep telling you.

IT doesn't live in any world. IT is the world. The world is in IT - IT is not in the world. How many more times would you like me to bark that divine paradox out of my dog?

So basically a version of Spinoza's 'God'.

I guess so...many of the ONE ..IT is all the same one appearing different where there is no difference. For Everything and Nothing is this eternal unknowable known SOURCE...from source to source an eternal spring. Source is unlimited and that's why it can manifest anything it likes because it's unlimited it will keep expanding forever and ever and ever add infinitum.

I have no idea why you think that you can talk or know anything about the noumena or why you think your version of it is any truer than the theists or the materialists versions but since you do I wonder that if the world is in 'IT'(kook caps again) is 'IT' bigger or the same size as the world?

No one is talking about anything. There's just talking happening for no reason spontaneously and automatically about anything by no one... no one thinks before speaking, it's automatic...when you do stop to think before speaking, all that is happening there is memory recall, referring to memory of what to say next....because if you already knew what to say, then you'd just say it automatically without thinking.
No one knows anything, all knowledge is from memory on demand, a fictional knowledge since what is memory but that which is of past tense giving the illusory appearance of autonomy now...in a single unbroken seamless continuity now.
All verbal expression is an auditory illusion of sound sourced in silence heard as words...unexplained not-knowing (phenomena) known in the instant it arises to no one. Is this idea too hard for you to grasp hold of?

There's just here concepts arising to no one from no thing, everything is the void expressing the void, being the void and returning to the void...it's all much a do about nothing...even when it appears it's much a do about everything ..it's still much a do about nothing appearing as much a do about everything.
Everything that appears defaults back to zero.. SOURCE.

You can negate every conceivable concept under the sun..but you cannot negate SOURCE

There is nothing that you and I are saying that is not source, so it matters not what you say or I say, it's all source saying so. This exchange is source talking to itself...appearing as many voices and things...many of the ONE.



.

[Belinda]

Arising_uk wrote:

Watch out for that thing we call a 'double-decker bus' if you ever make it to London.

For all we can know there is no duality between living and dying, neither as concept nor as measurable phenomenon. However we don't experience eternal now so we perforce experience only the stress of change-loss i.e. the Yin or Yang of being.

It must be a comfort to DontAskMe to contemplate eternity.

[Logik]

It must be a comfort to DontAskMe to contemplate eternity.

<Insert Dylan Thomas cliché here>

[Dontaskme]

Yes, the you is awareness, there is no you that is aware...there is only awareness aware of awareness as non-conceptual awareness... and also aware of a human being (concept)....awareness is not a human being...it's aware of the concept, the human is just a concept already couched within awareness that knows each concept as it arises in it.
Do you get that? ..there's not two there, there is only one. ...

What did you do to come to this 'awareness'?

Here there is both knowing and not-knowing in the same instant. To know the knower is to not-know the knower in the same instant.
To not-know the knower is to know the knower doesn't exist - therefore all known knowledge is an illusory appearance of no knower.

The blue in the blue sky does not say it's blue...that knowledge comes from nowhere, the concept is known nowhere. The blue in the sky is an image of the imageless, for there is nothing in the blue that says it's blue except the concept itself. Reality is itself inconceivably self conceiving.
This is auspicious seeing, it has to be realised, just like any other knowledge, it's a metaphysical knowledge, and it's not woo. The woo comes when there is a belief in there being separate entities...that's the only woo in town.

Example: does the space define an object in it, or does the object define the space around it?
See how both space and the object in space are inseparably one and the same empty space? the object cannot be separated out of the space it's couched in. ...

So how are you getting this "empty space"?

Same way you get all knowledge? from the imagination, from the ''thought''

So what separates this whole inseparable picture?

Space is what you can move through, objects are the things you have to go around.

All movement is couched within non-movement, so in effect, no thing is actually moving, just appearing to move within the non-mover.
What appears to move is the mind of 'thought' ..for example: does the wind know it's moving? ..no, 'thought' moves the wind..without the 'thought' what is known?

Another example: is the wind moving the blowing flag?
Does the wind know it's blowing and moving the flag? does the flag know it's blowing in the wind? ..No ...only the mind is moving, the ''thoughts''
So what is aware of the movement? ...awareness is aware because the movement is taking place in it...awareness that never moves.

What is it that says this is space and this is the object in space? thus causing an apparent separation/division. ...

Being a body in an external world.

What it is that says Being a body in an external world? ...(known) ...now try and get behind the concept known to the actual knower of the known?
The known creates the knower, both knower and known awareness in the same instant. Aware of the body in an external world, (concepts known by awareness) not known by the concepts themselves like I've already explained with the flag and wind analogy. That which is known, cannot know anything.

Also note, that there is no space without an object and no object without space..so what is it that makes the distinction,the differential division?

Being a body in an external world.

No, this is only a half truth...a belief...drop the belief and come to perfect clarity...see previous reply.

Can we know?

We can know that there are objects as we have to go around them.

We can know because we can't know. We can't know because we know. Both knowing and not knowing have to exist in the same instant, else nothing would make sense to the mind of knowledge.

Does space say it is space?
Does object say it is object?

Space shows itself as being that period between having to go around objects.

This is knowledge known by not-knowing...an object is known, so the object / concept cannot know.

There is no space, or object in it...these are all concepts KNOWN, never seen, only known by awareness the unknowable presence herenow(UNSEEN)

It's a mind fuck until you/no one gets it...and is why most believers in separation reject it.

What's going on? where is the separation coming from exactly?

From exactly being a body in an external world.

No, it's coming from the idea that there is a body in an external world, it's a fictional representation, an appearance of something, a dream dreamt by no one.

Can anyone here answer what's going on?

Anyone...

Glad to have been of help.

And there you have it, all your answers are within yourself the questioner. No need for any more questions.
Non-duality, the one question to all our answers.

There is no question without an answer already within it, else a question wouldn't even arise.
No question without an answer, no answer without a question, both question and answer are born in the exact same instant, namely, now.

Questioner: Who want's to know... Answer: I do replies the questioner. Then only the one asking the question can know the answer.




.

.

[Dontaskme]

Arising_uk wrote:

Watch out for that thing we call a 'double-decker bus' if you ever make it to London.

For all we can know there is no duality between living and dying, neither as concept nor as measurable phenomenon.

And yet we do know it but only as conceptual knowledge dictates...it's still a fictional story arising here.

However we don't experience eternal now so we perforce experience only the stress of change-loss i.e. the Yin or Yang of being.

Which is the fictional story, experience within that which cannot never be experienced...for it is already this experiencing.

It must be a comfort to DontAskMe to contemplate eternity.

Yes it is, it's the peace that passes all understanding.

I am that peace for all eternity.
Even amid the chaos I am at peace for nothing ever happened to I ..it only aappeared so in the story of I

So what about pain then?...that which appears to experience pain never experienced pain.

Pain is just part of the story of I ..within the dream of separation...that I am dreaming infinitely forever.





.

[Arising_uk]

No it does not embarrass me not reading or understanding anything about what philosophy has said. Why would I be embarrassed about something I have no knowledge of? ...

That wasn't what I was asking, I was asking how you can't feel smidgeon of embarrassment coming to a Philosophy forum without any knowledge of what Philosophy has said and still responding as if you know what is being said to you? For example, go and look-up what Dualism means in Philosophy and understand why your response was inane.

If I am breaking any forum code of conduct or rule here then why haven't I been banished to the sin bin or banned all together?

Because unlike most forums this one allows great lee-way in what is considered philosophical or not and thinks all should be allowed to spout their metaphysic even tho' it's generally already been said and discussed in great depth by those we call the philosophers.

Are you thick? ...do you not understand the conceptual word ( fiction)? It means no one knows...there is a knowing but no one knows it.
Is that too hard to grasp for you? ...

And yet you somehow knew that what is growing the grass is growing me?

Well duh! At least I own my own shit, I don't attempt to bury it. ...

Don't go hiking in the woods anytime soon.

Yes it's about birth and dead, the fictional beliefs imposed by no one upon nothing. ...

Just your metaphysical assertion but one I am interested in how you came to hold?

You have a bad memory, I've already explained all this to you, if you can't be bothered to remember what I'd said, then so be it, I'm not your pet parrot. ...

But we are the same so how am I having a 'bad memory'? You mean you have a 'bad memory' surely.

Every creature automatically knows how to exist in it's environment. ...

So now you have 'creatures'?

Animals don't claim thought as belonging to them..that's a human trait, and the human is deluded to think their thoughts are their own. The human brain got too big in that respect. You don't see animals grouping together plotting to blow up buildings, neither do you see them building churches of worship for some God that they believe exists. ...

No idea what this is all about but you do see animals grouping together to rape others of their species, you do see them grouping together to hunt down and beat others to death, etc.

Owning ''thoughts'' is very dangerous for the human...''thoughts'' in that respect are very destructive. ...

Does not your 'ONE' have all these thoughts? Are they not dangerous to 'it'?

I don't know what I AM..I know I Am because it's self-evident, but I have no idea what this I AM presence is or where it comes from or how it came to be. Or what a thought is, or what a thinker is except the thought itself which I have no knowledge of. ...

I didn't ask you what you were as I'm fairly confident I know what you are but what I asked you was do you think in language at times?

Can you describe what is occurring to you when you have a thought?

Where is the thinker? where is the thought?.... what is consciousness? where does the I (consciousness )begin and end? all these are concepts known...by the only kowing there is. It's not a 'someone' that knows. You are the knowing that cannot be known. It's all ONE.
A conceptual character (fiction) is known ..as and through that body mind mechanism when the concept arises one with the knowin...and while this is known in an instant, nothing else is known, nothing else is happening....if it was, then it would be appearing from this body mind mechanism here...because there is nothing outside of that arena here.
The idea ''over there'' comes from a still motionless centre here. That motionless centre is consciousness, and consciousness is everywhere at once...it's the space in which everything appears...it does not move, is not born and cannot die. Only ''thought'' is born aka the mind. ...

There you go again, 'body mind mechanism'? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that thinking, consciousness, thoughts can arise from the being of a body with senses, memory and language in an external world?

Yes, the thinker and thought is imagination..it's fiction like I keep telling you. An image of the imageless, because the seer is inseparable from the seen. It's all one without a second like I keep telling you. ...

But thinking and thoughts are different? Or at least I have them as so, as thoughts and imagination are the sequenced melange of the representations given by the senses available due to having a memory and thinking is that which we can do via all that and the existence of language and internal voice.

I guess so...many of the ONE ..IT is all the same one appearing different where there is no difference. For Everything and Nothing is this eternal unknowable known SOURCE...from source to source an eternal spring. Source is unlimited and that's why it can manifest anything it likes because it's unlimited it will keep expanding forever and ever and ever add infinitum. ...

Ok, very like Spinoza's 'God' but then you have Kant and he points out that if you are going to ask 'Why?' and have causation of phenomena than you are going to have a noumena which you cannot know anything at all about and can paint any metaphysic you like upon 'it', so you have this 'ONE', others have a 'GOD', others have a 'Computer' or a 'Sim', etc, and all pretty much have to have 'it' as an uncaused cause but in reality all have zero knowledge of what 'it' actually is. This is why I ask you how you know or what it was you did to have obtained all this knowledge about an unknowable entity?

No one is talking about anything. There's just talking happening for no reason spontaneously and automatically about anything by no one... no one thinks before speaking, it's automatic...when you do stop to think before speaking, all that is happening there is memory recall, referring to memory of what to say next....because if you already knew what to say, then you'd just say it automatically without thinking.
No one knows anything, all knowledge is from memory on demand, a fictional knowledge since what is memory but that which is of past tense giving the illusory appearance of autonomy now...in a single unbroken seamless continuity now.
All verbal expression is an auditory illusion of sound sourced in silence heard as words...unexplained not-knowing (phenomena) known in the instant it arises to no one. Is this idea too hard for you to grasp hold of?

"you"? I'm surprised you don't faint from cognitive dissonance at times.

There's just here concepts arising to no one from no thing, everything is the void expressing the void, being the void and returning to the void...it's all much a do about nothing...even when it appears it's much a do about everything ..it's still much a do about nothing appearing as much a do about everything.
Everything that appears defaults back to zero.. SOURCE. ...

Like I say, whenever I see CAPS I know I'm talking to someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about.

You can negate every conceivable concept under the sun..but you cannot negate SOURCE

You have no idea whether such a thing exists and if it does then you have the same old problems that face any such metaphysic, i.e. an uncaused cause, an unknowable thing, etc and in your case apparently a conscious one so you have the problem of what is conscious of 'it'?

There is nothing that you and I are saying that is not source, so it matters not what you say or I say, it's all source saying so. This exchange is source talking to itself...appearing as many voices and things...many of the ONE.

Of course it is but I wonder how you know this?

[Dontaskme]

No it does not embarrass me not reading or understanding anything about what philosophy has said. Why would I be embarrassed about something I have no knowledge of? ...

That wasn't what I was asking, I was asking how you can't feel smidgeon of embarrassment coming to a Philosophy forum without any knowledge of what Philosophy has said and still responding as if you know what is being said to you? For example, go and look-up what Dualism means in Philosophy and understand why your response was inane.

If I am breaking any forum code of conduct or rule here then why haven't I been banished to the sin bin or banned all together?

Because unlike most forums this one allows great lee-way in what is considered philosophical or not and thinks all should be allowed to spout their metaphysic even tho' it's generally already been said and discussed in great depth by those we call the philosophers.

Are you thick? ...do you not understand the conceptual word ( fiction)? It means no one knows...there is a knowing but no one knows it.
Is that too hard to grasp for you? ...

And yet you somehow knew that what is growing the grass is growing me?

Well duh! At least I own my own shit, I don't attempt to bury it. ...

Don't go hiking in the woods anytime soon.

Yes it's about birth and dead, the fictional beliefs imposed by no one upon nothing. ...

Just your metaphysical assertion but one I am interested in how you came to hold?

You have a bad memory, I've already explained all this to you, if you can't be bothered to remember what I'd said, then so be it, I'm not your pet parrot. ...

But we are the same so how am I having a 'bad memory'? You mean you have a 'bad memory' surely.

Every creature automatically knows how to exist in it's environment. ...

So now you have 'creatures'?

Animals don't claim thought as belonging to them..that's a human trait, and the human is deluded to think their thoughts are their own. The human brain got too big in that respect. You don't see animals grouping together plotting to blow up buildings, neither do you see them building churches of worship for some God that they believe exists. ...

No idea what this is all about but you do see animals grouping together to rape others of their species, you do see them grouping together to hunt down and beat others to death, etc.

Owning ''thoughts'' is very dangerous for the human...''thoughts'' in that respect are very destructive. ...

Does not your 'ONE' have all these thoughts? Are they not dangerous to 'it'?

I don't know what I AM..I know I Am because it's self-evident, but I have no idea what this I AM presence is or where it comes from or how it came to be. Or what a thought is, or what a thinker is except the thought itself which I have no knowledge of. ...

I didn't ask you what you were as I'm fairly confident I know what you are but what I asked you was do you think in language at times?

Can you describe what is occurring to you when you have a thought?

Where is the thinker? where is the thought?.... what is consciousness? where does the I (consciousness )begin and end? all these are concepts known...by the only kowing there is. It's not a 'someone' that knows. You are the knowing that cannot be known. It's all ONE.
A conceptual character (fiction) is known ..as and through that body mind mechanism when the concept arises one with the knowin...and while this is known in an instant, nothing else is known, nothing else is happening....if it was, then it would be appearing from this body mind mechanism here...because there is nothing outside of that arena here.
The idea ''over there'' comes from a still motionless centre here. That motionless centre is consciousness, and consciousness is everywhere at once...it's the space in which everything appears...it does not move, is not born and cannot die. Only ''thought'' is born aka the mind. ...

There you go again, 'body mind mechanism'? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that thinking, consciousness, thoughts can arise from the being of a body with senses, memory and language in an external world?

Yes, the thinker and thought is imagination..it's fiction like I keep telling you. An image of the imageless, because the seer is inseparable from the seen. It's all one without a second like I keep telling you. ...

But thinking and thoughts are different? Or at least I have them as so, as thoughts and imagination are the sequenced melange of the representations given by the senses available due to having a memory and thinking is that which we can do via all that and the existence of language and internal voice.

I guess so...many of the ONE ..IT is all the same one appearing different where there is no difference. For Everything and Nothing is this eternal unknowable known SOURCE...from source to source an eternal spring. Source is unlimited and that's why it can manifest anything it likes because it's unlimited it will keep expanding forever and ever and ever add infinitum. ...

Ok, very like Spinoza's 'God' but then you have Kant and he points out that if you are going to ask 'Why?' and have causation of phenomena than you are going to have a noumena which you cannot know anything at all about and can paint any metaphysic you like upon 'it', so you have this 'ONE', others have a 'GOD', others have a 'Computer' or a 'Sim', etc, and all pretty much have to have 'it' as an uncaused cause but in reality all have zero knowledge of what 'it' actually is. This is why I ask you how you know or what it was you did to have obtained all this knowledge about an unknowable entity?

No one is talking about anything. There's just talking happening for no reason spontaneously and automatically about anything by no one... no one thinks before speaking, it's automatic...when you do stop to think before speaking, all that is happening there is memory recall, referring to memory of what to say next....because if you already knew what to say, then you'd just say it automatically without thinking.
No one knows anything, all knowledge is from memory on demand, a fictional knowledge since what is memory but that which is of past tense giving the illusory appearance of autonomy now...in a single unbroken seamless continuity now.
All verbal expression is an auditory illusion of sound sourced in silence heard as words...unexplained not-knowing (phenomena) known in the instant it arises to no one. Is this idea too hard for you to grasp hold of?

"you"? I'm surprised you don't faint from cognitive dissonance at times.

There's just here concepts arising to no one from no thing, everything is the void expressing the void, being the void and returning to the void...it's all much a do about nothing...even when it appears it's much a do about everything ..it's still much a do about nothing appearing as much a do about everything.
Everything that appears defaults back to zero.. SOURCE. ...

Like I say, whenever I see CAPS I know I'm talking to someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about.

You can negate every conceivable concept under the sun..but you cannot negate SOURCE

You have no idea whether such a thing exists and if it does then you have the same old problems that face any such metaphysic, i.e. an uncaused cause, an unknowable thing, etc and in your case apparently a conscious one so you have the problem of what is conscious of 'it'?

There is nothing that you and I are saying that is not source, so it matters not what you say or I say, it's all source saying so. This exchange is source talking to itself...appearing as many voices and things...many of the ONE.

Of course it is but I wonder how you know this?

You keep asking me how I know this...it's so boring listening to you repeat that..after I have already told you how I know.

I know knowledge, in the exact same way you know knowledge.

This reply is your knowledge, so all I can say to you is okay..If you say so..but it's not quite how I would say it.

It's different that's all, yet all the same difference.

.

[Arising_uk]

...
You keep asking me how I know this...it's so boring listening to you repeat that..after I have already told you how I know. ...

Not really, all you've said is you've read about it.

I know knowledge, in the exact same way you know knowledge. ...

And that would be?

This reply is your knowledge, so all I can say to you is okay..If you say so..but it's not quite how I would say it.

It's different that's all, yet all the same difference.

Very far from the same knowledge I think as you appear to say that you have no knowledge and it's some 'ONE' thing existing somewhere(?) that has knowledge whereas I think knowledge is that which is earned from the experience of being a body with senses and memory in an external world and in our case can be transmitted via language.

[Dontaskme]

You keep asking me how I know this...it's so boring listening to you repeat that..after I have already told you how I know. ...

Not really, all you've said is you've read about it.

That's right, I have no knowledge of my own, except what others have told me, or what I've read about what others have written. Your point?

I know knowledge, in the exact same way you know knowledge. ...

And that would be?

Where ever you get your knowledge from?

This reply is your knowledge, so all I can say to you is okay..If you say so..but it's not quite how I would say it.

It's different that's all, yet all the same difference.

Very far from the same knowledge I think as you appear to say that you have no knowledge and it's some 'ONE' thing existing somewhere(?) that has knowledge whereas I think knowledge is that which is earned from the experience of being a body with senses and memory in an external world and in our case can be transmitted via language.

Well that's not how I would say it. I would say it different, but ultimately it's all the same in that there are many authors appearing, yet only one reader of all knowledge no one ever wrote.

I'm so glad our convo's are getting shorter, are you?

.

[Dontaskme]

All the Same Difference, where there is none.

Can't have something without nothing to relate it to.

.

No one knows knowledge.

.

[Dontaskme]

It's different that's all, yet all the same difference.

Very far from the same knowledge I think as you appear to say that you have no knowledge and it's some 'ONE' thing existing somewhere(?)

That somehwere is right here now. SOURCE ..it doesn't have knowledge ..it is knowledge.

whereas I think knowledge is that which is earned from the experience of being a body with senses and memory in an external world and in our case can be transmitted via language.

Knowledge is not earned...neither is the external world the source of knowledge, the external world is more knowledge known here and now by the only knowing there is which is consciousness. There is no inside or outside of consciousness, no beginning nor end. Where does the unlimited, infinite start and finish?

There is no inbetween now and now...it's only ever NOW infinitely for eternity.

There is no knowledge outside of language, and language is an auditory illusion of sound heard as words...a fiction.

.



.

[Arising_uk]

That's right, I have no knowledge of my own, except what others have told me, or what I've read about what others have written. Your point?

That one can learn from showing and doing without words.

Where ever you get your knowledge from?

Depends which kind of 'knowledge' you are talking about? But in the main I get mine from my experience of being a body with senses, memory and a language in an external world.

This reply is your knowledge, so all I can say to you is okay..If you say so..but it's not quite how I would say it.

It's different that's all, yet all the same difference.

No it's very different from what you appear to be proposing.

Well that's not how I would say it. I would say it different, but ultimately it's all the same in that there are many authors appearing, yet only one reader of all knowledge no one ever wrote. ...

Nope it's not the same, for example I have knowledge of how to fix certain problems with an internal combustion engine, can you?

I'm so glad our convo's are getting shorter, are you?

Doesn't bother me.

[Dontaskme]

That's right, I have no knowledge of my own, except what others have told me, or what I've read about what others have written. Your point?

That one can learn from showing and doing without words.

All learning is mimicking and copying acquiring a knowledge that already exists. Learning knowledge is borrowed second hand knowledge already in existence...it's borrowed in the sense that the knowledge is wrongly believed via the ''thought'' process to be owned by a separate person, it's not because knowledge belongs to no one...it's an appearance within the I that already exists...and is known to that only.

Ultimately, no thing owns knowledge, it's a fictional story arising out of nothingness..all knowledge orginates from the same place which is imagination...within blank awareness ( I ) which pervades it all.
(The I that knows is the same I that is known ) in the same instant...the knower is always ONE > ( I )
The knower I in me is the same knower I in you. . . apparently appearing to know different things, but ultimately KNOWN by the same ( I )

Where ever you get your knowledge from?

Depends which kind of 'knowledge' you are talking about? But in the main I get mine from my experience of being a body with senses, memory and a language in an external world.

Well I'm always talking about knowledge of the I SELF...and how this I came to know itself?

What I discovered is the self is self-shining, it's doesn't need knowledge to be, IT IS. . . everything else is imagination sourced in that first primary ( I ) that doesn't require knowledge to be. ( do you follow what I'm saying there Arising_uk ? )
The I that knows is the SAME I that is known....it's not two.

The I can never exist outside of it's own arena - it's subjective, it cannot experience the external world directly because the external world is occuring appearing in the first primary experience, which is the only experiencing.
There is no experience of being a body, senses, memory, or external world. All those concepts are the experience of ( I ) ONLY ..they are conceptual appearances of I ...not outside of I

The I cannot experience itself as an object, the object (body)... the body is a conceptual appearance (known thing) of and within I not external to it... I is the only experience...I is a subjective experience, experiencing itself as and through an object body, but is not the body, because there is no body there in the body except I

The body is an imagined concept of I

The I in which the concept is known is unborn, it has to be unborn to know born.
The I that knows (unborn) is the same I that is known (born) ..do you get that? ..it's the same ONE ..NOWHERE.. there is only ONE here.

All memory, 'thought' senses, body, mind, etc etc, all knowledge... has no reality outside of the first person singular pronoun which is always ( I )
They are all occuring within it, being it, IS IT ..the external world is not the experience...the I is the only experience, experiencing an external world within itself...not outside of itself...it's all one unitary action. Seer and Seen are inseparable one in the same instant.

Well that's not how I would say it. I would say it different, but ultimately it's all the same in that there are many authors appearing, yet only one reader of all knowledge no one ever wrote. ...

Nope it's not the same, for example I have knowledge of how to fix certain problems with an internal combustion engine, can you?

Yes I can fix an internal combustion engine when I apply the knowledge that is already available in order to do that..I will seek the knowledge on demand via the memory cloud...that already exists within the knower I

Posts are getting longer again..oh well

.