Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Age]

Absolutely EVERY thing I write could be WRONG, or partly wrong.

Now I could ask you again if you are absolutely sure of the above, but we know where this is going to go (or we don't)...

I am going to answer "the question", that is where this is going, although you did not REALLY ask a question here.

But, if you were to ask: If I am absolutely sure that Absolutely EVERY thing I write could be WRONG, or partly wrong? Then the answer is YES.

OF COURSE what I write could be WRONG, or partly wrong. The use of the very word COULD infers and makes sure that I am absolutely sure of the that statement.

Where did you think this was going?

I might agree though, that anything we say could be wrong/right/partially wrong/partially right or it could be gobbledygook...
The key might be the word "could" - as long as one uses words like might, could or would anything could be said, but maybe nothing is actually said - this could well be how you communicate (or maybe you don't)...

But I specifically used the word COULD so what I wrote was as RIGHT as what, I thought, I could make it.

I found it better to write as precise and specific as I can. That way there is LESS, people have to SHOW to me, about what is WRONG.

It might not go anywhere, or maybe it does, but maybe this is what you want to say (or maybe not)?
Are you saying that nothing goes anywhere? (on which we might actually agree on, and maybe we don't...)

NO, I am NOT saying that at all.

I do say things like; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. There is no could's, maybe's, might's, et cetera in that.

There are a few other things that ALL can, and DO, agree on. (No could's, et cetera in that as well).

You have picked just once sentence I wrote and seem to be basing that EVERY thing I write is like that one sentence.

Are you NOT going to answer any of the nine questions I posed to you

Sure, but maybe not to all of them - but maybe to some, or maybe not.... we'll see, or we might not...

Fair enough. I patiently await.

Although some readers might be thinking that that is one sure way for a person NOT having to answer clarifying question previously posed to them.

[AlexW]

Where did you think this was going?

I do not mind where this might be going - anywhere is just fine.

I do say things like; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. There is no could's, maybe's, might's, et cetera in that.

Would that mean then that this statement is absolutely true?
Could it be wrong?

There are a few other things that ALL can, and DO, agree on.

Ok... what might these things be?

You have picked just once sentence I wrote and seem to be basing that EVERY thing I write is like that one sentence.

Yes, I have picked one sentence, but you tend to communicate like that (this happened more than just once) - I am only pointing it out, thats all.

Although some readers might be thinking that that is one sure way for a person NOT having to answer clarifying question previously posed to them.

But maybe they don't...

Anyway... I will now look a some of these questions... bear with me.

[AlexW]

But if 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'everything' are each the exact same thing, then WHY three different words?

What is the purpose of having different words if there is only ONE definition for the three? If words are redundant, then just take them out of the vocabulary.

To me, the three words have three distinctly different definitions.

Sure they all have distinct definitions/flavors - it's like saying that there is vanilla, strawberry and chocolate ice-cream. Now you can look at the definition of the the flavour or you can see/understand that its all ice-cream...

To be a bit more on topic:
The concept of “mind” is elusive, and different languages conceptualise it differently. The Buddhist term for mind in Sanskrit is chitta, and has a wide range of meaning. It includes sense perception, verbal and abstract thought, emotions, feelings of happiness and unhappiness, attention, concentration, intelligence and more. When Buddhism speaks about mind, it refers to every type of mental activity.
Western societies normally interpret "mind" as a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect, whereas direct sense perceptions are not considered as part of the mind.

There are many distinctly different definitions - maybe there are actually as many as there are people on the planet (that know of this concept)...

But WHERE is this "KNOWING" coming from?

Is it coming from one human brain? Or, from somewhere else?

If the Mind IS everything, then EVERY thing would KNOW that human brains do NOT know anything. And, does EVERY thing agree with, and KNOW, this?

To me, knowing and conceptual understanding are very different things. Knowing is direct - e.g. pinch your arm, feel that? this sensation is directly known - understanding is mediated - you look, interpret part of the seen as a tree and now understand that this is an object called tree. You can know the direct experience labelled "pinch of the arm" but you cannot know "tree" (but you do know the direct visual experience) and vice versa you can not understand the direct experience of "pinch of the arm" but you understand the concept "pinch of the arm".

Now, based on this definition:
WHERE is this "KNOWING" coming from?
Understanding is acquired over time via learning/conditioning. You now understanding the concept of "tree", you haven't understood it when you were a baby... yet you have Known the visual impression before understanding a part of it and you still Know it. Why?
Because Knowing doesn't come from anywhere - it is not mediated - it is, in a way, what You are - You are it via being it.

Is it coming from one human brain? Or, from somewhere else?
I assume that it requires a brain to conceptualise experience, it seems to be a prerequisite, but there could be other devices that might work just as well... a computer system might be another example...

If the Mind IS everything, then EVERY thing would KNOW that human brains do NOT know anything.
A thing cannot know anything. Thoughts are known, the concepts/interpretations they "contain" are understood. The understanding is simply another thought stating "I understand" - Mind (with capital M) doesn't understand, it knows (or better: It IS as knowing/being).

And, does EVERY thing agree with, and KNOW, this?
Things cannot agree or know anything - so, no.

Is it being suggested here the one and only Mind mistakes things?

It is being suggested that mistaking things seems to be happening within "the one and only Mind" but not to "the one and only Mind" - it is not being suggested that "the one and only Mind" mistakes things. It is suggested that "the one and only Mind" simply IS and that Knowing (not understanding) is its quality - like love's quality is loving.

What is written here in the quote could itself be twisted and distorted, correct? Or is this just NOT possible?

Sure, it could be possible.

[Age]

Where did you think this was going?

I do not mind where this might be going - anywhere is just fine.

Okay but not really answering thee question.

I do say things like; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. There is no could's, maybe's, might's, et cetera in that.

Would that mean then that this statement is absolutely true?
Could it be wrong?

I can NOT see how. If that statement is True, then whatever perspective is given is relative to that observer.

But, as I have said; absolutely EVERY thing I write could be WRONG, so then, YES, it could be wrong.

As I also continually say, IF there is any thing WRONG, SEEN in what I write, then I would like that pointed out to me, exposed and SHOWN.

There are a few other things that ALL can, and DO, agree on.

Ok... what might these things be?

Whatever it is that ALL agree on.

That is not up to me to personally say what they MIGHT be. That is up to you to decide what they ARE. When, and if, you do this, then you will KNOW if you are LOOKING AT things from the Truly OPEN Mind, or just from that brain, and its thoughts, only.

You have picked just once sentence I wrote and seem to be basing that EVERY thing I write is like that one sentence.

Yes, I have picked one sentence, but you tend to communicate like that (this happened more than just once) - I am only pointing it out, thats all.

If you wanted to point that out to the readers, then that is fine, but, there was NO need to point it out to me because I write SPECIFICALLY like this.

As I stated the LESS wrong there is in what I write, then the better this is, for me. Again, if you SEE any WRONG at all, please inform me.

Although some readers might be thinking that that is one sure way for a person NOT having to answer clarifying question previously posed to them.

But maybe they don't...

Who is 'they'?

Are you referring to ALL or SOME of "them"?

But anyway, SOME already HAVE thought that that is one sure for a person NOT having to answrr clarifying questions previously posed to them.

Anyway... I will now look a some of these questions... bear with me.

There is NO need to rush.

[AlexW]

I do say things like; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. There is no could's, maybe's, might's, et cetera in that.

I can NOT see how. If that statement is True, then whatever perspective is given is relative to that observer.

But, as I have said; absolutely EVERY thing I write could be WRONG, so then, YES, it could be wrong.

As I also continually say, IF there is any thing WRONG, SEEN in what I write, then I would like that pointed out to me, exposed and SHOWN.

Well, to find out if everything is relative to the observer, then this observer would have to be known first.
Is there such a separate observer (separat from the thing that is being observed)? If yes, how is this observer known? And in which way are the things that are being observed related to it?

[Age]

But if 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'everything' are each the exact same thing, then WHY three different words?

What is the purpose of having different words if there is only ONE definition for the three? If words are redundant, then just take them out of the vocabulary.

To me, the three words have three distinctly different definitions.

Sure they all have distinct definitions/flavors - it's like saying that there is vanilla, strawberry and chocolate ice-cream. Now you can look at the definition of the the flavour or you can see/understand that its all ice-cream...

Now, telling me what I CAN look at and what I CAN see/understand is NOT really helpful here. What was the actual point in telling me what I CAN look at and CAN see/understand in regards to ice cream and its varying different flavors?

I can LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND BOTH the Universe in Its BIG and WHOLE FULL picture of ALL-THERE-IS as well as SEE and UNDERSTAND the picture of things, in great detail. The sum of EVERY thing put together is, literally, Everything. The Truth of things is SEEN in both the big and the small as well as in the whole and in Its parts. Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, and there is One perspective from which the actual and real Truth of things can be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD.

If you wan to talk about the Universe Itself, then that is, literally, One thing. Or, if you want to talk about ice cream, then that is ANOTHER thing.

To be a bit more on topic:
The concept of “mind” is elusive, and different languages conceptualise it differently.

Obviously. Different human beings conceptualize it differently. This is because Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

The Buddhist term for mind in Sanskrit is chitta, and has a wide range of meaning. It includes sense perception, verbal and abstract thought, emotions, feelings of happiness and unhappiness, attention, concentration, intelligence and more. When Buddhism speaks about mind, it refers to every type of mental activity.


Western societies normally interpret "mind" as a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect, whereas direct sense perceptions are not considered as part of the mind.

There are many distinctly different definitions - maybe there are actually as many as there are people on the planet (that know of this concept)...

Okay, NOT exactly exciting. But there might be some actual point that you would like to me to become aware of.

Would the term; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer just about cover ALL of what is expressed here?

But WHERE is this "KNOWING" coming from?

Is it coming from one human brain? Or, from somewhere else?

If the Mind IS everything, then EVERY thing would KNOW that human brains do NOT know anything. And, does EVERY thing agree with, and KNOW, this?

To me, knowing and conceptual understanding are very different things. Knowing is direct - e.g. pinch your arm, feel that?

But I, nor i, do NOT have an arm.

The Truth, to me, is there are, what is called, "two arms" attached to this body. When one of those arms is pinched, then a feeling is felt. This feeling is a feeling, which comes from or through nerve cells. These feelings are different from other feelings, which are sometimes referred to as 'internal feelings or emotions'.

this sensation is directly known -

Is known by who and/or what?

This is a question 'you', human beings seem to be LOOKING FOR.

understanding is mediated - you look,

Who/what 'looks'?

Depending on how in depth this wants to be LOOKED AT will influence how far the questioning goes?

By the way ALL questions CAN be answered in a way that fit PERFECTLY together, like a puzzle, to form a perfectly crystal CLEAR big picture of ALL-THERE-IS, which just reveals the actual and real Truth of things.

interpret part of the seen as a tree and now understand that this is an object called tree.

But I do NOT do that.

I understand that the object being observed is some times referred to as a "tree", by some people.

You can know the direct experience labelled "pinch of the arm" but you cannot know "tree" (but you do know the direct visual experience) and vice versa you can not understand the direct experience of "pinch of the arm" but you understand the concept "pinch of the arm".

If you say so, then it must be true, right, and correct, correct?

Or, could this be wrong, or partly wrong?

Now, based on this definition:
WHERE is this "KNOWING" coming from?
Understanding is acquired over time via learning/conditioning.

When the word 'time' is mentioned here, does a newly born human baby understand that it NEEDS nutrients (some thing) for its continued survival because that understanding was 'acquired over time' also? Or, are there just some things that are just understood and/or known because that understanding and/or knowing is just built within the very "fabric" of Who/What we REALLY are?

You now understanding the concept of "tree", you haven't understood it when you were a baby... yet you have Known the visual impression before understanding a part of it and you still Know it. Why?
Because Knowing doesn't come from anywhere - it is not mediated - it is, in a way, what You are - You are it via being it.

If you say so, but what is 'it', which 'you' ARE?

To me, ALL things can be clearly and distinctly defined so that they WILL make sense and WILL be understood.

I can SEE how what is said here can be explained in a way so that UNDERSTANDING is clearer. But, like I say, I could be WRONG.

Is it coming from one human brain? Or, from somewhere else?
I assume that it requires a brain to conceptualise experience, it seems to be a prerequisite, but there could be other devices that might work just as well... a computer system might be another example...

But it would come back to a human brain because a human brain is the one that deciphers/conceptualizes what a computer system puts out.

Some say that the quest of the Universe is to KNOW thy Self. Now, just like you said here, the human brain seems to be a prerequisite. An intelligent enough species had to be created and evolved enough into a place/position of where enough knowledge had been gained, and stored, so that to KNOW thy Self (and self) could be discovered, known, and understood.

Although the ALL-KNOWING exists eternally It NEEDED a species with the ability to store information/knowledge, just like a computer, to unravel the so called "secrets/mysteries" of the Universe, Itself, so that It could KNOW Its own Self. This species just happened to be the human species, and this KNOWLEDGE only came to light because of the human brain, within ALL human beings, and the brain's Truly amazing ability to grasp and store knowledge along the way.

The ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON absolute ANY and EVERY thing comes from the Truly OPEN Mind, which there is only One of.
The ABILITY to grasp and store information/knowledge comes from the Truly amazing human brain, which there obviously is as many working ones as there are breathing, conscious human bodies.

The REASON WHY knowledge like Who am 'I'? How does the Universe, Itself work, What is RIGHT and WRONG in Life, which leads to living in a Truly peaceful and harmonious "world", and ALL the other so called "philosophical" questions, which are yet to be answered/resolved by some, is because of the human brain's ABILITY to gather and store information/knowledge that is WRONG, but BELIEVE that it is RIGHT and to be able to hold knowledge that "REASONS OUT" and "JUSTIFIES" to itself that what it is THINKING is NOT wrong but is actually True, Right, and/or Correct.

If the Mind IS everything, then EVERY thing would KNOW that human brains do NOT know anything.
A thing cannot know anything. Thoughts are known, the concepts/interpretations they "contain" are understood. The understanding is simply another thought stating "I understand" - Mind (with capital M) doesn't understand, it knows (or better: It IS as knowing/being).

So, what to that brain, IS thee Mind?

And, does EVERY thing agree with, and KNOW, this?
Things cannot agree or know anything - so, no.[/quote]

So human beings, which are just another thing, can NOT agree nor know anything. Is this what is being suggested here?

Is it being suggested here the one and only Mind mistakes things?

It is being suggested that mistaking things seems to be happening within "the one and only Mind"

But because the 'Mind' is being expressed as Everything, then OBVIOUSLY ANY thing happening would be happening within Everything.

So, nothing really new nor more is being stated here.

but not to "the one and only Mind" - it is not being suggested that "the one and only Mind" mistakes things. It is suggested that "the one and only Mind" simply IS and that Knowing (not understanding) is its quality - like love's quality is loving.

So what is being expressed here is the Mind IS, and the quality of the Mind is Knowing. Is stating 'Knowing just IS' correct?

If yes, then that really does NOT explain a lot.
If no, then okay.

What is written here in the quote could itself be twisted and distorted, correct? Or is this just NOT possible?

Sure, it could be possible.

Okay.

[Atla]

No, it doesn't know itself by being itself. Instead, it's simply itself.

Well, yes - it doesn't do anything so how could it do any knowing.
But Being itself, the quality, you might say, is "of knowing" - of course this is just a word, like "it is" are just words.
It just feels right to describe this being/presence as knowing - not as a knowing of something. Like water cannot be but wet, being cannot be but knowing... the words are interchangeable.

Yeah okay, but that quality of knowing is still just a sensation basically located within our own head/brain/mind. (And we didn't have this one when we were babies, so the awekened state isn't quite the same as the original state after birth.)

Or maybe you simply use the word "knowing" as a synonim for "existence", "is" but that would be rather misleading to me.

If you look at the others in this topic, they project some literal knowing onto the Absolute as a whole, they sort of attribute to it. So they tend to go nuts, they think that the Absolute "as a whole" literally knows things. I see the difference as subtle but important.

[Age]

I do say things like; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. There is no could's, maybe's, might's, et cetera in that.

I can NOT see how. If that statement is True, then whatever perspective is given is relative to that observer.

But, as I have said; absolutely EVERY thing I write could be WRONG, so then, YES, it could be wrong.

As I also continually say, IF there is any thing WRONG, SEEN in what I write, then I would like that pointed out to me, exposed and SHOWN.

Well, to find out if everything is relative to the observer, then this observer would have to be known first.

That observer is ALREADY KNOWN.

Is there such a separate observer (separat from the thing that is being observed)? If yes, how is this observer known? And in which way are the things that are being observed related to it?

There is A Mind. Because this Mind is Truly OPEN and transparent it CAN transgress and transpire through ALL things. Therefore, this Mind can SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND that there are individual different selves within individual different human bodies. Each of these uniquely different, special selves, who are some times referred to as people. Each one being a 'person'.

Now, each person is NOT the human body itself, if an an arm or a leg for example is cut off of a human body, then they do NOT suddenly become less of a person. So, a person is NOT the visible physical part, which is the human body. Therefore, a 'person' must be some thing else. Within a human body there are non-visible thoughts and emotions, If these are what is known as the 'person', then that becomes the observer, with small 'o'. This personal being, which is an observer, is NOT the same as thee Being, which is Thee Observer. The Observer that KNOWS-ALL comes from the observations of ALL. The observer that THINKS it knows is just an individual person. The results of the observations made by ALL, which are in AGREEMENT by ALL, makes up the Truth of Life.

To put this another way. the human being observes things and THINKS that they exist and are separate. Thee Being KNOWS that every thing that is seen, through the perspective of the human eyes, is only a vision that what does NOT exist, anymore. Thee Being is able to decipher or distinguish between what is seen visually from what is SEEN and UNDERSTOOD by the human being observer and from what Itself SEES and UNDERSTANDS, or KNOWS.

[Dontaskme]

If you look at the others in this topic, they project some literal knowing onto the Absolute as a whole, they sort of attribute to it. So they tend to go nuts, they think that the Absolute "as a whole" literally knows things. I see the difference as subtle but important.

What difference are you referring to ?...explain what you mean and what you are trying to say?

.

[Lacewing]

now that you ADMIT that there could be ONE SINGLE PATH to get somewhere, then we can finally start MOVE FORWARD, (along that path?).

Why?

There is NO WHY to what could be done. WHAT there is, however, is NOW a possibility.

Do you think there is something we are supposed to do with this POSSIBILITY? If so, why?

Where are we going?

That is up to who you are saying is "we", and, you will only go wherever you WANT to go.

Note that you had said "we can finally start MOVE FORWARD, (along that path?)". So, who are YOU saying "we" is?

Is there something that you think is needed?

In general NO, EVERY thing is in Its PERFECT position right now. But my answer really depends on WHAT you are referring to exactly.

I, too, think everything is perfect. I'm referring to what you've written -- so your answer can be based on what YOU are referring to.

So what are we "moving forward" ON or TOWARD?

Living in PEACE and HARMONY, with one "another", as One.

How/why/where did you get this idea? Does anyone need to move forward on it, if everything is perfect? If so, why?

LOL Does asking a person with a mental disorder why they do NOT question them self more, really seem that sensible and/or sane to you?

Why wouldn't it be?

I NEVER said it would NOT be. I just asked you a simple, straightforward clarifying question.

Seems sensible and sane to me. Does it seem sensible and sane to you?

You seem to be under the ASSUMPTION that I have NOT yet questioned My self regarding who the i is and Who I am, exactly, is this correct?

No. I have no specific ideas about the questions you have or have not asked yourself. Do you continue to question your views about life, purpose, others, yourself?

It means that "others" KNOW Who 'I" Truly am. Why this is important is, besides just living, it is the most fundamental part of BEING.

Do you think the idea of "who I am" is necessary for being?

Absolutely EVERY child is born WANTING to be recognized and accepted for 'Who I am'.

I don't think children are born wanting that. I think they are simply being. Any ideas about "Who I am" sounds like the needs of an ego -- whether that ego feels powerful or powerless, or welcome or unwelcome -- and it seems to be based on a developing awareness within an environment. We beings face all different kinds of experiences when we come into this world, and as we travel through it. There is not one particular way that we all handle that, or that we all should handle that. Would you agree? To me it seems to be a vast and organic landscape of countless possibilities. Does it seem that way to you?

To me, it seems that human beings are often trying to proclaim a RIGHT way, or ONE way/path, or a single ANSWER, or a Universal/Divine KNOWING (perhaps in an effort to control/know their experience/reality), and they want other people to adopt, agree to, or acknowledge it -- and I think that casts a cloud/shroud over the perfection and potential of the wider landscape.

Why focus primarily/specifically on a possible view/path, when there are so many views/paths that can be loved?

Why focus primarily/specifically on a certain way things could/should be, when BEING natural and present and in the moment is such a rich and dynamic experience as it is?

If it seems that something ELSE is necessary, why does it seem that way, and what is causing it to seem that way?

[That's as far as I've gotten through your response for now. I want to direct my focus elsewhere.]

[Age]

Why?

There is NO WHY to what could be done. WHAT there is, however, is NOW a possibility.

Do you think there is something we are supposed to do with this POSSIBILITY? If so, why?

No.

Where are we going?

That is up to who you are saying is "we", and, you will only go wherever you WANT to go.

Note that you had said "we can finally start MOVE FORWARD, (along that path?)". So, who are YOU saying "we" is?

you and Me.

Is there something that you think is needed?

In general NO, EVERY thing is in Its PERFECT position right now. But my answer really depends on WHAT you are referring to exactly.

I, too, think everything is perfect. I'm referring to what you've written -- so your answer can be based on what YOU are referring to.

As explained already ALL adult human beings abuse children, each "other", and their one and only home, namely earth.

If any thing is needed here it is Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better. That is; if people Truly WANT to get 'that' what they Truly WANT.

So what are we "moving forward" ON or TOWARD?

Living in PEACE and HARMONY, with one "another", as One.

How/why/where did you get this idea?

How this idea came about? Through Honesty.
Why did this idea come? Because i was Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting to change, for the better.
Where did this idea come from? The (Truly OPEN) Mind, and the brain.

Does anyone need to move forward on it, if everything is perfect? If so, why?

Everything IS PERFECT. But EVERY thing is NOT perfect, OBVIOUSLY.

I have answered this a few times ALREADY. Can you understand the term 'perfect' from an absolute or universal sense, AND, 'perfect' from a what human beings do to each "other" and their planet sense, and KNOW the difference?

If yes, then great.
If no, then NOTHING NEEDS to change from both senses. BUT, if you think the ABUSE that YOU are DOING to children IS PERFECT, then just keep doing it. However, if you Truly WANT the BEST for children (and yourself), then you will WANT to change, for the better.

You do NOT NEED to change. To CHANGE is YOUR CHOICE and YOURS ALONE. If you just WANT to sit around and say that Everything IS PERFECT now, while OBVIOUSLY you can SEE the ABUSE going on around you, which you are WHOLLY a participant of, and in, then just sit there, and wait. "Others", however, prefer to MOVE FORWARD, and start to make a CHANGE, before it becomes TO LATE, to change.

Why wouldn't it be?

I NEVER said it would NOT be. I just asked you a simple, straightforward clarifying question.

Seems sensible and sane to me.

If you THINK/BELIEVE that it seems sensible and sane, to you, to ask a person with a mental disorder: Why don't you ask clarifying questions of yourself? and you WANT to do this, then so be it. But some mental health experts might disagree with you. They might even ask you ask: Why don't you ask clarifying questions of yourself? That is; If they did NOT think you had a mental disorder, yourself.

Does it seem sensible and sane to you?

Not really.

By definition the 'mental disorder' could interfere with their ability to answer themselves correctly and accurately, and thus may aggravate the 'mental disorder' that they already have more.

You seem to be under the ASSUMPTION that I have NOT yet questioned My self regarding who the i is and Who I am, exactly, is this correct?

No. I have no specific ideas about the questions you have or have not asked yourself.

Okay, so when you say to me: Why don't you ask clarifying questions of yourself? AND Then why don't you question YOURSELF more? the Truth is you really do NOT even know if I do or not, nor how much I actually do this, do you?

Do you continue to question your views about life, purpose, others, yourself?

Yes.

It means that "others" KNOW Who 'I" Truly am. Why this is important is, besides just living, it is the most fundamental part of BEING.

Do you think the idea of "who I am" is necessary for being?

No, do you?

To me, what is necessary for being is some thing else.

Absolutely EVERY child is born WANTING to be recognized and accepted for 'Who I am'.

I don't think children are born wanting that. I think they are simply being.

Being 'what' EXACTLY?

Nothing OR some thing?

If they are just being nothing, then so be it.
But if they are being some thing, then why would a child NOT want to be recognized and accepted for what that some thing IS?

Do 'you' WANT to be recognized and accepted for who 'you' ARE?

Or, are 'you' (whatever that is) happy just being and doing what you do? (No matter if that being and doing is ABUSING "other" things).

Any ideas about "Who I am" sounds like the needs of an ego -- whether that ego feels powerful or powerless, or welcome or unwelcome --

Is that what it sounds like to 'you'?

If yes, then 'what' EXACTLY is the 'you' who has that idea?

Some might say that what 'you' say here sounds like the needs of an ego wanting to be heard, and recognized and accepted for those BELIEFS, which that ego BELIEVES is true.

and it seems to be based on a developing awareness within an environment. We beings face all different kinds of experiences when we come into this world, and as we travel through it.

OBVIOUSLY.

There is not one particular way that we all handle that, or that we all should handle that.

OBVIOUSLY.

Would you agree?

Yes.

To me it seems to be a vast and organic landscape of countless possibilities. Does it seem that way to you?

That all depends on what the "it" is that 'you' are referring to here.

To me, it seems that human beings are often trying to proclaim a RIGHT way, or ONE way/path, or a single ANSWER, or a Universal/Divine KNOWING[/quote]

Yes it appears as though SOME human beings are like this. Just like 'you' continually do when you are often trying to proclaim a RIGHT way, or ONE way/path, or a single ANSWER, or a Universe/Divine, which STIPULATES that, There is NOT one single path to get somewhere.

(perhaps in an effort to control/know their experience/reality),

Yes perhaps that is exactly WHY you continually do the same thing.

and they want other people to adopt, agree to, or acknowledge it --

Yes it is very CLEAR that you WANT "other" people to adopt, agree to, and/or acknowledge that what you proclaim to be TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT IS True, Right, and Correct.

and I think that casts a cloud/shroud over the perfection and potential of the wider landscape.

Either Everything is PERFECT or Everything is not. How could what human beings do cast a cloud/shroud over that perfection?

Also, is what you, yourself, do also cast a cloud/shroud over that perfection, or, is it only what "others" do that casts a cloud/shroud?

Why focus primarily/specifically on a possible view/path, when there are so many views/paths that can be loved?

Because WHEN ALL the views are LOOKED AT and the ones that are in AGREEMENT are SEEN, then what does that infer?

Could those views/paths, which are in agreement, and thus in a sense loved, be A one path, which people would WANT to follow along, and voluntary anyway?

Why focus primarily/specifically on a certain way things could/should be,

But I am NOT doing that, from the perspective that you are ASSUMING I am doing it from. I have also NEVER focused primarily/specifically on a certain way things could/should be done, which would NOT be in agreement with ALL and would NOT want to be followed by ALL, either.

when BEING natural and present and in the moment is such a rich and dynamic experience as it is?

That sounds like you are focusing primarily/specifically on a certain way things could/should be.

Also, that might just be the way in which I have been referring to? But without clarifying questions, you may never know.

And, is there another particular way, which you think could/should be done, or is that just one single path you know of?

If it seems that something ELSE is necessary, why does it seem that way, and what is causing it to seem that way?

When you get rid of your ASSUMPTIONS and strongly held BELIEFS, then you will START seeing what I have been actually talking about, and NOT see what you THINK I am talking about.

[That's as far as I've gotten through your response for now. I want to direct my focus elsewhere.]

Fair enough.

[AlexW]

There is A Mind. Because this Mind is Truly OPEN and transparent it CAN transgress and transpire through ALL things. Therefore, this Mind can SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND that there are individual different selves within individual different human bodies. Each of these uniquely different, special selves, who are some times referred to as people. Each one being a 'person'.

Now, each person is NOT the human body itself, if an an arm or a leg for example is cut off of a human body, then they do NOT suddenly become less of a person. So, a person is NOT the visible physical part, which is the human body. Therefore, a 'person' must be some thing else. Within a human body there are non-visible thoughts and emotions, If these are what is known as the 'person', then that becomes the observer, with small 'o'. This personal being, which is an observer, is NOT the same as thee Being, which is Thee Observer. The Observer that KNOWS-ALL comes from the observations of ALL. The observer that THINKS it knows is just an individual person. The results of the observations made by ALL, which are in AGREEMENT by ALL, makes up the Truth of Life.

To put this another way. the human being observes things and THINKS that they exist and are separate. Thee Being KNOWS that every thing that is seen, through the perspective of the human eyes, is only a vision that what does NOT exist, anymore. Thee Being is able to decipher or distinguish between what is seen visually from what is SEEN and UNDERSTOOD by the human being observer and from what Itself SEES and UNDERSTANDS, or KNOWS.

Why so complicated?
Yes, there is only one Mind, Consciousness, Being. But thats it, full stop. It is ALL that truly IS, the rest is made/thought up.
The Mind/Being doesn't "transgress and transpire through ALL things", it doesn't "SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND", there is no "Observer that KNOWS-ALL" - all these are just idea and belief.
If Mind is ALL, and we seem to both agree on that, then how could it be able to see or understand? It is, by definition, the Observer, the SEEING as well as the observed - it is ALL - and if one (no)thing is ALL then it doesn't make sense to state that it is an Observer, that it SEES and UNDERSTANDS. The Observer, the SEEING and UNDERSTANDING are all Mind/Being and as such the separation between these concepts is non existent.
All separate entities, as well as all activities (seeing, understanding)... are reserved for the world of conceptual thought - they are interpretations, not Reality - they have nothing to do with Mind/Being.

[AlexW]

Yeah okay, but that quality of knowing is still just a sensation basically located within our own head/brain/mind. (And we didn't have this one when we were babies, so the awekened state isn't quite the same as the original state after birth.)

I guess what you refer to is the knowing "I am" - if so, then yes, agree, it wasn't there when we were babies - yes, the "awekened state isn't quite the same as the original state after birth" because at that time "I am" wasn't known, now it can be consciously known (but it really makes no difference, but I guess to us adults it seems that it does )

Or maybe you simply use the word "knowing" as a synonim for "existence", "is" but that would be rather misleading to me.

Yes, I happen to do that, sorry if its misleading.

they project some literal knowing onto the Absolute as a whole, they sort of attribute to it

Well, yes, but if this isn't done there is nothing to say about it at all - which is exactly what is to say about it - nothing.
Problem is that thought/ego is not happy with not-knowing and thus it invents things like the Observer and activities like SEEING and UNDERSTANDING and whatever else...

[Age]

There is A Mind. Because this Mind is Truly OPEN and transparent it CAN transgress and transpire through ALL things. Therefore, this Mind can SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND that there are individual different selves within individual different human bodies. Each of these uniquely different, special selves, who are some times referred to as people. Each one being a 'person'.

Now, each person is NOT the human body itself, if an an arm or a leg for example is cut off of a human body, then they do NOT suddenly become less of a person. So, a person is NOT the visible physical part, which is the human body. Therefore, a 'person' must be some thing else. Within a human body there are non-visible thoughts and emotions, If these are what is known as the 'person', then that becomes the observer, with small 'o'. This personal being, which is an observer, is NOT the same as thee Being, which is Thee Observer. The Observer that KNOWS-ALL comes from the observations of ALL. The observer that THINKS it knows is just an individual person. The results of the observations made by ALL, which are in AGREEMENT by ALL, makes up the Truth of Life.

To put this another way. the human being observes things and THINKS that they exist and are separate. Thee Being KNOWS that every thing that is seen, through the perspective of the human eyes, is only a vision that what does NOT exist, anymore. Thee Being is able to decipher or distinguish between what is seen visually from what is SEEN and UNDERSTOOD by the human being observer and from what Itself SEES and UNDERSTANDS, or KNOWS.

Why so complicated?

But it is NOT complicated. Although me explaining it now obviously might appear complicated, thus the reason I want to learn how to communicate better.

Yes, there is only one Mind, Consciousness, Being. But thats it, full stop.

If that is it, full stop. Then why did 'you' continue on below?

Is there some thing else WANTED to be HEARD and UNDERSTOOD?

It is ALL that truly IS, the rest is made/thought up.

What do 'you' mean by "the rest is made/thought up"? If there is only one Mind, Consciousness, Being, then WHY is this One making/thinking up the "rest"?

The Mind/Being doesn't "transgress and transpire through ALL things", it doesn't "SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND", there is no "Observer that KNOWS-ALL" - all these are just idea and belief.

And is this "made/thought up" stuff, ABSOLUTE Truth, just another view/perspective, a combination of them, or some thing else?

If Mind is ALL, and we seem to both agree on that, then how could it be able to see or understand?

It sees through human beings experiences and understands through the human brain. It SEES ALL, though, through the Mind's EYE.

It is, by definition, the Observer, the SEEING as well as the observed - it is ALL - and if one (no)thing is ALL then it doesn't make sense to state that it is an Observer, that it SEES and UNDERSTANDS.

If it does NOT make sense to you, then that is okay. The language that makes sense to ALL is what i am LOOKING FOR. If you can help me FIND THIS by writing in a way that makes sense to ALL, then that would be gratefully appreciated.

To you, how does saying the Mind 'transgresses and transpires through ALL things' NOT equate to saying 'the Mind is ALL'?

If you are saying the Mind is, literally, ALL things, then are you SURE that the Mind is also all the WRONG knowledge that gets passed around here also?

You also wrote that the Mind, by definition, the Observer ... but then also wrote that it does not make sense to you to state that the Mind is an Observer, that It SEES and UNDERSTANDS?

What is the difference?

And, is a human being one observer and the Mind, Being, another Observer. One is just a small o observer while the other is the big O Observer?

The Observer, the SEEING and UNDERSTANDING are all Mind/Being and as such the separation between these concepts is non existent.

Yes this may be ultimately True, in a sense. But only AFTER EVERY thing can be explained in a way, that it makes sense to ALL first, then I found it better to move on to such concepts.

The minor details and explanations NEED to be made clear ALSO to explain and SEE the bigger details and WHOLE picture for what It Truly IS.

All separate entities, as well as all activities (seeing, understanding)... are reserved for the world of conceptual thought - they are interpretations, not Reality - they have nothing to do with Mind/Being.

But did you NOT just get through telling us that the Mind/Being is ALL? If yes, then ALL things do have SOME thing to do with Mind/Being, and NOT nothing to do with Mind/Being.

Anyway, IF all separate entities as well as all activities, are reserved for the world of conceptual thought, as you say they are, and that they are interpretations not Reality, as you also say, then you also have to understand that it WAS/IS through conceptual thought that the Mind/Being works through and comes to be KNOWN and/or reveals Its Self through.

Only through human beings, and conceptual thought/interpretations, the Mind/Being comes to KNOW thy Self. Therefore, that is ALL I have to work with and through, so finding/learning the language/words to use so that ALL human beings can understanding is NEEDED. TRYING TO reject 'separate entities' as though they are NOT real is NOT going to help EXPLAIN 'that', which is WANTING to be HEARD and UNDERSTOOD.

Only through working TOGETHER, with the apparent 'separate entity' of 'human being' can I be HEARD, RECOGNIZED, AND ACCEPTED for Who 'I' Truly am.

[Lacewing]

...

Age...I don't have any more interest in this discussion right now. Maybe another time. Good luck to you.