What do 'you' mean by 'thing'?
To 'you', can invisible 'things' (if there are ANY, to 'you') be 'things'?
If no, then WHY NOT?
To 'you', can non physical 'things' (if there are ANY, to 'you') be 'things'?
If no, then WHY NOT?
Also, WHY, to 'you', can 'consciousness', itself, NOT be a 'thing'?
So, are 'you' 'trying to' imply or infer here that 'consciousness' does NOT know about 'consciousness'?
If yes, then who or what KNOWS about 'consciousness', which 'you' speak of and about here?
WHY does this ILLUSION 'appear' here, to 'you' the 'thing' here KNOWN as "dontaskme"?
What 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'appears' here, to 'you', CERTAINLY DOES NOT 'appear' here, to 'me'.
But 'you' just got through INFORMING 'us' that 'consciousness' is the 'knower', yet now 'you' want to CLAIM that there is NOTHING 'knowing'.
So, WHICH ONE is 'it'.
Does 'consciousness' KNOW 'things' or there is NO 'thing' that KNOWS 'things'?
If what 'you' have been 'trying to' SAY and CLAIM for years now is that 'consciousness', itself, KNOWS 'things' but 'consciousness' is NOT a 'thing', then ALL 'you' REALLY NEEDED to do was just INFORM 'us' of HOW 'you', "dontaskme", define the word 'thing' here.
AND THEN just EXPLAIN WHY EVERY 'thing' is A 'thing' BUT 'consciousness', itself, is NOT A 'thing', to 'you'.
LOL WHY does this IMPLY, to 'you', what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here.
NO one "else" that 'I' KNOW of has INFERRED that for example a knowing 'thing' such as the 'human being' AND the 'thing 'rock' BOTH know 'things', NOR that the 'thing' such as 'consciousness', itself, AND the 'thing' 'tree' BOTH know 'things'.
But, IF there is ANY one who DOES INFER this, then PLEASE let 'us' KNOW.
OF COURSE there is NO ACTUAL 'split' NOR 'separation'. BUT, it is because of HOW the human brain WORKS that a 'separation' of SORTS is MADE IN CONCEPT ALONE.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:42 am And upon deeper introspection it is realised 'knowing' is inseparable from the 'known', and that this knowing is always just one unitary movement, there is no split there, as in two things, as if the knower is separate from the known. The apparent split is illusory.
See, a CONCEPTUAL 'separation' WAS NEEDED for 'you', human beings, to be ABLE to MAKE SENSE of the 'world', or Universe, in which 'you' have FOUND "yourselves" WITHIN.
But the 'knower' is ONLY also known as "Not a thing', to 'you', "dontaskme", and a VERY FEW "others" ONLY.
This is BECAUSE the 'knower' is ACTUALLY KNOWN as A 'thing' to great deal MANY MORE.
I suggest making "your" 'self' ABSOLUTELY CLEAR about the FIRST PART here BEFORE 'you' even BEGIN to MOVE ON or ALONG.
I suggest 'you' do NOT FOLLOW the 'teachings' of "others" who "themselves" have YET to FULLY UNDERSTAND what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which they talk ABOUT and REFER TO. That way 'you' will NOT come across SO CONFUSED, and CONTRADICTORY.
All I will say here IS that there is 'consciousness' AND 'Consciousness' BOTH of which are just CONCEPTUALLY MORE 'things', MADE SEPARATE by 'thought' ALONE, and of which can NOT be touched physically, which 'we' are YET AWARE OF.
Okay. But this only DETRACTS from the CLAIM, made by the 'thing' here known as "dontaskme", that 'consciousness', itself, if NOT A 'thing'.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 7:42 amFrom my perspective here, concepts are also labels for sensations and objects and all mental abstractions. But these known concepts are all aspects within the living one consciousness, they are already couched in consciousness, and do not have any separate existence in and of themselves separate from life's unitary seamless flow.'Consciousness', along with 'thoughts' and 'emotions', and 'air' and 'sky', and other 'things', to 'me', are 'things' which are just 'things' are NOT like 'objects', which can be physically touched. So, I agree that these 'things' can NOT be touched like the physical human BODY can be 'touched', and so I agree that they exist NOT like 'objects' that can be physically 'touched'. But I do NOT agree that those 'things' are NOT 'things' AT ALL.
.