Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:03 am
By the way I KNOW EXACTLY who AND what 'I' am. Also, this Self does NOT think 'I am me'. Only 'you', human beings, have these types of thoughts.
Human beings do not have thoughts. 'human being' IS A ''thought'' << >> PLEASE don't confuse the invisible with the visible.
To me, a 'person' IS 'thought' (and emotion), which is invisible (to human eyes). And, a 'human being' IS made up of two things, the invisible and the visible. To me, a 'human being' is made up of the two things; the visible body part (this part is what I call the 'human' part in 'human being'), and, the invisible thinking/emotional part (this part is what I call the 'being' part in 'human being').
So, I do NOT confuse the invisible with the visible.
Also, If 'human being' IS A "thought", then one of them is redundant, correct?
If no, then what do you mean?
If yes, then which one would it be better to get rid of.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amA human being is a concept KNOWN
KNOWN by who and/or what?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am...and the KNOWN never had a thought,
The KNOWN 'Knows' what has a 'thought'.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amno more than the big toe on the end of your foot can know it is a toe.
This is because a toe does NOT have the ability to know, nor even to think.
But can any thing 'think' that it is a 'human being'?
If yes, then this is because some thing has the ability to think.
If no, then are you SURE?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amFor that which knows TOE is not the TOE..in the same context, the concept ''America'' is KNOWN...but you are not America.
You are just telling us what is ALREADY KNOWN. You are telling us what can NOT know. But are 'you' at all able to tell us what CAN KNOW?
If a TOE is what can NOT know TOE is a TOE, then what IS It that CAN KNOW 'toe' is 'a toe'?
Also if the concept 'america' is KNOWN, then by who or by what is this concept KNOWN?
The True, Right, Accurate, and Proper ANSWER to these questions are ALREADY KNOWN, also, by the way.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amThere is no such place as America except as an idea in no head, America has about as much reality to it as does Cinderella's biological father does.
If the concept 'america' is an idea "in no head", then WHERE is this concept EXACTLY?
To ''have'' requires 2 of you. Aka, a subject and an object.Again, I repeat, ( a concept IS A ''thought'' )[/quote]
You did NOT even have to say this a first time, let alone have to repeat this, as this was ALREADY KNOWN.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am...to (HAVE) a thought implies 2 ) To ''have'' requires 2 of you. Aka, a subject and an object.
What do 'you' mean?
If a 'thought' is NOT absolutely EVERY thing, then there is some thing "else". If there is some thing "else", then there could be some thing, which HAS a thought.
Does 'thought' exist ALONE?
Is there absolutely NOTHING "else" other than 'thought'?
There is no such division between subject and object, both subject and object arise instantaneously AS YOU in the exact SAME moment, [/quote]
But the object of 'human' arose BEFORE the subject of 'philosophy' arose. They both die NOT arise instantaneously AS YOU in the exact SAME moment. Just like the object of 'earth' arose BEFORE the object of 'human' arose, which both arose BEFORE any subject arose.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amthe thought is the thinker and the thinker is the thought IS ONE unitary action.
If, as 'you' say, "a concept is a "thought" ", and a "thought is the thinker", then that infers that a "concept thinks". Is this what 'you' are saying.
If no, then what are 'you' actually saying?
If yes, then can you expand and/or elaborate on how this could actually happen?
How could a 'thought' also be a 'thinker'?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am''Thoughts'' arise herenow in no thing nowhere to no one for no reason or purpose but to artificially impose a story upon the blank screen of silent presence.
If that thought arose, then what makes that 'thought' want to be recognized, shared, known, and accepted?
Could 'thoughts' arise HERE NOW in some thing, which is some where?
Could 'thoughts' arise in human bodies?
Could there be a reason WHY or a purpose for WHY EVERY thing or SOME things happen?
To 'you', do you really BELIEVE that the only reason or purpose 'thoughts' arise is to just "artificially impose a story upon the blank screen of silent presence"?
Also, if 'thoughts' arise "to artificially impose a story upon the blank screen of silent presence", then could that be a reason or a purpose?
If yes, then that would contradict what you just wrote about there being NO reason or purpose.
If no, then how do 'you' KNOW WHY 'thoughts' arise?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amThis silent presence is present during all states of being, including deep dreamless sleep, death, and waking life.
So what?
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amThe mind's IDENTIFICATION WITH 'THOUGHT' is this ever changing, moving appearance - overlaying upon what is ACTUALLY this unchanging unmoving silent presence.
Would this 'silent presence' be more silent if 'thoughts' did NOT arise?
If you do not understand what I am saying, then you do not as of yet, to date, grasp the concept of ONENESS, the way I describe it.
I ALREADY KNOW the True Oneness. This is why I question 'you' about what you are 'trying to' say. This is WHY I also say there is a much simpler and easier way to explain ALL of this.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amBut that matters not to me anyway, because expression is just exactly what it is in every moment as it appears, it can NEVER be any different than how it is appearing right here and now as it is.
This does NOT mean that there is NOT a much more clearer, simpler, and easier way than the way 'you' are going now.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amNo doubt you will disagree with everything I have said to you
That is a HUGE ASSUMPTION 'you' are making. WHY did that 'thought/assumption' arise?
Mostly all I have been saying to you is that there is a much more simpler and easier way to explain 'that', which you are 'trying to' explain. Then, I just leave 'you' to do whatever you want to do with this knowledge.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 ambecause I've noticed this is what you like to do, since you prefer your own version of how things are, and that's ok, because if we are all honest, that's what we all do, we all prefer our own authentic version of how things are according to our own personal understandings. We're all just singing our own songs, no different to what the birds are doing everyday.
But OBVIOUSLY each own's separate, personal understanding is NOT True, Right nor Correct. Only that understanding, which is agreed with by ALL is the True, Right, AND Correct understanding. This has been just about all of what I have been saying.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amSo you may wish to agree, or disagree, but that will not shift my mind away from what I've already explained, all I will do is keep repeating over and over again in as many different ways the same one message.
And SHOWING the readers how the people, in the days of when this is written, behave and misbehave is what I will continue to do.
Also, if as 'you' say "your 'mind' ", then that means 'you' HAVE a 'mind' and does this mean that there is two things. How does this fit in with 'your' ONENESS. 'you' are the one that said, "To ''have'' requires 2 of you. Aka, a subject and an object".
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 amAs you will probably do same.
.
Not at all. I am here, in this forum, for different reasons. I want to learn how to express better. In the process I will use 'you', human beings, to SHOW how the brain works by just continually repeating only what it knows, and BELIEVING it knows what is true, right, and correct. I will also REVEAL just how CLOSED the brain is, and that just about all curiosity, which once existed, has just about completely withered away in and during adulthood.