AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am
I think there might be a "slight" difference in our definition of what constitutes a "thing".
I would define as thing as "an object distinct and separate from other objects"
Well we both, i am pretty sure, agree that there is NO distinction nor separation. Therefore, there is NO "other". Is that correct?
If you agree also, then i will know better how to continue in this discussion, and will have to discuss from the NO other perspective. If, however, you do NOT agree, then we will have to find where and what we are in agreement again, and then start again.
Also, if you do agree, then i like to still remain aware of NOT sounding to strange and weird, as most adult human beings can NOT see how there could NOT be 'objects distinct and separate from other objects'. The use of terms like 'you' also confuses this issue further.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amMaybe your definition is completely different and thus we cannot agree on anything...
Just because there are two completely different definitions on one word that, in and of itself, does NOT mean that the, apparent, two separate and distinct people having a discussion can NOT agree on any thing. In fact agreeing that each, seemingly different person, has a completely different definition for just one word means that there is SOME thing that the "we" is agreeing on.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:00 am
Thoughts just arise within a human body.
Separateness is only an illusion.
Meaning is just another risen thought.
1: How do you know?
2: Agree
3: Agree
1. If you are asking this from the perspective that i could be WRONG, then AGAIN, maybe it is just a case of us having two different definitions for THE word 'thought'. To me, 'thought', in relation to human beings, is the result of what a human body has experienced. Within a human body there is NO thought until that body experiences some thing. Through either or all of the five senses of that body, 'a thought will arise', for lack of a better term. Therefore, by definition for me anyway, thoughts just arise within a human body, that is; after that body has experienced some thing. What the word 'thought' means to you maybe some thing completely different.
Now, the only real thing that can be Truly KNOWN, for SURE, within the whole of EVERYTHING, is the thoughts, themselves, within A human body. The word 'thought' can, obviously, be defined in different ways, but thought can NOT be explained in, nor with, pictures, as thoughts, themselves, are obviously invisible to the human eye. What thoughts are made up of may NOT never be KNOWN, but what thoughts are, can be imagined as they arise/appear in every adult human body. With a general consensus of what thoughts actually are made up of thoughts might be better understood, but until then for me now, human thought arises within a human body.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
Absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with absolutely EVERY thing else
How can there be an "EVERY thing else" if there is no separation (see your statement no2 above)?
Because if we are going to have a discussion in the language that is generally used in this forum and with the words and terms that is generally used in this forum, then some times i am going to use terms that i have generally used, are familiar with, and are in a habit of using, which, at times, may sound contradictory.
To me the Truth is there is only One, which is made up of human devised separate and distinct parts. To me EVERY thing is those perceived by human beings distinct and separate parts of the One Everything.
i am NOT the first one to talk about there being non dual but then instantly using words, terms, and language that specifically means more than one straight after.
Obviously there is NOT a distinct and separate any thing 'else', but there are just as obviously human being devised words and terms that distinctly separate things into their own self and thus seemingly distinct and separate from any other human being devised label for any other apparent and seemingly distinctly different thing. It was these apparent different "things" that are only seemingly different because of the labels that have been put on them by human beings, which was what i was referring to when i said absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with absolutely EVERY thing "else". ALL the separately different and distinct labels that have been placed onto apparently separate different and distinct "things" is what i was referring to in regards to having some thing/interacting with.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amIf you write it like that then it doesn't make any sense (to me)...
I TOTALLY understand. But are you capable, from now on, of ALWAYS writing in a way that will NEVER express a separation, nor express a thing as NOT being separate from any other thing else?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amSee, the reason why I state "there are no things" is exactly because there is no separation and all things just appear in this "dream of separation".
Yes I KNOW and I totally agree, which I am pretty sure you also KNOW.
But to me there is One thing, called the Universe, Itself. It is one distinct separate object as there is NO other thing. When this Universe is LOOK AT, and then what is SEEN is depended upon the one who is doing the observing. HOW the Universe is LOOK AT will affect
what IS thus SEEN.
What you SEE and SAY is depended upon HOW you are LOOKING and what I SEE and SAY is depended upon HOW I am LOOKING.
I SEE, and say there is, One thing, while you SEE, and say there are, NO things, am I right?
I just do NOT see how there could be NO things, when there is at least One thing doing the observing and/or One scene being LOOKED AT. The scene and the observer may be the exact same One thing. We will just have to wait and SEE.
Can you explain WHY this 'appearance' of "things" occurs?
Are you able to explain WHY there is NO separation?
Are you able to explain WHY there is A separation to some and WHY there is NO separation to "others"?
Are you able to explain WHY two distinct different observations are made when only the one exact same scene is being LOOKED AT?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amNow you say that this "dream" is a thing - whereas according to my definition it is not.
WHAT is YOUR definition for the word 'dream'?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amYes, the dream, the thought is known, but the separation is NOT.
Why can you NOT SEE nor TELL exactly WHERE the separation lays?
If you are going to use a term like 'dream', then by definition in and of itself, you are giving 'dream' a separate distinction from "other" things.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amThings are separation in action - they can as such never be real and also never known (by the true I).
Do you KNOW what the true I IS?
If so, then what IS 'It'?
If 'you', the human being labeled alexw, can KNOW what the real I KNOWS and/or could NEVER know, then how come you KNOW more than the real I does?
And, HOW and WHY do you KNOW that the real I can NEVER see nor know the distinction between the real and the imagined?
Is it because 'you' can NOT know the distinction between the real and the imagined, therefore the real I can also NEVER know this too?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
How do you know a thing? What knows it (or rather: what creates it?)
The 'you' is just a THINKING self.
The 'I' IS the KNOWING Self.
1: There is no "THINKING self" - there are only thoughts arising belonging to no one.
But who said that thoughts "belong" to any one?
The arising thoughts (and emotions) is the human being i/it-self, which is thinking/being.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am2: Agree, I/Self is knowing/being.
If the one labeled "alexw" is the I/Self, which is KNOWING/BEING, then all the "other" i's must NOT be the I/Self KNOWING/BEING.
There can NOT be one I/Self/Knowing/Being and there also be "other" I/Self/Knowing/Beings. That would just contradict itself and what 'you' are saying.
Who/What is the I/Self, which is the KNOWING/BEING?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
Are you saying that a thought/concept/idea NEVER arises within a human body?
A single thought arises / is known.
A concept/idea (chains of thought / understanding / belief) never really arises - it is like the movement on the screen - it seems to be real, but it really is only ever one thought, another, and another... one thought is like one word - it lacks the story-factor. The story never really arises as such, it is only another thought that says so...
But can there EVER really be "another" thought, because to use the word "another" implies a distinct separation, does it not?
Can there be just one thought, changing?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You really do NEED to find better words, definitions, terms, and language if you want to be better understood.
I guess this is true for both of us
Can there be a "both" of us, as the word "both" implies a clear distinct separation, does it not?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amMaybe the previous answer is clearer?
Unfortunately no. But there is NOTHING you to have to clear up for Me, other than help me to learn how to better communicate. As I said previously the I already KNOWS. I am just using some human beings to learn how to communicate better with ALL them, so that they can learn HOW to find the KNOWING, True knowledge, that is within them and which is already, unconsciously, KNOWN.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You will have to find out what is actually real
The 'I' has done this ALREADY. And, in fact, has always KNOWN this.
The "I" doesn't have to do anything to know. It is the knowing/being (of itself).
You are right the 'I' does NOT have to do any thing to KNOW. As I just said 'I' have always KNOWN,
what IS actually Real.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
What IS Real and Who/What 'I' Really am IS ALREADY KNOWN.
Exactly
It is all that is ever known.
But I have KNOWN more also.
WHY do you insist that the 'I' can NOT know what human beings THINK they KNOW?
Also, Who/What is the 'I' really, which is already KNOWN?
Do 'you' really KNOW?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am Everything else could be called "understanding" - it is based on conceptual thought and as such not absolutely real.
Using a specific distinct separate name, like; "understanding" implies that there is a distinct separation between that and other names that you use, does it NOT?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
One Thing is NEVER actually created, but ALL other things are. If there are NO real created things then there would NOT be any thing heard nor seen.
No. Things are never really created (at least according to my definition of things). The "One", the "I", is not a thing at all - this is also why it can never be created (or destroyed). Seeing and hearing is not dependent on things existing - it only depends on "I" existing, on knowing/being.
If the One existing 'I' is able to see and hear, then this would imply that 'It' has separate parts. If 'I/It' has separate parts that transmit a sound or vision that can be captured/sensed by other separate parts, then either these parts of the One 'I' have existed ALWAYS as the EXACT SAME and therefore could NOT change and therefore NOT be able to transmit sound nor vision, OR, ALL of the parts of the One 'I' ARE changing in shape and form, and therefore are in a factual sense really being created. The One 'I' is NOT in the exact same shape and form ALWAYS therefore at each given moment of NOW 'It' is in a NEW shape and form, thus is in a constant state of Creation.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amYou will never find things in pure seeing or hearing - things are only an interpretation added to direct experience by thought.
I KNOW, you keep telling me this.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
You, the one known as alexw, may be closer than "others" are to seeing and understanding all-of-this, but you are just as prevented and thus stopped the same as they are from SEEING IT ALL, just like all adult human beings are, when this is written.
Aren't we lucky to have you to explain it to us...
This 'you' is about the most useless 'you' ever in explaining and communicating,, as has been proven throughout this forum.
i have yet to even learn how to just get people to stop looking from their own perception and to just consider to look from another more open perspective. I am continually ridiculed for even suggesting such a thing.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amBy the way, alexw knows nothing.
age also actually KNOWS nothing. age only THINKS it KNOWS.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amThere are thoughts that find their way onto a screen, thats all - no alexw doing anything at all.
There is an 'I' that is causing/creating ALL-OF-THIS. But this 'I' does it such a subliminal and/or subtle way that there is NO sense of controlling nor force anywhere. This 'I' that is causing/creating ALL-THERE-IS by just being a complexly free energy, or Life source, within EVERY, human labeled, thing.
alexw, like age, are just labels for these thoughts that are appearing on this screen, so yes alexw/age are NOT necessarily doing any thing. But behind these two sets of differing thoughts there is a KNOWING Observer, watching and influencing, but NEVER forcing. The reason this 'I' allows human beings to do WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO, through thought, is because only through mistakes AND learning do people become BETTER.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
But 'above' did NOT explain the FULL extent of things. If it did, then that would imply that 'you', the one known as alexw, KNOWS ALL THINGS.
...
You, the thoughts/concepts/ideas within that body known here as alexw, come across as though you KNOW ALL the ANSWERS.
I have never said that alexw "KNOWS ALL THINGS", have I?
CORRECT, no NEVER.
I have also NEVER said that alexw has said that you/alexw KNOWS ALL THINGS.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amTo say it in your words: Maybe this is your interpretation, but I would NEVER, EVER, say such a thing!
Of course it was ONLY my interpretation. I even specifically said it, and spelt it out in written words, as it was ONLY my interpretation, which could be WRONG or partly WRONG. I did specifically use the words 'come across as ..." this SHOWS that it was ONLY an appearance, "on the screen", some might say, and NOT the real thing.
I was NEVER even suggesting that you would even suggest that you would know all the answers.
I was just stating that from this thought/perspective, you, the other thought/perspective COME ACROSS AS something.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amI would much rather say that I (the real I) know no separate things at all!
You are FREE to say and do WHATEVER YOU LIKE.
If you were to say this, then I would ask Who/What is the 'real I'?
By the way I would also say; I KNOW of no actual separate thing at all, also. I would, however, also acknowledge that I am able to explain WHY there is, to human beings, a seemingly appearance of separate things.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:00 am
Of course what is SEEN on the screen IS an illusion, as it has already gone and does NOT now exist in that exact same shape nor form, but it did exist in that shape and form, and thus WAS a thing.
You can NOT sufficiently say that 'things' are an illusion when quite obviously there once existed 'things' that has been seen, and interpreted in certain ways. How 'things' are interpreted IS Real.
Are you saying that time is responsible for something to be a real thing or an illusion?
No, there is NO such physical thing as 'time', so 'that' certainly could NOT be responsible for the illusion of separation.
The illusion of separation IS caused when
what IS observed is LOOKED AT from the brain, or more specifically thoughts.
The view from the brain, or those particular thoughts at that moment, is ONLY based on previous views from that brain, and previous particular thoughts from other given moments. If LOOKING from this brain perspective only, which obviously began as a distorted view, then ALL that will EVER be SEEN is a distorted view of Reality or ALL-THERE-IS.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amYou never, ever see a thing. All you can ever see is color (also color is already an interpretation, but its the closest we can get). Things (seem to) emerge from a palette of color once pattern matched and interpreted. There are no things before the mental process, before it has been thought into "existence". If you take some time to investigate you will find that it is the same for all sense impressions.
I have agreed with you all along, up to a certain point. That point being in YOUR insistence that there are NO things. To me, you using the word 'interpretation' is imply it is a "separate" 'thing', even if there were NO actual "other" things, the 'interpretation' word is a thing, therefore there are 'things', even if it is just one thing. Also, to suggest that i see color is to suggest that there is another thing.
By the way, and I probably should have asked this much earlier, is the Mind and/or a thought an object?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amHow can an interpretation ever be real/true?
If the interpretation is in direct relation to
what IS Real and True.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am It is always based on conditioning, on acquired understanding, not on direct knowing.
If an interpretation is NOT, and NEVER can be, 'on direct KNOWING', then
what IS, and ALWAYS can BE, 'on direct KNOWING'?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
IF 'It' can KNOW ALL, which the thoughts known as "alexw' and "age" both agree that 'It' does, then ALL also would include KNOWING WHERE the difference between the imagined and the Real lies
No! It doesn't know this duality stuff that thought is jabbering on about.
HOW do 'you', the jabbering thoughts labeled as "alexw", KNOW this?
As I asked before, how do 'you', alexw, come across as though you KNOW more than what the real 'I' or 'It' does?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am It only knows whats real!
How do you KNOW this?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amIt doesn't know any separation (or anything that only exists once this idea is at work).
How do you KNOW this?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amSee, the "difference" that you refer to is perfectly alien to "It". It knows of no differences - its all "I".
AND, absolutely EVERYTHING is 'I' and absolutely EVERY part of 'I' IS 'I'. The human beings are a part of, the One, 'I'. Thoughts are a part of, the One, 'I'. The differences that only human beings make up and perceive are a part of, the One, 'I'. The 'I' KNOWS ALL-OF-THIS because the 'I' KNOW ALL-THERE-IS. The 'I' KNOWS Its Self, which is ALL-THERE-IS/Everything/the Universe, therefore the 'I' KNOWS absolutely EVERY thing.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amComing back to the screen analogy:
The "I" only ever knows the still pictures,
Are you sure you are NOT confusing this 'I' for the this 'i', which is just 'you', the human being, which THINKS it KNOWS more than it really does?
Also, is there one still picture (without the s) or is there still pictures (with an s) meaning there are more than just one picture?
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am it doesn't fall for (or even know) the moving content.
Of course the real I would NOT fall for, nor be deceived about, any thing. But the 'I' can SEE ALL, therefore It can SEE the moving content for
what it really IS.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am It doesn't generate some thing - e.g. the illusion of movement - out of no thing.
Only a human being would generate some thing out of no thing.
The 'I/It' also does NOT generate any thing as It only observes and thus just SEES
what IS actually Real and True.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am It remains in the non-dual arena of no thing (not nothing, but no thing) - its all it knows as its all it is.
Okay you have repeated this enough times already, and I can SEE that you BELIEVE this wholeheartedly. Now, is it time that you explain HOW you KNOW this? Who told you this? Where did you get this information from? Could we read the exact same written words on pages of particular teaching/books?
What you are saying might appear to sound True, Right, and Correct, but if it does NOT fit into and with the 'scene' of ALL human beings, then just maybe it is just another illusion and deception. Explain what you have written here in a way that could be understood by ALL people, then I will KNOW if 'it' only KNOWS some, but NOT all.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:37 am
For the Real Self to be Self-realized and to become Self-actualized It NEEDED the some times very intelligent human being to become aware of Its Self and to become Who It Really IS.
If this were so "It" would be very weak - depending on human beings to know itself..?
Not necessarily so. 'Weak' or 'weakness' is in relation to power. Through the power of Creation human beings evolved and thus were created. So, 'i/It' was NOT very weak. But because of the make up of 'I/It' it was only through the power of Creating an intelligent enough species, which just happened to be the human being, that through human beings intelligence that the 'I/It' was able to recognize, SEE, and KNOW Its True Self.
Human beings are STILL TRYING TO work out who/what they are.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amYou seem to be taking the role of humanity way too seriously.
Really?
Is there any other intelligent enough species as the human being, in the WHOLE of the Universe, that you KNOW of?
i also do not know if i am taking humanity way too seriously, because i am NOT sure of what that 'seriously' is in relation to, but i just LOOK in awe and in amazement at how Truly amazing the human animal IS. Just look at what the human animal has created and is capable of creating, now and in the future, to just understand how Truly intelligent it is.
But in saying that, just look at how STUPID the human animal can be ALSO.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 amJust because thought seems to be able to understand that the real is non-dual it doesn't mean that it will ever know this directly.
Thought can NOT even work out its own self, let alone much else. Thought, by definition, is only THINKING it KNOWS.
Whereas, WHAT KNOWS directly IS KNOWING, Itself.
KNOWING does NOT come from a thinking brain. But thoughts, however, do.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am Mental understanding, thinking about it, is infinitely far away from the truth.
Yes, I agree.
AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:00 am Guess this is why we cannot come to an agreement on anything as there is no living Truth in any of our conceptual attempts of explaining the most simple of all.
It is only through the use of the words, the definitions, the terms, and the languages that we use, and, from the BELIEF that our own "version" of the Truth is the living Truth that is the reason WHY we do NOT come to an agreement. The actual real and living Truth is in the form of and comes from THAT
what IS in agreement. Only THAT what IS in agreement by ALL would be
what IS actually thee Real Truth. The
living Truth is living deep within EVERY one existing deep down, way past this pretentious self, and living with the Real and True ALWAYS existing living Self.
The most simple of ALL and the most simplest of Truth is deep within. Human beings just need to get past, and then get rid of, their BELIEF that there is any thing complex and hard.