The tree of knowledge

[Dontaskme]

human is knowledge.

I can't make any sense out of this claim.

I've explained it umpteen times, but you seem to forget what was said. That or you can't make sense of what's being said, which is fine because I am speaking in nondual context which doesn't make sense to the conditioned mind.

I said, the human is a concept, it is a conceptual knowledge, the concept 'human' is known as an action of knowing by the only knowing there is which is consciousness which cannot be known.
So of course that is not going to make sense because it's not what the mind has been taught to believe, it's the opposite of what the mind has been conditioned to believe, so no matter.

Notice, nothing is ever known to be happening unless something is thought about

Wow. Is that every obviously false... If that were true, there would be no World. For there was a time when there was no human person to "think about" it.

I'm not saying the objective world does not exist, it obviously does exist, the point is the world as it is prior to a story about it definitely does exist, dinosaur bones can prove that, so yes, the world is there, it's just that it doesn't have a story about itself, how could it, it's not got a mind to do so, to make a story known. That's why knowledge can only point to the illusion of reality in that it's unknowable, except in this conception, in the dream story.

A thought on the otherhand, is a thing, and in order for a thing to be known, the thought requires a mind to create the thing as a known. The known, aka knowledge, is a conceptual overlay upon what always is and ever was just ''ISness'' without a story about what Isness is except that it is.

There is no reality separate from the concept of reality.

Yeah, there is. And you can find it. As Jordan Peterson has said, "Reality is the thing that destroys your stupid theory." That's perhaps a harsh way to put it, but it's helpful -- reality is the thing that persists even when one has a different theory, and is the thing that destroys that theory.

See above reply.

God is a thought too.

No, that's not true. Even you believe it is possible for a person to have a false thought about God. And if that's so, then God Himself is not a thought...because if He were, then whatever one thinks would be true...yet people think different things about God, and many of them are manifestly false and contradictory.

See my reply earlier about falsely identifying with the conceptual action of knowing as being the same as the real and true reality, where the knower and observer of reality cannot experience the objective world directly, it is only aware of it...not it.

? Where do you get this axiom, D?

The same place IC got God from.

I'm betting that's not true.

It's true and not true, both, and yet neither.

[Immanuel Can]

A person is a thing, a thing known.

A human person? Then you've got a logical problem: if she is only "a thing known," then the one "knowing" her is only another human, who also has no particular distinction except as "a thing known" by somebody else.

No, that's not illogical...

Yeah, it kind of is. You would have to posit the existence of some universal "knower," but since you say no "knower" can "know itself," it would have to be a rather blind, unthinking concept. Logic has pretty much nothing to do with anything, after that point.

Ironically, you're using arguments to try to affirm it. And arguments are premised on the belief that logic can, and ought to, work. So really, if you succeed you fail. That, too, is illogic.

[Dontaskme]

A person is a thing, a thing known.

A human person? Then you've got a logical problem: if she is only "a thing known," then the one "knowing" her is only another human, who also has no particular distinction except as "a thing known" by somebody else.

No, that's not illogical...

Yeah, it kind of is. You would have to posit the existence of some universal "knower," but since you say no "knower" can "know itself," it would have to be a rather blind, unthinking concept. Logic has pretty much nothing to do with anything, after that point.

Ironically, you're using arguments to try to affirm it. And arguments are premised on the belief that logic can, and ought to, work. So really, if you succeed you fail. That, too, is illogic.

Similarly, you are arguing for an affirmed blind unthinking conceptual invisible God, which is also logically illogical.

You really do not understand Nonduality do you, no worries, you're not alone.

[Immanuel Can]

Similarly, you are arguing for an affirmed blind, unthinking conceptual invisible God...

Actually, I'm not. But if that's your understanding, okay...I guess you can believe what you like. That's the luxury of not thinking logically, after all.

[Dontaskme]

Similarly, you are arguing for an affirmed blind, unthinking conceptual invisible God...

Actually, I'm not. But if that's your understanding, okay...I guess you can believe what you like. That's the luxury of not thinking logically, after all.

Well if you say so, it's your belief after all, who am I to disagree with your creation.

[Dontaskme]

IC..you cannot show another person your own believed God.

You are entirely on your own with that belief. You can only ever know your god according to how you personally see your own god.

It would be like showing another person your consciousness.

I personally know consciousness is not mine.

[Immanuel Can]

IC..you cannot show another person your own believed God.

Let's see if I can.

What do you want by way of a demonstration?

[Dontaskme]

IC..you cannot show another person your own believed God.

Let's see if I can.

What do you want by way of a demonstration?

To show me your believed God.

[Immanuel Can]

To show me your believed God.

Is that a reasonable expectation...that the Supreme Being would be at my disposal and command? I might suggest that if He were, you could certainly be assured He was not the Supreme Being.

Can you come up with a less inherently-contradictory method?

[Dontaskme]

To show me your believed God.

Is that a reasonable expectation...that the Supreme Being would be at my disposal and command? I might suggest that if He were, you could certainly be assured He was not the Supreme Being.

I totally get that.
I mean how in the world is a god that lives inside the human primate hominoid brain be able to show it's face?

Can you come up with a less inherently-contradictory method?

I will, but first I'll wait for you to show me your original face, and don't think you can trick or cheat me by using a mirror.

[Immanuel Can]

To show me your believed God.

Is that a reasonable expectation...that the Supreme Being would be at my disposal and command? I might suggest that if He were, you could certainly be assured He was not the Supreme Being.

I totally get that.
I mean how in the world is a god that lives inside the human primate hominoid brain be able to show it's face?

You know better than that. Let's not be disingenuous.

What I mean is that if I cannot be expected to command an audience from the Queen of England or the President of the U.S., do you suppose I ought to be able to command an audience for you with the Supreme Being? And if I did, would you not have every reason to say, "It must be a trick; nobody tells the Supreme Being to perform parlour tricks on command."

And you'd be right.

But there are better standards of evidence, ones that are not inherently self-contradicting, as that one is. That is, if you have any interest in the question. So why not pick one?

[Dontaskme]

To show me your believed God.

Is that a reasonable expectation...that the Supreme Being would be at my disposal and command? I might suggest that if He were, you could certainly be assured He was not the Supreme Being.


What I mean is that if I cannot be expected to command an audience from the Queen of England or the President of the U.S., do you suppose I ought to be able to command an audience for you with the Supreme Being? And if I did, would you not have every reason to say, "It must be a trick; nobody tells the Supreme Being to perform parlour tricks on command."

Supreme Being cannot perform on command because HE only exists as an idea inside another idea known as the human brain/mind. You cannot show me your believed God because you know full well that it would be like trying to show me your 'thoughts' or it would be like trying to show me the 'dream' you had last night. Everyone knows this trick is impossible to perform. There is after-all, only one of us here anyway, we are all one consciousness reading and responding to the same external world of things. And in this particular case there is a reading and responding to some stimuli appearing on the ''internet'' which is just another word for INNER-NET ..It's source is available to every consciousness tuning into it, when the urge to focus it's attention there happens.

Another strange thing IC ..is when you refer to being able to have a relationship with God. You once asked me if I would like to get to know HIM too, you asked me would I be interested in forming a relationship with God.
So my question to you would be if you are so confident and sure about the reality of this man and god relationship as being actually real, then how come when another person asks you to show them what your own personal relation with god LOOKS like, how come you then say you CANNOT do it. I'm wondering why your God relationship would be unavailable, why would your relation to God be unaproachable, why would God then suddenly be unattainable insisting that HE is not to be commanded even if it was just to share the Good News about HIM with another. Seems a bit odd that. Not making himself a visible thing that we can all adore.
Surely HE would want us to be able to see what he looks like. We do not go into a shop wearing a blindfold before we buy a product we want, we usually want to look at the product first, we usually want to see what we are buying before we accept it.
So when you make the claim to another that they too can have a relationship with God, aren't you just trying to sell something? aren't you just trying to sell someone an idea that you have? I mean it can't be anything more than an idea can it, otherwise you would be able to show it to the other one, the one whom you are informing they too can have, and that it's real. And yet when you are asked to show what they can have you cannot show because suddenly your god informs you he is not available on command....anyways, seems like God is not to be approached when commanded....I'm guessing that it's because there is no one here to approach actual realtime reality. There's just reality, I mean there's not two realities happening is there? If there are what would the two realities look like?

But there are better standards of evidence, ones that are not inherently self-contradicting, as that one is. That is, if you have any interest in the question. So why not pick one?

I've no idea what you are saying here, sorry.

But just so you know, I too used to be into the whole Jesus and God game, and I was devoted for a very long time, but then something changed for the better, I finally woke up to the actual truth of reality, and it wasn't anything like I had once believed it to be.

[Dontaskme]

IC....when you talk about having a relationship with God.

Are you suggesting something along the lines of having a relationship with all that's good..as opposed to bad and evil stuff?

If that's what you mean, then I can understand that as being a wise thing for a human to do.

Is that what you mean by God ...

So a clarification from you about this would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Immanuel Can]

To show me your believed God.

Is that a reasonable expectation...that the Supreme Being would be at my disposal and command? I might suggest that if He were, you could certainly be assured He was not the Supreme Being.


What I mean is that if I cannot be expected to command an audience from the Queen of England or the President of the U.S., do you suppose I ought to be able to command an audience for you with the Supreme Being? And if I did, would you not have every reason to say, "It must be a trick; nobody tells the Supreme Being to perform parlour tricks on command."

Supreme Being cannot perform on command because HE only exists as an idea

That's one interpretation of the facts. The other is that He exists, but doesn't debase Himself by playing parlour tricks for cynics. The one thing you could certainly conclude is that if he DID, it would not be the King of the Universe, the Supreme Being, that you were dealing with. It would be something more manipulable, some lower entity, perhaps.

Another strange thing IC ..is when you refer to being able to have a relationship with God. You once asked me if I would like to get to know HIM too, you asked me would I be interested in forming a relationship with God.
So my question to you would be if you are so confident and sure about the reality of this man and god relationship as being actually real, then how come when another person asks you to show them what your own personal relation with god LOOKS like, how come you then say you CANNOT do it.

Well, it's a different issue.

If you want me to show you what "my own personal relation with God looks like," you'd have to know me. How else could you possibly tell what difference it might make to me in my personal relationship? But that's not possible, because we don't know each other. And in any case, what does any of us know about the inner life of another person? We have guesses, perhaps; but we're never really sure, are we?

On the other hand, if you want to know what a personal relationship with God is like, that is, your own personal relationship, that's totally possible. And it would be far more telling than anything you could possibly surmise by simply looking at some other human being from the outside. So again, it depends on which test you choose: you can't know what my relationship with God is like, but you can have your own. And then, you would certainly know.

So when you make the claim to another that they too can have a relationship with God, aren't you just trying to sell something?

When somebody "sells" something, they usually get some money for it...or at least something. What have I asked you for?

But just so you know, I too used to be into the whole Jesus and God game

Well, with all due respect, if you actually thought it was a "game," either then or now, then I have to say that you didn't know what it was. Games are things one "plays around with." There is no "playing around" with God: there is only absolute earnestness, or nothing at all.

[Immanuel Can]

IC....when you talk about having a relationship with God.

Are you suggesting something along the lines of having a relationship with all that's good..as opposed to bad and evil stuff?

No, because those other "good" things are only the gifts from God, not the Person of God.

It's like the difference between simply being glad for a birthday present, and being grateful and appreciative of the person who gave it to you. There are plenty of people who enjoy God's good gifts...such as life, freedom, health, relationships, happiness, opportunities, talents, etc....but who have absolutely no gratitude to God and no interest in a relationship with the Source of all the good things they enjoy.

I'm talking about more. I'm not just speaking of having good things, or even being vaguely grateful for the things we have; I'm talking about going beyond the mere gifts to the Giver, and understanding that He, and relationship with Him, is the ultimate Good from which every other good merely derives.