Translucense

[Darkneos]

You want people to just accept your words without putting in the work and that doesn’t fly in philosophy.

Sometimes within the realm of human mentation, it just becomes so effortlessly possible to put into words a truth in such a way that is so obviously simple and easy that no one knows what the hell you are talking about. That's how true and real philosophy is expressed, the more complex you make this, the more it is accepted as being true, and the opposite is also true, the simple is also accepted to be true. And people can only hear from others what resonates with their own truth.

However, it seems that some people are never satisfied with anyones truth but their own.

It does help however, to drop all artificially induced concepts of truth in order to arrive at the non-conceptual truth.

Sometimes, what is very simple is complex, and what is complex is very simple.

No one is exempt from knowing truth, because there is only your truth, and all our truths are sourced from the exact same place,namely, here now, nowhere and everywhere.

Wrong, just wrong.

[Dontaskme]

As for putting in the work, all one is required to do is do the no body home work. Which is simple and easy, a child can do it. Because there is no one that is taking occupancy in a child, not until the child comes into contact by association as and through this artificial illusory possession of knowledge, leading it back to it's original image, the illusion of it's reality. The image of the imageless.

It very easy, is hard work.

[Darkneos]

As for putting in the work, all one is required to do is do the no body home work. Which is simple and easy, a child can do it. Because there is no one that is taking occupancy in a child, not until the child comes into contact by association as and through this artificial illusory possession of knowledge, leading it back to it's original image, the illusion of it's reality. The image of the imageless.

It very easy, is hard work.

Wrong again.

[Eodnhoj7]

9. To create a distinction requires a distinction between further distinctions thus one distinction leads to another with an inevitable ambiguity as to why there is a distinction to begin with and why there are distinctions to begin with. Distinction is thus spontaneous in nature as what we are left with is it appearing 'as it is' with a source in nothingness and an end in nothingness as the continuity of distinctions leaves us with an inevitable emptiness from which things 'just occur' considering this continuity of distinction is a paradoxical absence of distinction. This is considering the act of distinctions leading to further distinctions is a transparent self-referentiality as the self-ness of the distinctions has nothing beyond it but itself which in turn lends credit to the emptiness of said distinction(s) as there is no comparison beyond it/them. This emptiness of the distinction(s) is fundamentally a unity as the multiplicity of things share the same nature of being distinct and with this same nature of being distinct there is no distinction between said distinction. However to assume the opposite, that there is distinctions between distinctions is to observe a contradiction of the nature of distinction, through a self-opposition, in which case the nature of distinction self-negates thus leaving an absence of distinction that in turn result in the emptiness of unity.

[Darkneos]

9. To create a distinction requires a distinction between further distinctions thus one distinction leads to another with an inevitable ambiguity as to why there is a distinction to begin with and why there are distinctions to begin with. Distinction is thus spontaneous in nature as what we are left with is it appearing 'as it is' with a source in nothingness and an end in nothingness as the continuity of distinctions leaves us with an inevitable emptiness from which things 'just occur' considering this continuity of distinction is a paradoxical absence of distinction. This is considering the act of distinctions leading to further distinctions is a transparent self-referentiality as the self-ness of the distinctions has nothing beyond it but itself which in turn lends credit to the emptiness of said distinction(s) as there is no comparison beyond it/them. This emptiness of the distinction(s) is fundamentally a unity as the multiplicity of things share the same nature of being distinct and with this same nature of being distinct there is no distinction between said distinction. However to assume the opposite, that there is distinctions between distinctions is to observe a contradiction of the nature of distinction, through a self-opposition, in which case the nature of distinction self-negates thus leaving an absence of distinction that in turn result in the emptiness of unity.

Wrong again.

[Eodnhoj7]

10. "Thing" is an ambiguous term if all distinctions are things as distinction requires further distinction and this continuity results in an absence of beginning or end thus an absence of distinction. The ambiguity necessitates an absence of sense, an absence of distinction, as to what "thing" really means thus leaving "thing" paradoxically as "not a thing" or "no thing". This paradoxical nature leaves us with "thing" as fundamentally a see-through and clear term thus relegating knowledge, through this foundational term, as vacuous and illusive.

[Darkneos]

10. "Thing" is an ambiguous term if all distinctions are things as distinction requires further distinction and this continuity results in an absence of beginning or end thus an absence of distinction. The ambiguity necessitates an absence of sense, an absence of distinction, as to what "thing" really means thus leaving "thing" paradoxically as "not a thing" or "no thing". This paradoxical nature leaves us with "thing" as fundamentally a see-through and clear term thus relegating knowledge, through this foundational term, as vacuous and illusive.

Wrong again.

[Eodnhoj7]

11. A boundary between boundaries necessitates the phenomenon of boundary as divided against itself thus a contradiction. Knowledge's requirement of boundaries is a requirement of contradiction with this contradictory nature emphasized within the observation that for every 'x perspective' there is a perspective of 'not x perspective'. Knowledge's grounding in contradiction, which results in further contradiction, results in knowledge being its own antithesis as it is the act of contradiction. Even then this contradiction contradicts itself thus leaving us with no contradiction, through a double negation (i.e. not not this or not not that), but with this absence of contradiction comes further contradiction as the absence of contradiction is to contradict contradiction. This senseless nature to knowledge makes it fundamentally transparent in the respect that the absence of sense is a formlessness and with this formlessness comes transparency.

[Darkneos]

11. A boundary between boundaries necessitates the phenomenon of boundary as divided against itself thus a contradiction. Knowledge's requirement of boundaries is a requirement of contradiction with this contradictory nature emphasized within the observation that for every 'x perspective' there is a perspective of 'not x perspective'. Knowledge's grounding in contradiction, which results in further contradiction, results in knowledge being its own antithesis as it is the act of contradiction. Even then this contradiction contradicts itself thus leaving us with no contradiction, through a double negation (i.e. not not this or not not that), but with this absence of contradiction comes further contradiction as the absence of contradiction is to contradict contradiction. This senseless nature to knowledge makes it fundamentally transparent in the respect that the absence of sense is a formlessness and with this formlessness comes transparency.

Wrong again.

[Eodnhoj7]

12. Multiplicity alludes to being as transparent considering that with multiplicity one thing is seen through another under the nature of contrast. Unity alludes to being as transparent considering that which unity there is no separating distinctions between said things thus an absence of boundaries. Transparency is thus paradoxical and with this paradox comes a deeper nature of transparency given that the paradox results in a formless nature to truth.

[Darkneos]

12. Multiplicity alludes to being as transparent considering that with multiplicity one thing is seen through another under the nature of contrast. Unity alludes to being as transparent considering that which unity there is no separating distinctions between said things thus an absence of boundaries. Transparency is thus paradoxical and with this paradox comes a deeper nature of transparency given that the paradox results in a formless nature to truth.

Wrong again

[Dontaskme]

10. "Thing" is an ambiguous term if all distinctions are things as distinction requires further distinction and this continuity results in an absence of beginning or end thus an absence of distinction. The ambiguity necessitates an absence of sense, an absence of distinction, as to what "thing" really means thus leaving "thing" paradoxically as "not a thing" or "no thing". This paradoxical nature leaves us with "thing" as fundamentally a see-through and clear term thus relegating knowledge, through this foundational term, as vacuous and illusive.

Very well put.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of separateness and opposites. All is ''one'' which is another word for ''light'', which is paradoxically both no 'thing' and every 'thing' forever conjoined infinitely, and therefore, neither.

Knower, knowing and known is one. Opposites exist together and not separately. Nothing is known until the knowing is identified as a thought, which becomes the known. A thought, however, is invisible and the invisible cannot be known. Therefore, the knowing identified by a thought as the known has to be illusory and cannot be real.

The known is ONLY the knowing, and neither this or that. This is the meaning that the knower, knowing and known is one, meaning light, and that what is known is illusory and not real, because every atom of the knower and the known is light.

Light is self illuminating. Hence we can say that light will behave as an opaque object when the rays of light are converging or concerned at a point but it will behave as a transparent object when the rays of light are diverging or spread out.
Subject and Object are One Everywhere at Once. One without a second.

.

[Dontaskme]

Wrong again

The opposite is also true, right.

Again never happens. Reality is an instantaneous event. Reality is one without a second.

[Dontaskme]

Wrong again.

A Quora question & answer.

Q: If non-existence doesn't exist, how can death be eternal non-existence?

A: Why would you assume that non-existence doesn’t exist?
My father died while I held his hand and talked to him. He was there, and then he wasn’t. He ceased to exist. His *self* is no more. His body was still there in the room with me, but HE - my father, everything that he ever was - was gone. For me, his non-existence was a palpable, very real occurrence; for him, it just wasn’t. He just *wasn’t,* any more.



What is WRONG with this answer? ...explain your claim.

[Darkneos]

Wrong again

The opposite is also true, right.

Again never happens. Reality is an instantaneous event. Reality is one without a second.

Wrong.