Mellowmarsh

I mean that the thing that identifies must be the same for anything that is being identified with. I just wanted to come back to the above point for more clarity. When you say the thing that identifies must be the same thing as the thing identified. Can you identify what that thing is exactly, and is this identified “thing” conscious? It’s just that I’m not really sure what you’re showing me here. Thanks.

So does that mean there’s an apparent demand to make what is past and dead to appear as the direct immediacy of the present moment?

Okay. 👍

I am the knowing that cannot be known.

I don’t know. I is known, but not by I

No, thing knows this.

So you existed as an unconsciousness you, until you had the ability to be conscious you?

Identify what is the same as the thought?

This conception is directly known yes in the instance knowing arises, one with the knowing.

Why wasn’t the I known in it’s beginning, in it’s conception?

Describe the thing that’s the same as the thought it identifies with?

The you is known conceptually only. That’s the illusion of knowledge, it can only point to the object of knowing. Are you an object?

Who or what exists when thoughts are not arising?

Then we’re talking about concepts. Concepts are known in their conception but not by the I The I is already known, so the known know nothing. And doesn’t have to know anything. Knowledge belongs to the mind, which is the illusory dream of separation.

Because thoughts are things. And you are not a thought thing, only that which is not a thing can be aware of things, things don’t know anything.

If that’s true it’s because there’s a you present in thoughtless experience that knows it’s having a thoughtless experience. Even though a you is only possible as a thought thing, and not a not thought thing, in this conception. It’s like the concept known as nonduality. Nonduality cannot be a thing known , because nonduality is not a thing.

Again, this is about knowledge and knowing. A tree is known to exist, as a human mental construct, but does the actual tree in and of itself know it exists, can the actual tree tell itself “ I am a tree” ?

Knowing arises and falls in conjunction together in the instant knowing arises, and is known in this conception. If thoughtless experience is not equal to nothing, then it must be something, so what is it, and can you describe your own thoughtless experience , and what it is, in a way that it is not equal to nothing?

Thoughtless experience. How so? When there’s no thinker to say “I am not thinking” ?

Describe your own “thoughtless experience”

The concept I is known, yes, that’s the knowing. It’s a known mental construction of knowledge, of a thinking mind. But what is the experience of a “thoughtless experience” ? If you say nothing. Then that’s what I meant by saying the I is known, and that which is known knows nothing. Knowing nothing is not an experience, because there’s no thought present to acknowledge the experience happened. We are referring to knowledge here, to thought, are we not?

Okay thanks. Because how can oneness, this united knower and known, as one thing only, possibly know itself?

And I said there’s no such experience as a thoughtless experience. What was the question you wanted an additional explanation from? Can you ask me again just so we can both be clear what we are referring to?

First: . . because you asked why it can’t be both. Second: . . it’s connected, meaning it’s both, in the exact same instant, in this conception, one with the knowing, implying there’s a duality of knower and known. Both.

Knowing that you are is the known. The known is where the knowing begins and ends in the exact same instant the knowing arises, one with the knowing.