Not-Knowing = Knowing

[Mellowmarsh]

Not-Knowing = Knowing =  Real Fictional Knowing.

Nothing is aware of anything existing outside of awareness, because awareness cannot step outside of awareness to look back at awareness in an objective way.

So even awareness doesn't know what it is. And yet here it is, awareness aware of knowing awareness. 

You're it, you're the knowing that cannot be known. And that's what Infinity means. Absolutely, without doubt or error.

You are the creator of yourself. If there's no creator, there's no creation, no God, no you, no self, no any thing at all. Therefore, everything is you, because you have created you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[James123]

49 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Not-Knowing = Knowing =  Real Fictional Knowing.

Nothing is aware of anything existing outside of awareness, because awareness cannot step outside of awareness to look back at awareness in an objective way.

So even awareness doesn't know what it is. And yet here it is, awareness aware of knowing awareness. 

You're it, you're the knowing that cannot be known. And that's what Infinity means. Absolutely, without doubt or error.

You are the creator of yourself. If there's no creator, there's no creation, no God, no you, no self, no any thing at all. Therefore, everything is you, because you have created you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you imagine, giving back this to God?

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

Can you imagine, giving back this to God?

Can you imagine, you are God taking away and giving back?

[James123]

1 hour ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Can you imagine, you are God taking away and giving back?

There is no such thing as giving and taking away. God is always. Yet, going and coming back belongs to ego.

[theleelajoker]

@MellowmarshNice write up. 

Quote

 

Nothing is aware of anything existing outside of awareness, because awareness cannot step outside of awareness to look back at awareness in an objective way.

So even awareness doesn't know what it is. And yet here it is, awareness aware of knowing awareness. 

 

This makes me feeling better about not knowing / not wanting to know things. 
 

[Mellowmarsh]

18 hours ago, James123 said:

God is always

The only God is I Am

[Mellowmarsh]

21 hours ago, James123 said:

Can you imagine, giving back this to God?

Imagination is seeing with the eye of God

[Breakingthewall]

According to Advaita Vedanta, enlightenment could be defined as sat chit ananda. Sat, that which is. Chit, that which recognizes itself. Ananda, the total bliss of the absence of limits.

Therefore, according to this idea, reality knows, that is, it recognizes itself as reality, it knows that it is, therefore it knows everything. In that fact, everything is known, nothing is lacking, therefore the idea of not knowing is false; enlightenment is knowing everything: you are. Or, if you prefer, being is. That's total knowledge. 

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

therefore the idea of not knowing is false; enlightenment is knowing everything: you are. Or, if you prefer, being is. That's total knowledge. 

Staying with the context that is Advaita knowledge, it is known that this is a pointing to the nature of reality being absolute oneness, and not two.

And that's who you are, at the most baseline fundamental essence, you are oneness, absolutely.

So you are never not a oneness being, because you are self-aware, you are aware you are aware.

 

 So that word 'NON' in nondual just means there's only one of you that knows you are you, not two knowers.  There cannot be a knowing you that is not a knowing, in the same context there cannot be a knowing of not being here, when clearly you are here, and know you are here.

 

There can only be a knowing of being, and not a knowing of not being. And that knowing being, is what you are, always, absolutely. 

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Mellowmarsh said:

Staying with the context that is Advaita knowledge, it is known that this is a pointing to the nature of reality being absolute oneness, and not two.

Maybe but I hate the phrase: reality is one. It seems like an idea that closes things off, not opens them up, like a closed circle . Perhaps the phrase: reality is not two, is more...let's say, non-constrictive. But the phrase that works is: reality is. It's totally open. Just my subjective feeling. 

4 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

There can only be a knowing of being, and not a knowing of not being. And that knowing being, is what you are, always, absolutely. 

As I see there may be unconscious reality, but as far as we are concerned, it is irrelevant, since we are conscious reality. The fact that we are conscious reality does not imply that non-conscious reality is impossible. For consciousness to exist, apparent duality is necessary; without it, reality would not be recognized, would not be observed, it would simply be. 

Reality doesn't need to be recognized, nor does it need intentionality. These are inevitable emergences in the absence of limits.

[Mellowmarsh]

@Breakingthewall Yes, it's all open to interpretation that can be expressed in as many infinite ways possible.

As a subjective feeling. So it's all just being being being, anyway. 

[theleelajoker]

40 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe but I hate the phrase: reality is one. It seems like an idea that closes things off, not opens them up, like a closed circle . Perhaps the phrase: reality is not two, is more...let's say, non-constrictive. But the phrase that works is: reality is. It's totally open. Just my subjective feeling. 

Nice. Feels more open for me too. 

Also: What is reality? What happens if I do XYZ? That's also opening for me compared to "reality is XYZ"

Interesting point about non-conscious reality. 

Quote

Reality doesn't need to be recognized, nor does it need intentionality. These are inevitable emergences in the absence of limits.

How exactly? It's there because everything exists, not because it's needed?

[Mellowmarsh]

The most important thing to realise is that you cannot deny your own existence as a thinking being, you are literally aware and know every thought because they are also you.

So nondual teaching is pointless to be honest, because it's a teaching that implies the very thing that nonduality denies, which is the duality of a something here pointing to a something there, it's a division that denies it's a division.  It's bonkers to try and teach nonduality.

You can know you exist instinctively, it's not something that is learnt, or taught, it's just a feeling. And you cannot put that feeling into words, no more than you can put the feeling of what the taste of an apple is, apple can only taste like apple, and nothing else. that's why words are crap when attempting to use them as a means to getting a glimpse up your own skirt, it's not necessary, as to know how or why you know, you just are knowing without knowing why or how.

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 01:33 PM by Mellowmarsh

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, theleelajoker said:

How exactly? It's there because everything exists, not because it's needed?

At a local level, something may be necessary, coherent with the rest, relative to what precedes it, but at a total level, the only possible reason for everything is that it is inevitable. In the absence of limits, reality unfolds.

Just a logical deduction, it's impossible another option then it has to be the right one

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Mellowmarsh said:

nondual teaching is pointless to be honest, because it's a teaching that implies the very thing that nonduality denies, which is the duality of a something here pointing to a something there, it's a division that denies it's a division.  It's bonkers to try and teach nonduality.

Agree, Non-duality is just a conceptual idea and is useless; the real issue is action, not knowledge. Action is breaking down the energetic barriers that keep us closed off, and thus becoming limitless. This could be interpreted as meaning there are no two because there are no limits, but that's confusing, since there are relative limits. The absence of limitations is inside you, but you can't walk through a wall, then there are relative limits. Non duality would say that they are a dream, but this is even more confusing. They exist and that's it, the only point is breaking your energetic barriers and be open, not defining the reality as an illusion 

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Agree, Non-duality is just a conceptual idea and is useless; the real issue is action, not knowledge. Action is breaking down the energetic barriers that keep us closed off, and thus becoming limitless. This could be interpreted as meaning there are no two because there are no limits, but that's confusing, since there are relative limits. The absence of limitations is inside you, but you can't walk through a wall, then there are relative limits. Non duality would say that they are a dream, but this is even more confusing. They exist and that's it, the only point is breaking your energetic barriers and be open, not defining the reality as an illusion 

Yeah, I’ve come back to this way of thinking also. For me, it’s like I can’t not exist and exist at the same time. That’s what nonduality seems to want to posit. 

[Dodo]

We know being, thats for sure. Ai doesn't know that.

To be aware is to know. Not know something, but knowing itself. 

[theleelajoker]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Agree, Non-duality is just a conceptual idea and is useless; the real issue is action, not knowledge. 

This is one my biggest criticism re the vibe of Leo's content and big reason why I barely watch or read any of it. So much "I know, I know I know",  " I understand I understand I understand" and "I know better". Way too much intellectual focus. All the time explaining, rationalizing, describing, conceptualizing.

It's like explaining sex instead of having it. 

To a degree it's fun, but my personal taste for this content is (now) far below the ones of others. Might be for them, but not for me.

The interactions here are much more entertaining, there's a dynamic to it through interaction and relationships over time.

Edit: to be fair - I remember one video of Leo I watched fully and that one was very valuable for me back then. I think it as the deleted one on solipsism 

Edited Monday at 09:22 PM by theleelajoker