It's time to wake up!

a reply to: Andy1144

Doesn't matter. It isn't the one you quoted. That is enough to refute that post.

a reply to: daskakik

What is enough to refute the post?

a reply to: Andy1144

Saying that that wasn't the point in question.

You seem to have trouble with this form of communication.

a reply to: daskakik

But the question is what was your point? That's what we've all been accusing you of, your vagueness. Sometimes you just change the point without notice and it becomes problematic to discuss. But if you want to continue the discussion then we can just start with the question that is the statement "You cannot be conscious of being unconscious" hard evidence of truth. The question is, is that hard evidence.

a reply to: Andy1144

And I've told you. It isn't vague either
Me:

you thought you had something to teach and I was trying to explain why that, sometimes, doesn't work out.

You:

I am sure I would I agree on some level. When for example?

Me:

Doesn't matter. My point is that it happens.

I realize that that spanned a whole 3 posts and that may have lost you.

ETA: Another instance of my point, cut and dry:

It is about what people consider proof and how you can't change that.

a reply to: daskakik

It is about what people consider proof and how you can't change that.

Not necessarily, you could convince them otherwise in some cases. I consider proof logic and direct experience.
Some people consider the bible proof for god. So then the discussion continues as to whose proof is more faithful to the evidence. So sometimes it's about discussing what we think is proof and how we can be wrong. So we can change what each other consider proof through talk in some cases, not always.

a reply to: Andy1144
How can anyone force someone to look and see for themselves when they refuse to look?
I have read and heard and been told that water is wet. How can you prove to me that water is wet? I don't even know what wet is!!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Exactly, it's all about personal experience. The problem is that people equate personal experience, with personal belief when it isn't so. Direct experience is available to all of us. Those who are willing to actually look, will see what is true in their experience.

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Exactly, it's all about personal experience. The problem is that people equate personal experience, with personal belief when it isn't so. Direct experience is available to all of us. Those who are willing to actually look, will see what is true in their experience.

But if there is a 'self centre' there then that 'self centre' will prevent the looking - it will not look because......
Exodus 33:20
But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”

Nothing is true 'in your' experience.
Experience is all there is.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You need an illusion of a self to see that the self doesn't exist. I am speaking from different perspectives. But you are right. A self can't see through the self. I just directly contradicted myself. The difference is that one self is simply looking, no identification. The other self is identification, and with that you cannot see what is true in DE.

a reply to: Andy1144
To be or not to be? That is the question.
Are you or are you not?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Perspective my friend. It's easy to say no, I am not. But that would disregard the self (consciousness). So on some level I am (awareness), on another I am not (ego).

a reply to: Andy1144
Yes - there is non being and being at the same time.
Quantum physics say that quarks both are and aren't.

This is nothing and everything.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes and I feel this is common knowledge for us now. The absolute that is, now my focus remains in living the dream of life. Because that's what you do once you awaken from the dream right? You start living it even better then before. So my focus is a dualistic one, learning how to live this dream of life more and more. To play, enjoy, help when possible. Even have goals, ambitions, all the while knowing it's a game, that it's ultimately unreal. But knowing this absolute truth makes the game fun.

a reply to: Andy1144
This light that is appearing here and now - is the true dream where all is one.
The light that appears as projections of 'past, future or somewhere else' - is the separate dream.

Which one do you want? Which one will you live?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

All is one, but there appears to be duality. The duality is where all the action is at. The difference is, do you know it's all one while you play the game or are you tricked into thinking things are separate? It's obvious which side, one truly desires.

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: Itisnowagain

All is one, but there appears to be duality. The duality is where all the action is at. The difference is, do you know it's all one while you play the game or are you tricked into thinking things are separate? It's obvious which side, one truly desires.

Is it a game that is being played? Or is it just art?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It's being played by itself. No one playing it. My language makes it seem like I am implying a separate self playing a game and an actual universe. But all of that is untrue.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Not necessarily, you could convince them otherwise in some cases.

"My point is that it happens."

Funny how Andy says that he is saying the same thing as itsnowagain but they can't seem to agree.

My take:

Andy: "My language makes it seem like I am implying a separate self playing a game and an actual universe. But all of that is untrue."

While I feel that Itsnowagain is saying that someone who knows that there is only now would not feel comfortable using the language used by Andy.

I made a reference to flat earthers before that seems to fit. Flat earthers would never say that the earth is round and people who believe that the earth is a sphere would never say that the "earth is flat" even if they understand that it has flat spots at the personal level.