Princess Arabia

No, what I'm saying is that "thing" is everything. There's no grandiose anything that contains anything. There is no God to know. All your knowledge is illusory. Everything you think you know is nothing being that. There is no you that knows anything. Nothing is known. This is unknowable. Of course, it appears to be known and that there is knowledge, but it's an illusion and all within the dream of the I. You cannot know God because God or whatever word you want to use Absolute, This, The All, Brahman, Oneness, Nothing, whatever IS ALL THERE IS.

?? Not sure what you're saying.

You don't know God either because there is no God to know. Knowing is separation and, call it God or whatever, is everything and isn't separate from anything. It is everything.

It doesn't matter what I say or what anyone understands, agree or disagrees with what I say because it's 'all that is' appearing as such which is really about nothing. It's nothing thinging.

The irony of the concept of enlightenment (which it is - a concept) is that everything in life or within the experience of the I points it away from what it's actually looking for to become enlightened. It knows so therefore it is. Enlightenment is not knowing, it doesn't need to become anything. What already is the case need not become. The I is searching for what already is so the search hides what is already. It secretly hopes for something to happen. Hope never arrives. Hope is always in the future. There's no potential or anything to become anything. What is, is appearing as potential and becoming. There is no continuum to anything and no cause and effect. So, this is why you'll never see anyone becoming enlightened. It's either it appears as being enlightened, which is just a dream or it's not.

At the time it was, now it's just an absolutely true concept.

Lol. I cant!

Amazing!

Infinite stories in this infinite world. They keep coming. The dream of life. This is just so weird. I can't seem to fathom it.

Just responding to you saying "I haven't experienced full noself". Funny statement.

Think about it, who/what would know it's experiencing noself. I, the self, is experiencing no self. The noself is experiencing noself. There is already noself so it's already the real deal. Oh, I the self, have to be honest and say there is no self here. Oh I the self is experiencing intuitively that there's no self and it's all conceptual. I mean, how does one experience noself and who would realize that.

What "I AM God" Implies is that the I AM is delusional. One cannot know anything in Oneness. It's all a dream of separation. There is no spectator or observer, that's a dream. There's nothing to let go of. That's also a dream of the I. Letting go? Spiritual fantasy. John is not an actor experiencing anything. John is the dream of I. There is no authority, no witness, no source, no observer or witness. All illusory and within the dream. There is just what appears and what appears is all there is.

Nothing new here. This is the me energy at its core. Can't be any other way. Every me goes through this, which is practically every human. It lives in its own world. Everything appearing is in contrast to it. All it sees are defects and it feels inadequate by default. No matter how many exercises you do, practices you engage in and no matter how hard it tries to overcome these things will fail at it miserably. Tensions may ease for a bit and it may feel less contracted at times, but, by nature, it will always return to its natural tendencies of feeling insecure, lacking, inadequate and defective. The solution to this is to see it for what it is and not judge it and recognize that this is freedom, which is already whole and complete, appearing as such. The more it tries to fix itself, the stronger these feelings linger because they are effects and not causes.

Princess Arabia has left this thread. That's enough. I will unfollow so I don't get notifications.

@Something Funny stick to the OPs request now please and let's not turn this thread into I hate what Princess Arabia has to say about relationships all the time thread. You're always behind my name everytime I speak my mind on relationships rebutting my views and opinions. It will be refreshing to see someone else's healthy opinions for once who doesn't seem to have an unhealthy relationship with women and themselves overall and who doesn't seem to be projecting. Between you and Hojo..the hate is prevalent and obviously coming from a general disdain for women.

Another thing I notice also is its the same people (men), that come at me when I speak on dating and relationships. The same ones. The same ones that keep opposing what I say in this section of the forum. The same ones.

Saying I feel sorry for the poor wife if those are her duties is not a judgement.

No, those aren't judgements. Actually, what you've said to me about me being judgmental is.

Funny thing is, I've seen other men in this thread opposed what OP is proposing, and I'll name names for you to reference if needs be - Michael and Letho, but I see no one going after them and telling them he has a right to his wants, needs and desires, which btw no one is saying he doesn't. As a woman, AGAIN, I'm the one where the criticisms and judgements for speaking my stance is aimed at. One notices these things when they are consistently in these positions and as an observant person I tend to notice these trends.

I'm very far from judgemental. Maybe reactionary in the dating section and I'm only speaking my mind. It comes off as judgemental. As a woman, and I won't keep this up because OP is asking to stick to his inquiries, we tend to be misunderstood and seem overly anything when we speak up because that's considered a masculine trait. I never said anything was wrong on his part. I was merely expressing how I felt about what he said, which is what a forum is for. I never said "You are wrong" or "I am angry", you've taken my words as such. I'm merely speaking my views and if they come off as strong or judgemental, it wasn't intended to be that way only oppositional.

The freedom I speak about all the time. The freedom that is already the case but not for the individual. Not for the person. Impersonal freedom. Freedom to appear as it wants. Freedom is already the case. The individual can never be free because the individual is freedom appearing as that. Freedom appearing as not free can never be free. It can only appear as it appears and cannot become something. It already is. So if there's an individual, it's automatically not free because there just isn't two forms of freedom. Only "existential freedom" appearing as everything. .

I knew it was the reason because there are also other people here debating and carrying on and you didn't ask them to leave. Anyway, thanks for apologizing even though it wasn't direct. I sensed it. I will not be censored without putting up a fight. Sorry, it's not in my nature especially if I know I've done nothing wrong.

It' not a well-balanced conversation and exchange of opinions and ideas if one is going to tell the other why they feel the way they do without insinuating its just a hunch or a feeling. Saying this with such precision that I'm saying what I'm saying only because it benefits me, is imo,.an attempt to influence the conversation in your favor while attempting to tarnish my viewpoint and putting your reasons behind why you may think I take such a stance. It isn't up to you to decipher why it is I feel the way I do but to either see my point for what it is or just disagree and state your opposing points as to why, which is exactly what I did with OP.

You're only asking me to do this simply because I'm a female in opposition to your remarks. Only reason. Only because I'm a female and for no other reason. It's your only means of control at the moment.

Getting angry at and simply stating an opposition are totally different things. Also, I don't see the similarities between the two.