Yes the location is illusory, but it doesn’t give meaning to anything, it’s not there 🤷, there are just thoughts happening/commenting, which may include thoughts as -this is important, this has meaning. Can you explain why you say it gives meaning to things, when it’s not there at all ? That seems very misleading.
I do agree with the existence of "The Unknown" since it's undeniable once you have seen it. When / how did you realize "The Unknown"? Also if you call it unknown, doesn't that claim knowledge, because you claim that you can not know it, and to make this claim you would actually have to know it? Thank you for the video.
Everything is unknown because the knowing it self is illusory, that can be clearly understood. A though appears for example I am tired , and then another thought appears I know that I am tired, but that is just another thought, the knowing of the thought is illusory, nothing knows that I am tired, that’s just another thought . You don’t have to know anything, you already don’t, its already the case, it’s just understanding ( sequence of thoughts/ words arising) . Many of the speakers mix up knowing and understanding together, and are not able to comprehend that, but that doesn’t mean that they are faking this. I think that Mei is actually one of the few speakers out there for whom the shift did happen.
Hi Mei, thank you for posting these videos. Can you please explain how “you understand “ the difference between knowing and understanding ? You say that you don’t know anything, which most people comprehend as that there is no understanding of “This”, which would be incorrect. For example you say, there is no inside or outside, but that requires understanding. From personal point of view there is inside and outside, because I feel located in this body, and then, the understanding from that is that there has to be someone located inside another body. From “no location, no self “ there is understanding that there is no inside or outside, and no one located anywhere. So understanding of this can happen, ( understanding = sequence of thoughts) . Then of course the statement, that many of the radical non duality speakers use, “ This can’t be understood “ would be incorrect 🤷.
@@unconditionalwholeness9376 i think it is comprehensible. Since the ME is the illusory knowing energy it self, so when this illusory knowing stops happening, then nothing can be known . That’s understandable. And yes, that nothing is knowable is unknown as well , because when the knowing stops, nothing is known, including that “nothing “ is knowable. But when the ME is still there, then it feels that it knows that nothing is knowable 😂😂😂. Which is of course completely useless ( the knowing). There can be understanding of “this”, which is completely useless as well, but it can happen ✌️
@@unconditionalwholeness9376 Hi Mei, sorry to say this, I don’t mean any disrespect, but you are not comprehending the topic/question. I am talking about the difference between knowing and understanding. Knowing and unknowing is the same, yes, because it’s illusory, there is no knower, I agree. But understanding about this is something that can arise, same as understanding about anything else can arise. Which you are denying. Understanding = logical sequence of thoughts/words . Of course there is no guarantee that it’s correct. Same like sayings this is all that is, or this is whole and complete, may be completely incorrect. 👋🏻
So there's walking or thinking but without the walker or the thinker because there's no one. All there's is the unknowable happening, apparently, and the unknowable doesn't know anything about walking or thinking or about the sun or the sun shining etcetera and it doesn't even know about itself, it doesn't know about (its) existence or about reality, and that's why there's no meaning or significance about whatever is happening. Is it that so?
lovely, celebrating this endless mystery, beautiful and simple🌸
❤ ✨Thanks Mei ✨💃🏻👠❤️
Beautiful❤ thank you for the lovely communication
Thanks So Much Mei❤️😊
Thank you so much for your direct and clear pointing!
Love this!
🎈🎂♥️
Yes, but still there is a localization and a thinker or say, something that feels and something that gives meaning to things.
The core is only illusive, and the mening it gives has no reality at all.
Yes the location is illusory, but it doesn’t give meaning to anything, it’s not there 🤷, there are just thoughts happening/commenting, which may include thoughts as -this is important, this has meaning.
Can you explain why you say it gives meaning to things, when it’s not there at all ? That seems very misleading.
Are you constantly focused ? Like you are focus ? Because when i am focused it is like what youre saying just listening hearing feeling whatever it is
I do agree with the existence of "The Unknown" since it's undeniable once you have seen it. When / how did you realize "The Unknown"? Also if you call it unknown, doesn't that claim knowledge, because you claim that you can not know it, and to make this claim you would actually have to know it? Thank you for the video.
Everything is unknown because the knowing it self is illusory, that can be clearly understood. A though appears for example I am tired , and then another thought appears I know that I am tired, but that is just another thought, the knowing of the thought is illusory, nothing knows that I am tired, that’s just another thought . You don’t have to know anything, you already don’t, its already the case, it’s just understanding ( sequence of thoughts/ words arising) . Many of the speakers mix up knowing and understanding together, and are not able to comprehend that, but that doesn’t mean that they are faking this. I think that Mei is actually one of the few speakers out there for whom the shift did happen.
Hi Mei, thank you for posting these videos. Can you please explain how “you understand “ the difference between knowing and understanding ? You say that you don’t know anything, which most people comprehend as that there is no understanding of “This”, which would be incorrect. For example you say, there is no inside or outside, but that requires understanding. From personal point of view there is inside and outside, because I feel located in this body, and then, the understanding from that is that there has to be someone located inside another body. From “no location, no self “ there is understanding that there is no inside or outside, and no one located anywhere. So understanding of this can happen, ( understanding = sequence of thoughts) . Then of course the statement, that many of the radical non duality speakers use, “ This can’t be understood “ would be incorrect 🤷.
That nothing is knowable is the unknown itself. This is inexplicable and incomprehensible.
@@unconditionalwholeness9376 i think it is comprehensible. Since the ME is the illusory knowing energy it self, so when this illusory knowing stops happening, then nothing can be known . That’s understandable. And yes, that nothing is knowable is unknown as well , because when the knowing stops, nothing is known, including that “nothing “ is knowable. But when the ME is still there, then it feels that it knows that nothing is knowable 😂😂😂. Which is of course completely useless ( the knowing). There can be understanding of “this”, which is completely useless as well, but it can happen ✌️
Thank you Mei for posting in English. You are my favorite speaker.
These is mo different between knowing and unkonwing. 'Cause knowing is unknowing. 😀
@@unconditionalwholeness9376 Hi Mei, sorry to say this, I don’t mean any disrespect, but you are not comprehending the topic/question. I am talking about the difference between knowing and understanding.
Knowing and unknowing is the same, yes, because it’s illusory, there is no knower, I agree. But understanding about this is something that can arise, same as understanding about anything else can arise. Which you are denying. Understanding = logical sequence of thoughts/words .
Of course there is no guarantee that it’s correct. Same like sayings this is all that is, or this is whole and complete, may be completely incorrect.
👋🏻
So there's walking or thinking but without the walker or the thinker because there's no one. All there's is the unknowable happening, apparently, and the unknowable doesn't know anything about walking or thinking or about the sun or the sun shining etcetera and it doesn't even know about itself, it doesn't know about (its) existence or about reality, and that's why there's no meaning or significance about whatever is happening. Is it that so?
Yes， exactly.
So this is speaking about itself?
. The unknown is seeminglly speaking.