You are hereForums / Non-Duality / There is no self to even know that there is no self
There is no self to even know that there is no self
"There is no one."
"You are not the mind."
"The ego is an illusion."
"Consciousness is all there is."
Great pointers, all. But ultimately, they all break down.
For if there is no self, there is no self to even know that there is no self. And this points to the not-knowing that is the "final understanding," which is to say, no understanding at all.
Love & Hate,
Chuckles
- 750 reads
-
Yes, they do all break down when they exist as ideas in somebody's head. Perhaps the truth of them be known as an experience. I accept though, any experience can bring about delusional interpretations.
This is beyond all understanding and not understanding - knowing or not knowing. Not knowing is still a type of knowing - before I knew, now I don't know. It's true that the relative ('me') can not know the absolute ('Me'), however, those are just concepts. What are those concepts appearing in or originating from? It can not be another concept. Aware and vast, yet mysterious and unknowable. It's so, so, so simple! Everything you are - Everything you are not.
Yes, and the statement "those are just concepts" is also a concept. What's your point?
Seriously, dude. You're picking apart words as if the truth were actually contained in them.
Yeah, I read John Wheeler's books too, man. He's a great guy, and obviously you think very highly of him because you repeat his words as though you really believe them.
"Awareness" is just a pointer! You can let go of it now!
You say, "It's true that the relative ('me') can not know the absolute."
Yes, and the relative 'me' cannot find it's own absence either! That's my point, fool. It's absence is the absolute! Two sides of the same unspeakable reality! Don't you see that we just said exactly the same thing in different words?
The truth aint in the words, man...so why waste your time correcting other people's wordings on a nonduality forum?
Seriously, weren't you the guy that told me to stop "ping-ponging"? Why not practice what you preach?
Wow, you know my life. Actually, I've never read anything by John Wheeler. I know the name but that's about it. The 'point' is 'you' pretending to be THAT, which is obvious from your posts. The only 'fool' is yourself. Stop pretending that you own gold when it is in fact fool's gold. The 'difference' is that your words originate from a relative stand point or perspective (me), whereas, these words do not. This has nothing to do with 'me'; it is to do with recognition of who or what I really am. The only person wasting there time is yourself because of the mistaken identity you take yourself to be and the false belief in the 'other'. You assume that there is another (me), when there is not. You seem to believe your own words so much that it blinds you to the truth.
And finally, there is no time to waste because time is an illusion. What's happening now is exactly as it is mean't to be - Being, I mean.
You say, "The 'difference' is that your words originate from a relative stand point or perspective (me), whereas, these words do not. This has nothing to do with 'me'; it is to do with recognition of who or what I really am."
LMFAO!!! All right, brotha!! I'm a "me" and you're not a "not-me"!! LOL!!! I'm a "me" that speaks from a relative perspective! You're the "not-me" that speaks from the absolute, or "THAT" as you put it!! LMFAO!!! YOU'RE RIGHT, I'M WRONG!! I GET IT MAN!! JESUS! YOU WIN!! You are so much more nondual than I am! I'm the pretender, you're the genuine article!! I'm a me, you're the absolute!!! You are THAT,but there's no one there to be THAT, there is just THAT; but I'm a me, so I am not THAT. But at the same time THAT is everything, so the me is also THAT. But as a me I am not really THAT, I am only pretending to be THAT. Or is THAT pretending to be me????? Is THAT pretending to me pretending to be THAT??? Is that it? Am I getting it right yet?? No, I'm probably still wrong, huh?
Let me ask you something, dickhead. If there's no one there, then who the fuck is it that's so goddamned threatened by my words? If you are THAT, then why is THAT so goddamned concerned with what some jackass on a nonduality forum says? Does THAT really give a shit about what others say? Does THAT care if 'others' are delusional? If you're really coming from the standpoint of THAT, then why the fuck do you EVEN CARE? Why do you even perceive someone over here that you have to argue with? You're a fucking retard--trying so hard to prove to 'others' that he's nobody. How fucking pathetic is that?
I've never claimed to own anything, you dumb scottish fuck. I've even made a point of saying in my posts that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, that I'm just having fun. But apparently you perceive me as a threat, otherwise why would you even feel the need to deconstruct everything I say? You're a fucking retard, poser, who's trying to intellectualize his way into enlightenment, that's why. YOU perceive SOMEONE OVER HERE THAT THINKS He owns somethign!!! That's entirely your projection you dumb asshole!! And then you point out I'm still a "me" and that I'm projecting you over there...
Yeah congratulations asshole! You've realized that there's no you outside of thought. So a thought over there is arguing with a thought over here about NO-THING!!! Jee, I wonder which thought will win!!! WHAT A FUCKING JOKE!!!
Suck my fuckstick,
Chuckles
... oh man - yes, you both seem to have a lot of fun in just talking.
Already at the point of laughing about your-"self"?
This would be nice. But if not - also nice.
Otherwise "I" have to claim to be the one and only absolute no-thing.
And by the way - i am right.
LOL
Your quote makes reference to mind, ego and consciousness and then your comment jumps to the concpet of SELF.
It seems to me that whereas the ego and mind may well be illusions the self is a tougher nut to crack since my own view is that the self does exist, or rather that "selves" exist. Otherwise how to explain a whole host of psychological phenomena such as intentionality, experince of objects in the world. Its well documented that when the sense of self fragments you get phenomena such as Autism, Schizophrenia etc.
So rather tan saying "there is no self" a more appropriate statement might be "there are selves but not as we have conceived of them up till now"
When I say "mind", "ego", "self", "person" -- I am referring to the same thing. The movement of thought that comes and goes, and says "I am me, I have a life, with problems, relationships, obligations, etc, etc."
It really depends on what you mean by "exist." I mean, we are talking about something that is so ungraspable and elusive.... I would be a jackass to claim that I understand what I'm talking about here. Make no mistake, I don't really have a clue.
But, here goes.
The "self", as I conceive of it, is the mental construct that Consciousness identifies with in the human mind-body organism. It's a fragmented, intermittent stream of thinking. We can also use the term "mind" or "ego."
The "self" or "ego" is our identity, we identify with it as "me," or "I." Here's the thing though -- this mind that claims that to be a self, is not actually a self. In that sense, it does not exist.
It cannot possibly be our true identity, because:
a) it comes and goes
b) it appears
It comes and goes, and yet do "I" (whatever that is) come and go? And I not there to witness these comings and goings?
It appears. Can I possibly be something that appears? If the experiencer is part of the experience then how can it actually be the experiencer? That is to say, if the observer is observed is it really an observer? We can never find the true observer because if we did there would have to be yet another observer prior to that one. And thus, our true identity can never be something that appears to us.
So I guess it would be appropriate to make the distinction here between little "self", as the mind, and big "Self" as the perceiving Consciousness.
The problem with all of this is that we are using the mind (the very thing we are saying does not exist!) to come up with answers. And so, in the end...where do we get with this? NOWHERE. And we have no other tool besides the mind. It's completely hopeless. Futile in every sense.
So why the hell am I wasting time (however fictitious time may be) talking about this crap? I have no idea.
The not-knowing, no-understanding includes the apperception that assertions and negations are both affirmations(just in different directions)...
.... and that affirmations(irrespective of its content), never get created, in order to break down.
Just nuances of a display of what would it be like to assert, if assertions were ever possible.
...