WokeBloke

Only that which exists can determine if something exists. Those that say "there is no I" or "you do not exist" have no ability to determine if you exist since they explicitly claim that they do not exist. Those that say "there is no self" are like rocks claiming there is no such thing as eyes. Unfortunately they do not possess the ability to determine if you exist or not just as rocks do not have eyes to see if there are eyes. Only you can determine if you exist or not. No one else can. And in order to claim that you do not exist, you must exist. Therefore you exist.

Can someone please explain to me what is trying to be conveyed when people say this. Thank you!

@softlyblossoming What wrote this post in your view? You do realize each post needs to be typed out. If you tell me the post was not written and that's just a thought then you're just misusing language. Of course you will have to now write a post to respond to me and you might claim that you didn't write it even though you are.

How can I form a conceptual me without a real me? What wrote this post then?

If I don't exist then how can I think, see, hear, etc.? If I did not exist then I wouldn't be able to write this post.

No disagreement there. How does that have to do with being an illusion or not existing?

Sounds like identification with a word. I produce ideas. I'm not an idea.

"Experiences happen to no one." "There is no experiencer" "There is no subject." You have probably heard these comments and I would like to try to convince you that experiences actually do require a subject (you). So first what is an experience? Without a proper definition the word is meaningless. I suggest that there are two fundamental properties of all experiences. If these conditions are not fulfilled then you are not talking about an experience. 1. Experiences happen. -> This is an extremely important point. Your kangaroo is about to serve you your dinner right now. This is unfortunately not happening which means it is not your current experience. In order for you to classify something as an experience it must actually happen. 2. You must be experiencing it. Or, put differently, a subject must be present. -> This is even more important. Consider two events happening simultaneously. In the first event you are talking with your friend about experiences. In the second event a computer in an office is running a simulation but no one is watching it. Both these events are happening but there is a fundamental difference between the two events. In the first event a subject (you) is present. In the second event no subject is present. Thus the second event could not be considered an experience. However, the first event could be considered an experience since it is happening to a subject. So essentially experiences are what happen to you. Experiences do no experience. Only the subject which is not an experience has experiences. Thus if you claim that there is an experience then you are asserting that there is a subject.

The source of thoughts must exist otherwise there would be no thoughts. The thought "there are no thoughts" is a thought that proves that there are thoughts. Only the source of thoughts can think. Am I the source of thoughts? The source of thoughts is asking if it is the source of thoughts. The answer is of course yes. Only I made this thought. In this statement the source of thoughts is using the word "I" to refer to itself.

But if you are this alone awareness that you speak of then you actually do exist. It's just that there is no one else besides you. Only you are aware.

@RMQualtrough Thank you for your post it was enlightening! Theoretically I agree there is just you/I which refers to the same indivisible awareness. It is self-aware or self-luminous. It exists by itself. Consider two sounds occurring simultaneously (perhaps two different people's voices). Does sound 1 know about sound 2? Sound 1 is not sound 2 yet you say they are both aware. That suggest that each sound is a different awareness. However if there is only one awareness which hears both sounds then it must not be the sound which are aware. These manifestations or modulations only exist because of awarneess but awarneess can't be reduced to the manifestation.

@Nahm The question is whether you exist. "You are you" is false if you don't exist since there would be no you to be you. If you do not exist then you can't think. The reason you can think (or have the knowledge that thoughts appear) is because you exist. Therefore you exist. Your response is just more proof that you exist.

It depends how you define self. How do you define self?

When the sound ceases does your awareness cease? To me this is a clear indication that awareness is more fundamental then sound. Do sounds see, walk, talk or think? I think you are conflating the manifestation with the uncreated source. Sounds can't bring themselves into existence. Only the source of sounds which is not a sound can do that in my view.

Take thoughts (a form of experience). The arising and cessation of thoughts does not result in the rising or cessation of the subject.

In order for sounds to be aware they would have to share the abilities of awareness. Since sounds can't see they must not be awareness which can see.

For your first point I was just pointing out one fundamental property of experiences which is that they happen. Not all that happens is an experience. For example cars are driving in china right now. This is happening but you are not experiencing it. Experience and happening are not synonymous. Happening is one property of all experiences. As for your second point let me ask how would you define an experience?

I agree experiences do not happen independently of the subject. So, I have never heard a sound without being there. In order to hear a sound the subject must first be present. You agree that awareness can exist without sound but sound cannot exist without awareness. This means that awareness must not be sounds since awareness remains without sounds. In other words if you take away the sound you don't take away awareness. If awareness is not a sound then what is a sound in relation to awareness? Sounds are unaware creations or manifestations. So if what I say is true the known (sound) is actually not the knower but rather the knower's creation.

You still exist during deep sleep or a knockout punch. And there is no experience during those events.

Arguably yes it's just there would be gap between having an experience and having no experience since nothing would happen during no experience so it would register as taking 0 time. The subject can still experience without sounds (one type of experience). This means sounds or experiences must not be fundamental since the subject still exists without them. I argue the subject is more fundamental than experiences.

I did! How about this question. Do sounds see? If no then the subject which both sees and hears must be different then the sounds since the sounds can't see.

Do sounds hear? If no then there is a distinction between the hearer and the heard.

I saw the word exist is defined as having objective reality. Technically speaking I guess it would be inaccurate to say that experiences exist since only the subject knows about them. If experiences don't exist then what exactly are they?

I'm curious why you choose to use the word dream?

What makes you think such a bizarre thing?