not-a-faerie

I made a post last night and was frustrated that I was using "I me my" when trying to talk about there being no self. so I have two questions 1. is it possible to stop using these words in conversation? Might try it. has anyone done this in the past? 2. is it even important/meaningful to do?

if i seem angry or presumptuous remind yourself that I’m trying to show you what i don’t understand. My question. And again I’m just using words and you i whatever because what else am i supposed to use to explain my question? 1. What insight am I supposed to get by contemplating self? It literally doesn’t matter to explore self as if “I” know it or experience it. every time “I” try to do it I just laugh and lose interest immediately. The self , as far as my experience, doesn’t exist and doesn’t not exist, there’s no thing or experience or consciousness that is “self” nor “not self” I use “I me my” but that’s just pointless attribution of what is experience as if there is self and not self. It’s just that fundamentally it’sa question about a dichotomy that doesn’t matter, and isn’t insightful about reality. All there is is… experience itself, and 2. what’s with the arrogance and entitlement in assuming that a. you know what my experience is and b. You know what your… x y z whatever is. (Again, i/you/me/your/whatever is just a nod towards the fact that you’ve never experienced another persons experience, i don’t care if you’re awake or enlightened or not self because you ducking are… Limited. Not infinity. Not even you. Nor your experience. You don’t know how your mind works, and all you can attribute to existence and knowing, is what you observe.) I can only speak from the perspective I’m in. Again, “I me my” is just a lack of better terminology. You have not been me, so you can’t say “oh you are god you are infinite you are consciousness” like you’ve actually been, purposefully and repeatedly, all that you have ever have been, will be, and again, I’m meaning experience, perspective, consciousness, whatever. There is no knowing. There isn’t consciousness even, what a pointless term. Like, let’s take the assumption of the brain as an example. The brain makes your heart beat. If you know what you are, what your experience/consciousness is, then stop your heart from beating. Make it beat faster. Not by cardio, but sheer power of will. Can you do it? If not, then who are you to say you have had everything? Stop thoughts. Literally have no new thoughts for ten hours, no sight, no hearing. Be nothing, and no not asleep. Can’t do it? Then you don’t know ... What’s the point of making the assumption that you know all of yourself let alone my experience? Ok let’s discard the example of brain/physics/science/objective reality. If you’re infinite and god, then go experience all of your life before now in an instant before answering my questions. Describe what it’s like to die, and how you die. What your last thought is. Can’t do it? Then why are you telling me what x y z is as if you know it? “Knowing” is a trick, not reality. “Higher consciousness” makes assumptions such as the dichotomy of less and transcendence. Want to prove that you can say anything with confidence about my consciousness? or even yours? Ok then Experience my life. And then tell me something about me I’ve not explained. Ok now tell me what it’s like to have been consciously a newborn, with the knowing that you have experienced it a thousand times. Tell me something humble about infinity and god. Can’t do it? Then stop the arrogance. Not arrogant? so what? you’re here expecting you to have the answer and to be more awake than others. that’s arrogance. You don’t know others. You don’t know yourself. Sorry, struggling to come e up with a way to capture what i mean when i say, you don’t know yourself. I didn’t know i was xyz and didn’t know what i know now. There’s more to learn about… everything. I could spend eternity meditating on consciousness and there’s more to learn. I could study physics forever and not find all of it. You, I, Leo, Orange Face, only know a limited understanding of theirselves. 3. What’s the point of enlightenment work, beyond the humility of practicing calmness and humbleness? To transcend? Find enlightenment? Infinity? No, masturbation. Self indulgence. It’s chasing trips. “ oh no I’m not indulging “ yeah you are. And I’m not saying this like i know you or think you’re wrong. I literally am saying, i find no interest in exploring enlightenment that isn’t just practicing stripping away assumptions. anything else is… 4. Not infinity. There’sa difference between being infinite and being infinite. I don’t disbelieve that infinity can be experienced, but it’s not all there is, there’s more. I remember Leo saying that reality is predetermined, well that’sa limit. If reality is infinity, then constantly new things are happening. If all that could’ve been or could be already happened, well there’s more about to happen/have happened/etc. assuming infinity, that u is. really there is no past or future, reality didn’t happen , and doesn’t happening. There isn’t the present past or future. Infinity is just the presumption that you’ve transcended being human. I’m curious what the conscious experience of a bear is. If you’ve transcended x y z I’d really appreciate a discussion about what bears’ consciousness is like. And what if I’m “wrong,” there is past and future. So what? That’s a limit. And therefor not infinity. There are infinite counting numbers, and that’s not all of everything, it’s nothing. Infinity is incomprehensible because once you’ve comprehended it, there’s more you didn’t even begin to imagine. And if you comprehend infinity infinitely, you’d be blind to all the things you have no ability to imagine. There isn’t everything and then nothing, there’s everything and then everything else and then everything unimaginable and then even more. That’s what’s infinity. Consciousness is infinite, cool, but infinity is unlimited. So if you describe something that is limited all you do is show that you don’t have infinity. So how is consciousness infinity? 5. Revisiting 2. , specifically annoyance over one liners on the forums. Can’t know others, If you could then there be no discussion or confusion, you’d understand me enough to say the perfect set of sentences to lead me to awakening. So stop acting like you’re everything the forum needs. If you were, then every discussion would end with your post, barring someone new came in to question or challenge it. It’s catch 22, if you’re really enlightened to the point that you can tell me what i need to know in a one liner, then the one liner would be the last post. But it’s not, so making one liners is silly as f. Emphasis on 1 and 3.

two things important to see 1. everyone has learned something, and fighting to convince them they're wrong is clinging to your own system of beliefs as if you know better, when there are infinite relative truths to debate about. 2. low consciousness is not an absolute existence that you discard when you have enlightenment, that you once were low and now you are high and that is that it's done there's no more. Enlightenment is not an obtainable achievement you wear on your shoulder, it is a process of transcending previous beliefs, states, assumptions, etc. and to the op specifically, I want to reiterate that a lack of beliefs is a belief system. I don't really have the words or skill to argue this point, but would recommend that you reflect on it. You said yourself at one point that sure, you will hold onto beliefs that eating food will x y z, but then that showed me that you aren't seeing that simply by understanding a single thing we understand, is a system. whether or not it is belief is irrelevant, it is a structure that we hold onto. holding no beliefs is such a structure. furthermore, you fundamentally must believe that it is better to hold no beliefs in order to practice holding no beliefs and then state it as good on a forum for others to read.

does love depend on self? I see, thanks. I guess I am quick to see rudeness from others, I guess I am sensitive to it, when it is not necessarily there in the first place.