Dodo

What peoole call no self is the experience within awareness in which there is no identification with any object. Their true and only identity then is revealed - awareness. It means before there were two Yous - Me, the object and my awareness, and after the object me dissolves, which is a thought object, there is only one self, not two, the meaning of Nonduality. That self happens to be empty, so you can interpret it as being 0 selves, but imo that is a mistake.

My experience is telling me that I am awareness. I'm saying that awareness cannot cease to be, so a state of no self is impossible. If there is experience that is not within awareness, then it is not known and then it's like it never happened. Like the question: "Does a falling tree make a sound if there is noone around to hear it". What I'm saying is that the self is not an object, but it is the field in which experience happens. The empty space in which experience happens, without which there can be no experience, let alone happiness. Just like you cannot add water to a cup, if the space is not there to allow it.

This must be an "in Soviet Russia" joke

This is a reply to my locked ? thread from years ago named "Who is Leo?" in which I asked "Is he your guru?" :-D

The thing is, after no thought, there is still someone experiencing life. It's just that this person has a quiet mind. I don't get why it's so popular to state that Enlightenment means no self, if it actually means no thought. My self is not a thought in the first place, it is awareness. If there is no self, that for me means there is no awareness. And awareness is fundamental.

Yes, makes more sense for the natural state to be neutral.

When I am happy, happiness is happening to me, awareness. When I am sad, sadness is happening to me, awareness. That's my experience. My experience is also happening to me, awareness.

When I am happy, I am happy. Also 1+1 can't be 3.

Yes, awareness is the self beyond ego.

We already established, if you are correct then enlightenment does not bring happiness, because there will be no me to experience it. So basically you are sending me for a wild goose chase in order to satisfy your ego?

Who are you sending to find out?

Who knows this? How does a "who" know this, if it's only the experience of a "no-who"?

Then you are lying that happiness is my default state

You are hinting that there is a self beyond ego.

If object is made out of consciousness, object is conscious

Irrelevant. Eckhart Tolle has stated that we live in a conscious universe. That everything is conscious. Has nothing to do with you becoming a plant. Don't go on such long tangents based on assumptions, it's hard to understand.

I don't think thats the opposite of what Leo is saying. It's definitely not the opposite of what Eckhart Tolle is saying though.

You are awareness, now move on. To experience and trully know you are awareness, you must simply be aware.

@Ibn Sina Before Brahma was, I am Funny, if you move the letters around in Brahma and add an a you get Abraham.

If that Brahma character has qualities, then he is not able to be ever present. Awareness is ever present and awareness creates reality - it doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. That's the true God.

You have an allergy towards words? Perhaps use the Bulgarian version: Бог

delusional rant

Created by us means created by God. You are separating yourself from reality

The thing is, even if Brahma is what you say it is, some sort of creator, it is Brahman that created Brahma, so actually Brahman is the creator.

Meaning of God is the ever present creator. That's awareness, awareness is God, I don't see a problem with the definition. Awareness is also nothing, so God indeed does not exist, God is the empty space in which all "else" exists.