If there is no I, then where am I?

[LastThursday]

As per title. How do I make this paradox pop?

By way of explanation the conundrum goes like this:

I have come to realise that the sensation of there being a 'thing' or 'kernel' or 'nugget' or 'soul' or 'watcher' or whatever, is just a construct. 'The concious AI has realised it's just a program running in a computer' (for example - I don't actually believe that though). As such, this Construct knows it is made from a free floating sea of associations and memories and feelings and the rest. The Construct keeps itself going, by continuously reinforcing the belief that it exists, rather like a perpetual motion machine. But this Construct also believes 'reality' doesn't need the Construct to carry on: reality doesn't need to be 'watched' to exist.

Now the Construct knows that it's fake, but one thing it really can't deny, is that 'reality' is actually happening. And that if it ultimately snuffs itself out, it thinks reality will carry on regardless - it is not scared (very much). But where/what/how exactly will reality be, if it's not being 'watched'? In other words, is it actually possible to remove the Construct without also snuffing out reality? Or does the Construct just morph itself into something else - something like reality 'watching' itself?

Does the Construct die or does it re-contextualize? Which is it?

 

 

[Nahm]

Did it have horns?      And where do you as the observer end, and objects being observed begin?  How do you know you’re aware of this?

[Leo Gura]

@LastThursday You are not.

The deeper question being asking here is, What is reality?

That question can be answered, but it's one hell of an epiphany. Don't expect it to come easily.

If you still believe in a watcher, you haven't realized no-self yet.

Everything is nowhere and nothing.

[Forestluv]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything is nowhere and nothing.

I’ve been laying down contemplating Everything is nowhere. It can meander into some wild territory. . .  

[Leo Gura]

@Serotoninluv Nowhere is your true nature

[CreamCat]

To me, everything feels ultimately meaningless such that everything is as good as nothing and nowhere.

Edited December 5, 2018 by CreamCat

[purerogue]

At least you did not have experience where reality was trying to play tricks on you and make it look like you are only one who is real and as soon as you start to question their existence , everyone starts to act strange.

[ground]

6 hours ago, LastThursday said:

As per title. How do I make this paradox pop?

The question isn't a paradox but simply irrational. How can one ask about a location of something that has been generally negated?

you may ask after a location only if the negation is restricted to a specific location, e.g. 'If there is no I in this body (of mine), then where am I?'

Edited December 5, 2018 by ground

[LastThursday]

3 hours ago, purerogue said:

At least you did not have experience where reality was trying to play tricks on you and make it look like you are only one who is real and as soon as you start to question their existence , everyone starts to act strange.

No Instead I questioned my existence, and 'I' started to act strange.

 

3 hours ago, ground said:

The question isn't a paradox but simply irrational.

That's the point. But you've lost the nuance of what I'm getting at - see next.

 

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The deeper question being asking here is, What is reality?

Yeah exactly. But even worse. How can reality be any different? But I guess it can! I'm standing on the edge looking over, but I don't know how to jump or even if jumping makes any sense.

 

9 hours ago, Nahm said:

Did it have horns?

Yes and it was hairy and stunk bad.

[purerogue]

I don't think that I acted strange, but maybe, none asked me any questions of why I act strange. 

You did not get to experience it , so you would not even know what was happening. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by purerogue

[Leo Gura]

37 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

How can reality be any different?

Infinity cannot be different.

[LastThursday]

2 hours ago, purerogue said:

You did not get to experience it , so you would not even know what was happening. 

I did go through a solipsistic phase, but I didn't bother others about it; being asked if you really exist generally doesn't go down well. Eventually though, I realised I wasn't being radical enough, so I dropped the solipsism.

 

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Infinity cannot be different.

Different compared to what? Ok, I realise my error, there is nothing to compare it to. Contemplating enlightenment is kind of a thankless task. I just have to concentrate on the path instead and I will get 'there'. One day I will be enlightened (or not) and that is that.

12 hours ago, Nahm said:

And where do you as the observer end, and objects being observed begin?

Indeed, what objects? They are as much part of the Construct as the Construct itself. Is a chair four legs a seat and a back? Or is it a chair? Or is the chair just an invention? Is the Construct a sensation of existence + an observer.  Or is it Reality? I have no idea - yet.

Edited December 5, 2018 by LastThursday
typo

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Contemplating enlightenment is kind of a thankless task. 

Indeed, what objects? They are as much part of the Construct as the Construct itself. Is a chair four legs a seat and a back? Or is it a chair? Or is the chair just an invention? Is the Construct a sensation of existence + an observer.  Or is it Reality? I have no idea - yet.

Would would thank or be thanked? 

What “objects”?

What is a “construct”?

What’s an “observer”? Name 3.

Now Is that a thought/belief, or your own direct experience?

What do you even mean, “reality”? Where does “reality” start? Where does “reality” end? 

Know this “thing” you’re talking about.  

 

[SoonHei]

just want to clarify and understand... when it is said there is no "I", I get there is no questioning entity with it's own awareness/sentience inside of my body or anywhere else in the manifest universe.

but whatever is there, is beyond I... it is the only thing which exists and it does have sentience/intelligence . it's the reality as a whole, with awareness and alive presence everywhere, without bound / exception. correct?

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Serotoninluv Nowhere is your true nature

 

the "your" in the above line... that is what I am... but that is not this body/mind/thought or the thing asking this question.

 

sure, nothingness is its/mine nature

but it is still okay to know/feel that there remains "something" which is nothing but is still "something" but in an unconventional way

[Leo Gura]

@SoonHei No, you're still not getting it. There is no you! The you who thinks it is reading this sentence does not exist. You are a fantasy.

Reality is happening without you. The idea of "a you" is being attached to that reality to create the illusion that it is happening to "a you".

For a minute right now, try to totally eliminate any sense that reality is here for you, or is in any way related to your body. Eliminate the sense of yourself entiry. Look at the room you're in an imagine you were never born, but the room still exists exactly as it is.

Eliminate every ounce of you-ness from experience. If you are still saying the words, "me", "I", or "my" you still aren't getting it. Those words refer to nothing.

Or just take a psychedelic and it will be so obvious. Stop wasting time on ineffective methods. Psychedelics answer all questions.

[ground]

3 hours ago, SoonHei said:

just want to clarify and understand... when it is said there is no "I", ...

then it is actually an inappropriate linguistic expression. why? because 'I' is not qualified. 'I' has to be qualified to appropriately negate this qualified 'I'.
What does that mean? That means it is of utmost importance to identify the sentiment 'I', i.e. how I am allegedly 'perceiving myself' ('I') spontaneously in any kind of situation in everyday life without the slightest bit of analysis. What is the mode of appearance of myself in consciousness? What is it?

Edited December 5, 2018 by ground

[SoonHei]

@Leo Gura thanks. I get it deeply so

 

Kinda like the entire Construct of the room

Including all of this, the phone i am holding to type this message, the people around me

 

Everything.

 

Reality is it's own subject/object as ONE.

[Forestluv]

@ground @SoonHei The human mind is conditioned to use pronouns such as "I", "me", "you" in a personal context. In daily life, pronouns are used in a personal context 99.99% of the time. On this forum, personal pronouns seem normal and fine for discussions at the human/personality level. Yet, when conversations start entering trans-personal / no-self zones, it can get a bit awkward and tricky at times. Here, "I", "me" and "you" doesn't literally mean there is a real self. We still use pronouns because without pronouns conversations get very awkward, inefficient, confusing and annoying. However, there is an underlying understanding that we are not literally referring to a self. It just makes conversation more efficient. 

 

[LastThursday]

@Serotoninluv I couldn't agree more. Indeed language itself is a big barrier to understanding this stuff. There is also a strong tendency to get caught up in words and definitions of words and arguing about the use of words themselves and not actually getting to the meat of the spiritual practice.  

Even in the sentence I've just written, I've left out information: 'strong tendency' by whom and where and when? There's no other way around this on a forum, but direct experience is key.

[Mu_]

On 12/4/2018 at 7:00 PM, LastThursday said:

As per title. How do I make this paradox pop?

By way of explanation the conundrum goes like this:

I have come to realise that the sensation of there being a 'thing' or 'kernel' or 'nugget' or 'soul' or 'watcher' or whatever, is just a construct. 'The concious AI has realised it's just a program running in a computer' (for example - I don't actually believe that though). As such, this Construct knows it is made from a free floating sea of associations and memories and feelings and the rest. The Construct keeps itself going, by continuously reinforcing the belief that it exists, rather like a perpetual motion machine. But this Construct also believes 'reality' doesn't need the Construct to carry on: reality doesn't need to be 'watched' to exist.

Now the Construct knows that it's fake, but one thing it really can't deny, is that 'reality' is actually happening. And that if it ultimately snuffs itself out, it thinks reality will carry on regardless - it is not scared (very much). But where/what/how exactly will reality be, if it's not being 'watched'? In other words, is it actually possible to remove the Construct without also snuffing out reality? Or does the Construct just morph itself into something else - something like reality 'watching' itself?

Does the Construct die or does it re-contextualize? Which is it?

 

 

What has these idea's?  What see's things this way?  If "You" were not truely awake, you would not see any of these idea's inside yourself.

What is aware of the free floating see of association and memories and feelings and the rest?  What is aware of the Construct?

Drop your idea that you realized sensation of there being a "thing" or "kernel" or "nugget" or "soul" or "watcher".  You really have not proved this to be true, so stop kidding yourself and drop it so you can let in new possibilities, or in the least let the mystery of existence continue.  Also if you feel like it, I made a video for a guy on the forum with similar holds up, let me know if its useful.