There isn't a you and no thing is missing

[The0Self]

When there is no thing or circumstance that should or shouldn’t happen, then there is no place and no time where you should or shouldn’t be. ❤️ 

Edited September 1, 2021 by The0Self

[VeganAwake]

6 minutes ago, The0Self said:

When there is no thing or circumstance that should or shouldn’t happen, then there is no place and no time where you should or shouldn’t be. ❤️ 

Yes exactly, and whether or not the individual is recognized to be unreal doesn't matter in any way at all because it's actually already the case.

[LastThursday]

5 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

whether or not the individual is recognized to be unreal doesn't matter in any way at all

Then proselytising that "there is no you" has no value. Or does it? I mean why go around saying something that doesn't make a difference either way? 

The fact remains that there is a "me", and here I am. I can appreciate that "I" could be re-contextualised away at any moment, but surely that will happen of its own accord, when and if it wants? Why all the goading with "there is no you"? 

[Nahm]

9 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

That's the cosmic joke

?? 

[ZzzleepingBear]

No thing is missng

[VeganAwake]

3 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Then proselytising that "there is no you" has no value. Or does it?

It has no value for the 'me' which is constantly seeking meaning, purpose and value out of everything. 

I mean why go around saying something that doesn't make a difference either way? 

It doesn't make a difference for the 'me' which is trying to find something that makes a difference. Its freedom from that illusory need.

The fact remains that there is a "me", and here I am.

There is a body but the 'me' or center point within that body which claims ownership of body and thoughts and with all of its wants needs and desires is completely illusory.

I can appreciate that "I" could be re-contextualised away at any moment, but surely that will happen of its own accord, when and if it wants?

'I' doesn't become re-contextualized because 'I' was never real from the beginning. 'I' doesn't die because 'I' was never born, it's an illusion often referred to as Maya (illusion of self).

Why all the goading with "there is no you"? 

It's just a response to the experience that I am real and I need to find something to make me feel complete and whole. 

There isn't a 'you' and wholeness is already the case. ❤

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by VeganAwake

[Breakingthewall]

the i has the same existence that any other mental construction can have. if it's real, it's a mental construct, that's all. the point is to understand what it is, and who understands it is the i itself. all the posts in this thread have been written by an i. you have to give the i the value it has, to say that it does not exist is to deny a reality. It is not something material, you cannot touch it, but it is a stable mental construction that occurs in 100% of humans. exists, obviously

[The0Self]

8 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Then proselytising that "there is no you" has no value. Or does it? I mean why go around saying something that doesn't make a difference either way? 

The fact remains that there is a "me", and here I am. I can appreciate that "I" could be re-contextualised away at any moment, but surely that will happen of its own accord, when and if it wants? Why all the goading with "there is no you"? 

These could be conceived of as valuable:

 

The body is liberated from the tyranny of the me.

The me is liberated from the need to defend what doesn't belong to it -- the body always seeks safety, but it's not your (someone's) body.

Existential questions no longer perturb the innate peace of being.

 

But pointing out there's no me is an inefficient method for awakening, and indeed not intended as a method. It has its place, but from the perspective of the message of no me, listening to the message is equally as useless as anything else.

 

If you are seeking peace and happiness, you might as well enjoy it; meditate, etc. The only reason to listen to the nonduality message would be entertainment and fun. And when it's just constantly pointed out when people aren't even asking for it, it's probably a useless activity -- for the benefit of the one delivering the message.

Edited September 1, 2021 by The0Self
spelling

[VeganAwake]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

but it is a stable mental construction that occurs in 100% of humans. exists, obviously

It could be said that it's a real and unreal experience.

Real in the sense that yes it really feels like there is an individual within the body moving, learning and progressing through time.

Unreal in the sense that when this apparent individual is recognized to be an unreal entity, its simultaneously realized that it was never actually there in the first place, which is why illusion is the best word to describe it.... something that seems completely real but ultimately lacks in reality.

There is a reason why it's called Awakening. ❤

[Breakingthewall]

29 minutes ago, VeganAwake said:

There is a reason why it's called Awakening.

true, and you can also wake up to the fact that the body where that unreal self seemed to be, is equally unreal, and that the ground you walk on, which seems very solid and real, is not either. that everything is an undifferentiated soup with apparent differentiations, patterns that order the same substance, and that this substance is made of nothing, ideas related to other ideas. So the self is just as real or unreal as the solar system

[LastThursday]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

you have to give the i the value it has, to say that it does not exist is to deny a reality.

 

3 hours ago, The0Self said:

But pointing out there's no me is an inefficient method for awakening, and indeed not intended as a method. It has it's place, but from the perspective of the message of no me, listening to the message is equally as useless as anything else.

These two ^^^ sum up my feelings about it.

2 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

It could be said that it's a real and unreal experience.

No, it's always just real, in the sense that something that's real must exist. To say that illusion is unreal is wrong, the illusory also exists (and so is real) that's why we have a word for it.  I suspect this is what's rubbing me up the wrong way. If something is eventually recognised for not actually being real (i.e. existing), then it simply ceases to exist any more, to retroactively say it never existed is again wrong. Awakening does not erase the fact that an "I" was there before.

To tell a "me" that "you don't exist" is simply false. If "me" then ceases to exist and then you say "you don't exist", it is meaningless or of no particular importance. Even to say "you're an illusion or construct" is closer to the truth, but the benefit is also doubtful in that case. I use the word "benefit" because it is only a "me" that needs to hear it.

Edited September 1, 2021 by LastThursday

[The0Self]

23 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

No, it's always just real, in the sense that something that's real must exist. To say that illusion is unreal is wrong, the illusory also exists (and so is real) that's why we have a word for it.  I suspect this is what's rubbing me up the wrong way. If something is eventually recognised for not actually being real (i.e. existing), then it simply ceases to exist any more, to retroactively say it never existed is again wrong. Awakening does not erase the fact that an "I" was there before.

To tell a "me" that "you don't exist" is simply false. If "me" then ceases to exist and then you say "you don't exist", it is meaningless or of no particular importance. Even to say "you're an illusion or construct" is closer to the truth, but the benefit is also doubtful in that case. I use the word "benefit" because it is only a "me" that needs to hear it.

Well... Sure, but it's not exactly like that.

The "me" referred to is the reality of the one who is separate from what happens. It is admitted that there is in fact potentially a claim that there is someone separate from what happens, but the me has absolutely no substance of any kind -- all there is to the me is the false claim that it is real, which as you can see is not the same as the reality of the one who is separate. (Me = real one who is separate). The false claim that the me is real... is an appearance, not an illusion; it's not separate from what apparently happens, but the truth of the me actually being real is an illusion and not something that IS... at all. And in that sense, "it never was."

Edited September 1, 2021 by The0Self

[ZzzleepingBear]

Guys you don't get OP. He is saying that no thing is missing. That is, his no thing got missing..  Has anyone seen the no thing, then report it back here. Because it is obviously missing at the moment.. :-(

Find the no thing and return it here!

[LastThursday]

@ZzzleepingBear I'm arguing about the other half of the title. I have no view on the "no thing missing".

12 minutes ago, The0Self said:

The "me" referred to is the reality of the one who is separate from what happens.

If the "me" is separate, then the sense of existence or reality of anything is coming from somewhere that is not-me, the "me" doesn't get to decide what's real or not, even itself.  This aligns with my reality, I don't stand there dictating what is real and what isn't, it happens automatically without my involvement. The "me" isn't a special case where the "me" gets to decide that it itself exists, no, it just is that way.

In fact it is only awakening that allows "us" to see the illusory nature of the self, in which case a decision of sorts is being made on what is real or not. You see, it's all back to front. All this talk of illusory stuff and no me is coming from a position of being awakened. But until that point, everything is very real including the self, and there's no choice about it.

[ZzzleepingBear]

1 minute ago, LastThursday said:

I'm arguing about the other half of the title. I have no view on the "no thing missing".

Oh, that part is just his solipsistic point of view speaking, no need to concider that. He is saying there isn't a you. So there is no need to find what isn't missing here. It is the no thing that gone missing apparently.. ;-)

[The0Self]

47 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

If the "me" is separate, then the sense of existence or reality of anything is coming from somewhere that is not-me, the "me" doesn't get to decide what's real or not, even itself.  This aligns with my reality, I don't stand there dictating what is real and what isn't, it happens automatically without my involvement. The "me" isn't a special case where the "me" gets to decide that it itself exists, no, it just is that way.

In fact it is only awakening that allows "us" to see the illusory nature of the self, in which case a decision of sorts is being made on what is real or not. You see, it's all back to front. All this talk of illusory stuff and no me is coming from a position of being awakened. But until that point, everything is very real including the self, and there's no choice about it.

Fair enough. But “me” refers to the one who knows any objective truth at all, and there aren’t any objective truths, so what is the me? It is in fact an illusion, but as you indicated, it IS an illusion — that IS is its only substance. But since it is an illusion, and illusion means having no reality, there ultimately is no illusion. Only perhaps the false claims that there is some thing/one separate, or that something is needed, or that what is happening could be different from what is happening. Believing that something is going to happen, when there’s only what’s happening. Listening to nonduality is a waste of time in most cases. The dream goes on until it comes to an end, all choicelessly done but not by any one/thing separate, and then it’s recognized there was no dream.

The most misleading statement would be to say there’s nothing to do — that’s only the case since there is no one. So if there seems to be someone, there will be the appearance of doing things. So the seeker might as well be honest about that and not fall into the trap of giving up seeking.

The search does not end, the seeker does.

Thinking about what has happened is what is happening after what has happened — but there is no “after what has happened,” nor has something happened. There’s no before or after separate from now. There is no separation from what is happening.

The whole message boils down to this: what is happening never becomes something other than what is happening

Edited September 1, 2021 by The0Self

[VeganAwake]

 

[VeganAwake]

 

[Endangered-EGO]

@VeganAwake I keep asking the questions like the interviewer in your video, and then laugh because I know what jim newman is going to say. Up until the last question.

-Okay but there needs to be a path.

-->What's taking the path?

-Okay but I had experiences of no-self.

-->What had experiences of no self.

-So what do I do now? Meditate or not meditate?

-->It doesn't matter there's no-one to meditate. The false sense of self wants to practice.

-Okay, but how do I get towards enlightenment faster?

-->There's no enlightenment. Nothing happens.

-So I've wasted all these years of seeking for nothing? All of this suffering?

--> Seeking just happened, there was no you controling it. Just thoughts and an experience of self and activities.

-But what do I do now? 

--> There's already a "happening" it's the belief in a you that believes it has to make a decision to get somewhere.

-I like doing that, I'm deconstructing my own self.

--> You're not doing anything it's just thoughts happening.

-But ehm, now, I want to do something about it. Can I just continue to deconstruct myself and write the paradox about me deconstructing a self on the actualized forum?

--> This would be practice, an attempt from a belief in you to continue to deconstruct the belief in you.

-So should I stop practicing? Continue listening to Jim Newman videos or just keep away from it.

--> None of these. Don't watch the videos and don't not-watch the videos. There's no right thoughts to have, or to find or to change or to stop. There's no practice, and there's no stopping practice. 

-But what if enlightenment never happens or takes way too long or if I forget that. 

--> The paradox is looking for it, its the false sense of self looking for it.

-I feel like a separate self, now what do we do? What do I do? Suffering occurs.

-->The separate self feels it needs to do something about something again.

-How can I stop it?

--> You can't

-Ok so the I (me) will either want enlightenment, which I cant get to. Or fesr it which I can't stop. I'm confused.

How do I stop un-enlightening myself?

[The0Self]

1 hour ago, Endangered-EGO said:

How do I stop un-enlightening myself?

Who would do that?

Notice how the answer is never a prescription, it's always a question or a dead end. So any who, how, or whatever question will always be met with negation. The truth is inconceivable. That there is no separation is inconceivable. Seeker seeks until it stops, and then it never was, and the whole time, it was wholeness.

While your love of knowing trumps your repulsion of false, enlightenment will be delayed, and delaying it is (in a sense) paradoxically the only way for you to be enlightened now, and there is no un-enlightened one, so it must be as it is.

I would hope for this to help in some way if it could, but it can't. I mean, in the sense that this is already complete. You are already good enough, as is everything -- appearance of the opposite of that is one of the manifestations of the illusion. Can't explain it, simply because the illusion is impenetrable -- it is both gamemaster and nonexistent... There is no one separate and no inside & outside.

Edited September 3, 2021 by The0Self