What does the no-self insight mean?

[Kksd74628]

@Judy2

Just now, Judy2 said:

He means Being.

That is also something that is "perceived" and if not it wouldn't exist in this moment. You can't bypass that, because everything that is HERE and NOW must be content of "experience" and if not then it wouldn't be in the experience. Either way that wouldn't be the subject, because it couldn't, ever.

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Judy2 said:

@Leo Gura Who or what would it kill and who or what would remain? 

Don't play games with me.

[Raptorsin7]

@Judy2 Intellectual understanding is not helping you at this point.

Its about energy

[Kksd74628]

@Leo Gura

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can't understand what I am pointing at because if you did it would kill you.

You just told that something exist and if "someone" would understand that it would die. But again there is no "I" to be killed even . What is this thing that dies, because as I have tried to say many times there is no "I" to even be killed.

@Judy2

2 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

Being is not even an experience, because experience implies duality.

That's the exact reason I always put "experience" inside of apostrophes. Is being something that can be found from direct experience - if yes - then it is part of the movie - if no - then there wouldn't be it. Either way it wouldn't be "I".

@Leo Gura

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't play games with me.

You always say this when you can't advance with your explanation. I don't say this to hate, but it is pretty weird way to handle things.

[Zeroguy]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.

YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.

YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.

YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.  YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.

YOU EXIST!

All of experience is YOU.

You can't understand what I am pointing at because if you did it would kill you.

This is not a mistake. Your life depends on you not getting it.

me when trying to bring common reason to my friend.

[Kksd74628]

@Judy2

10 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

*If there's nothing but perceptions and a perceiver cannot even be found, is all-that-is being perceived, or is it just itself?

Exactly!`It is just itself that which is itself is not I still.

1 minute ago, Judy2 said:

Seeking, finding and this-is-not-it are all part of the story of separation.

There is no one to seek or find or to be found and therefore only thing that is, is this, NOW.

[Kksd74628]

@Judy2

1 minute ago, Judy2 said:

You wouldn't even have to call it Now:) 

Agree, because no word is it.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Kksd74628

[Someone here]

40 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.

YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.

YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.

YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.  YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.

YOU EXIST!

All of experience is YOU.

You can't understand what I am pointing at because if you did it would kill you.

This is not a mistake. Your life depends on you not getting it.

As I think of one's self, I imagine that there should be boundaries which would determine what is one's self. But these boundaries are not so clear to me. Is self maybe an absolute. For example, self is the world, or self and the world are the same. Or is something that can't have a unique answer and is different from person to person.

When i think at self it can be my counciousnes, my experience or maybe a charachter that others see. Why we feel the need to distinguish ourselves. Its maybe a survivle tool. Even the borders of which my body with the world should have are not so clear.

Or perhaps self is just a feeling with no boundaries, and that's the end of it.

I started questioning this indipendently then after searching I found that this is actualy a widly freshly opened question in philosophy and other knowledges. Just typed in google the title of this topic and found a site where my questions are more profoundly debated. The article separates the question to three parts: mind-world, mind-body and self-mind.

Then, after reading it, I came up to more questions. Does body have boundaries without mind or brain? Or is it all just a world?

Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes?

Is it possible that the answer is not possible within original perspectives?

[Kksd74628]

@Someone here

14 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Or is it all just a world?

Yeah if world means the "exprerience" which is the thing that happens NOW and HERE. As there are no boundaries between anything, everything is just content of this very present moment which can be called with any name you want.

[Someone here]

18 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Someone here

Yeah if world means the "exprerience" which is the thing that happens NOW and HERE. As there are no boundaries between anything, everything is just content of this very present moment which can be called with any name you want.

I think boundaries are created by humans. All except the boundaries of the universe itself, which are its end. For example, where are the boundaries between you and the rest of the world? I don't ask where you think those boundaries might be, I'm asking you to describe what these boundaries are, and the means by which you recognise them. What reason is there to say "this is part of me; that is part of something that is not me"? I have found this an interesting conundrum...

[Kksd74628]

@Someone here

"I" don't sense any boundaries between "I" and "universe" and the "universe" itself has no boundaries. Easy way to understand this is to first feel this present moment and everything that is HERE and NOW. After that try to feel that which is not HERE. As you can see, anything that is not HERE can't be feeled and if it could then it would be HERE. So become conscious that you can't experience NOW that which is not experienced. Where could be that line between experience and no experience be, because without anything outside of something there couldn't be line that separates "inside" from the "outside".

[Salvijus]

@Judy2 yea ego exists in its own way. Neo advaitists are a bullshit spreaders. U can literally become aware of your ego as a solid stuff in your psyche. It's almost physical. Buddhists spend decades trying to dissolve the damn thing. They are not trying to dissolve a unicon-like concept that doesn't exist.

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Salvijus

[Gili Trawangan]

 

 

[Someone here]

32 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Someone here

"I" don't sense any boundaries between "I" and "universe" and the "universe" itself has no boundaries. Easy way to understand this is to first feel this present moment and everything that is HERE and NOW. After that try to feel that which is not HERE. As you can see, anything that is not HERE can't be feeled and if it could then it would be HERE. So become conscious that you can't experience NOW that which is not experienced. Where could be that line between experience and no experience be, because without anything outside of something there couldn't be line that separates "inside" from the "outside".

The Self is not the world and are not the same. Self is what experiences the world. Which raises a question, is the self the body or are they the same? I think it is not the same because the self can also experience thoughts. For example when you listen to your thoughts the self is the one listening or when you visualise a scenario, the self is what sees. The body sort of translates the world to the self.

Many people actively look to not distinguish themselves. I believe the need to distinguish or not distinguish comes from outside influences, not from the self. I ask do animals other than humans have a self? I have no idea. The self cannot be what others see as there are many assumptions made by others about an individual.

Also, the self is not a feeling, the self experiences the feeling. Many get the feeling to find themselves or to express them self.

The body has boundaries with or without the brain as it is merely physical. The self is not physical, it is not something that can be experienced. I ask, are thoughts physical? Thoughts can be experienced, does that make them physical though? (While reading back over I wonder, is maths physical?)

"Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes". I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you asking if the wiser a person becomes the more they understand the self / consciousness? If that is your question then the short answer is yes.

The self is outside of the physical world. A boundary of the self is the physical world as it cannot cross into the world.
At this point I am starting to think that the self is the same for everyone. Countering the belief i had before I started typing.

Apologies, if I have made big leaps that are difficult to understand. I am willing to discuss further

[Thought Art]

You ?

[johnlocke18]

@Leo Gura You can’t get angry at someone for asking a simple question, just because it points out how your word games can lead to nonsense and talking in circles instead of say what you mean. All they did is ask a question, and you’re angry because it mirrors your own words.

[Kamo]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Infinity is aware.

You are Infinity.

If you turn your gaze backward as your "self", behind the eyes so to speak, what you see there is Infinity. Infinity is where you're looking from. Infinity has no shape or form. It's like emptiness.

No-self simply means that you are not any finite definition of a self. In other words, you cannot have any finite shape. You cannot be a finite object or identity. Because your true identity is Infinity.

This makes so much sense!! When one hears You are God, and you say who is God? You hear, "You" are God and you say who am "I"? it makes a circle because your still not sure who "I" is? When we refer to "I" the mind tends to reflect on biographical history or the ego/story at first, then with consistent observation you can see how thats all illusion, there's really nothing there. That emptiness actually is something? Its Infinity. Does then Identity become realized to be totality of experience called Infinity/God? This framing still remains in the conceptual, I get that, but is this intellectually the proper way to understand it? I assume looking at it this way then methodically taking psychedelics and continuing to framing it like that will reveal a new understanding about what is being said? Like you realize it to be True experientially not conceptually?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, johnlocke18 said:

@Leo Gura You can’t get angry at someone for asking a simple question, just because it points out how your word games can lead to nonsense and talking in circles instead of say what you mean. All they did is ask a question, and you’re angry because it mirrors your own words.

I'm not angry. I'm helping you cut through the shit.

[Raptorsin7]

@Leo Gura Maybe you have some unconscious anger 

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

@Leo Gura Maybe you have some unconscious anger 

Maybe you are unconsciously full of shit.