There's no such thing as an "I" lmao.

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, RMQualtrough said:

What you are referring to literally has zero "I am" in it whatsoever. That is actual legit ego death, so that part isn't even existent anymore.

there is a dead absolute void absent from everything. It is the total zero and it is horrible. if you are able to enter that emptiness without reservation and accept it, and totally kill yourself, it will open and the Absolute will be, that is enlightenment

[amanen]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Thanks for your honesty.  I kinda had a feeling ? 

Sorry, typo, I meant that I'm not him. Wrote while doing other stuff.

[RMQualtrough]

1 minute ago, Razard86 said:

I didn't so Michael Jackson truly awakened.....wow...who would have known?

What is existing? What does it mean to exist? 

What is existing is redness, violin-sound-ness, tasteness, touchness, thoughts, ALL senses.

Are you able to actually comprehend what I mean when saying that reality is made of, for ex, redness, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO person viewing it. Not in ANY meaning of the term is it being viewed by anything, or anyone. It is exactly the thing that is. Do you at least get what I mean?

The "thought" there is an I does not mean there is an actual character there where you believe it to be. Exactly the same: The thought there is an I IS THE THOUGHT THERE IS AN I. It is not thought by anyone or anything.  Or observed by anyone or anything. There is nothing to it BUT that.

There is no ghost in the machine. The ghost in the machine is not secretly everything. The ghost in the machine is a sense, idea, thought. Redness is a sense, idea, thought. There isn't actually any character sensing it, and it is not made of any God character.

Do you see what I mean?

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, amanen said:

Sorry, typo, I meant that I'm not him. Wrote while doing other stuff.

Ok sorry.  Heck the more awakened beings here the better.  He was a bit immature and I don't sense that from you.   Anyways - welcome aboard.  

[Razard86]

3 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

What is existing is redness, violin-sound-ness, tasteness, touchness, thoughts, ALL senses.

Are you able to actually comprehend what I mean when saying that reality is made of, for ex, redness, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO person viewing it. Not in ANY meaning of the term is it being viewed by anything, or anyone. It is exactly the thing that is. Do you at least get what I mean?

The "thought" there is an I does not mean there is an actual character there where you believe it to be. Exactly the same: The thought there is an I IS THE THOUGHT THERE IS AN I. It is not thought by anyone or anything.  Or observed by anyone or anything. There is nothing to it BUT that.

There is no ghost in the machine. The ghost in the machine is not secretly everything. The ghost in the machine is a sense, idea, thought. Redness is a sense, idea, thought. There isn't actually any character sensing it, and it is not made of any God character.

Do you see what I mean?

The issue is you keep thinking you need to be a person to exist. I knew it, your problem is you think you are a person and when that was erased it scared you.

A self is not a person, that is your selfish projection. The issue is what you think a self is.

So I ask you right now....if I deleted your body, your memories of your life, and dropped you in an empty void and you were still aware....are you a self? 

What does it mean to be a self? What does it mean to exist? 

Don't debate, don't debate.....ponder the answer to the question. 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Razard86

[RMQualtrough]

7 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

The issue is you keep thinking you need to be a person to exist. I knew it, your problem is you think you are a person and when that was erased it scared you.

A self is not a person, that is your selfish projection. The issue is what you think a self is.

So I ask you right now....if I deleted your body, your memories of your life, and dropped you in an empty void and you were still aware....are you a self? 

What does it mean to be a self? What does it mean to exist? 

Don't debate, don't debate.....ponder the answer to the question. 

No I wouldn't be. I'm not a self now. There is no self. Self is a thought. It isn't a real thing. It's made up. Atman = pure religion.

It comes out when Vedanta teachers are asked certain questions and have to go with weird answers to get around the obvious fact it's not there: In "deep sleep", Rupert Spira claims you are aware of yourself. And the proof he claims, is that when you wake you feel refreshed. That's the type of maneuvering used to try to circumvent the fact there is no self entity at all.

There is no deep sleep, it doesn't happen. There's no gap because there is no you character to go anywhere or be anywhere or be anything. There is only reality. Hence no gap. Not weird excuses that "you are aware of yourself" or w.e.

Atman is a shitty teaching. Misleading, empowers ego, causes weird questions about deep sleep and death. You're already dead. See how existence is here when you are not. There is no you. Anatta. Totally.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

No I wouldn't be. I'm not a self now. There is no self. Self is a thought. It isn't a real thing. It's made up. Atman = pure religion.

It comes out when Vedanta teachers are asked certain questions and have to go with weird answers to get around the obvious fact it's not there: In "deep sleep", Rupert Spira claims you are aware of yourself. And the proof he claims, is that when you wake you feel refreshed. That's the type of maneuvering used to try to circumvent the fact there is no self entity at all.

There is no deep sleep, it doesn't happen. There's no gap because there is no you character to go anywhere or be anywhere or be anything. There is only reality. Hence no gap. Not weird excuses that "you are aware of yourself" or w.e.

Atman is a shitty teaching. Misleading, empowers ego, causes weird questions about deep sleep and death. You're already dead. See how existence is here when you are not. There is no you. Anatta. Totally.

Reality is not external to you.

[RMQualtrough]

Other bizarro-world ideas caused by Atman teaching includes: Cycling through lives. Subjective solipsism. The Egg by Andy Weir. Gods. Creators. Being born. Dying. The idea of being alive. Where do I go in ___ (deep sleep, anaesthetic, whatever).

Unnecessary.

I am not sure if people are at least understanding what it means, that redness is what is. I.e. that there is literally nothing (NOT EVEN A NOTHING "I"), not ANYBODY or ANYTHING viewing it. AT ALL. That it is just redness. That it DOES NOT NEED a you for it to exist, and that as it appears to """you""" (the fictional character made of thoughts) right now you already are absent.

You are not alive. There's no such thing as being alive or dead, or asleep or awake, or conscious or unconscious. There is no you. Right now there is none. Yet see how reality is still appearing.

Is that at least being understood, the thing I am trying to convey?

[RMQualtrough]

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Reality is not external to you.

Reality is WITHOUT A "YOU". Only the appearance of a thought/idea/sense that there is one. Which can very literally stop appearing completely... Yet many appearances can remain in its absence...

The sense of spatial dimension is why the you even exists so easily. It has a nice little space to craft itself in. It's not even just causing the idea of reality being external. Reality is what is, the you is fictitious.

I am quite sure this is what the Hindu and Buddhist people argued about forever.

[Adamq8]

17 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

The I character is bollocks... It's not there. The appearing thought is what is appearing. There is no self entity thinking about it. It doesn't NEED to be observed, it doesn't need you. It already doesn't have a you.

If a self entity was actually some permanent and existent thing, how is it possible for it to actually completely 100% go away, even for a split second? It shouldn't be possible if that were the case.

That is certainly a experientially truth in what you are saying, would you be open to the thought that, there is something deeper that is yet to be awakened?

 

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Reality is WITHOUT A "YOU". Only the appearance of a thought/idea/sense that there is one. Which can very literally stop appearing completely... Yet many appearances can remain in its absence...

The sense of spatial dimension is why the you even exists so easily. It has a nice little space to craft itself in. It's not even just causing the idea of reality being external. Reality is what is, the you is fictitious.

I am quite sure this is what the Hindu and Buddhist people argued about forever.

I get it.  God is prior to realizing it is God.  That is all you say here and it is correct.   You can be without identifying as being.   But this doesn't negate what you are.

[RMQualtrough]

Just now, Adamq8 said:

That is certainly a experientially truth in what you are saying, would you be open to the thought that, there is something deeper that is yet to be awakened?

I'm not sure it is possible, for the reason that there is then nothing to awaken. Like neo-advaita speak... Which is considered useless communication, but maybe it wouldn't be if the people using it weren't just arrogant pricks with extreme spiritual ego? If they spoke that way with the intention of the person understanding the words..... Hm.

[Sincerity]

4 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

You will never find such a thing as an "I", it's imaginary. It is all built on multiple ideas like, for ex, "I" am "here" seeing a plant which is "over there". The plant is not in actual fact being viewed, the plant is the tape measure block, it's what's already there. "You" is an imaginary "passenger" created around a coil of ego, which positions itself at the imaginary point of "here" when reality comes with a SENSE of being "over there".

I'd just propose that you can discover a Universal, Absolute, INFINITE I. Which turns out to be you, funnily enough.

The Absolute I is not limited by or built on these ideas and illusions you're describing.

You are the plant. And everything else too.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I'd just propose that you can discover a Universal, Absolute, INFINITE I. Which turns out to be you, funnily enough.

The Absolute I is not limited by or built on these ideas and illusions you're describing.

You are the plant. And everything else too.

The key that we realized from this thread is that you don't have to realize it to be it - and he is right there.  It doesn't change reality but at the same time it also doesn't change what you are. 

Reality is paradoxical.  

Edited September 18, 2022 by Inliytened1

[Adamq8]

24 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

I'm not sure it is possible, for the reason that there is then nothing to awaken. Like neo-advaita speak... Which is considered useless communication, but maybe it wouldn't be if the people using it weren't just arrogant pricks with extreme spiritual ego? If they spoke that way with the intention of the person understanding the words..... Hm.

Yeah I agree with you. 

Reality as it is, is impossible, it is way to radical.

Its a non happening dream, words are useless because words is a part of this.

But yet the absolute and the relative are one, no matter its nature, reality is creating ex nihilo moment to moment, the thing Leo says, that reality both existed forever and created itself from nothing simultanously, imagine that, everything that appears, is a thought in the mind of god, appearing suddenly and creates this.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Adamq8

[Breakingthewall]

The thing isn't so obvious. The I AM is behind the absolute void. You have to cross the real death to realize it. At the end it's the same i that is now, but now is relative. There is in and out. To realize the absolute I, where even the idea of out is impossible, you have to die, to immerse in the total emptiness 

 

[Sincerity]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

The key that we realized from this thread is that you don't have to realize it to be it - and he is right there.  It doesn't change reality but at the same time it also doesn't change what you are. 

Well yeah, but not realizing it is missing out I feel 

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The thing isn't so obvious. The I AM is behind the absolute void. You have to cross the real death to realize it. At the end it's the same i that is now, but now is relative. There is in and out. To realize the absolute I, where even the idea of out is impossible, you have to die, to immerse in the total emptiness 

 

You are beginning to sound like @Nahm ...hard to understand yet there is some logic behind the madness.     Please try to make your posts graspable by all.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Inliytened1

[RMQualtrough]

8 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I'd just propose that you can discover a Universal, Absolute, INFINITE I. Which turns out to be you, funnily enough.

The Absolute I is not limited by or built on these ideas and illusions you're describing.

You are the plant. And everything else too.

I believe you are describing DMT trip perspective shifts. That is the loss of center. That is why it feels infinite, because the sense of size and border is gone. Usually in sober states of being, the ego attaches itself to positions in the sensory space.

So for example even though the entirety of your sensory field is imaginary, the ego attaches itself only to the shape of the body appearing within it. So it feels like you end at your arms and that the wall and such is "outside".

When the ego loses the ability to do this, that is exactly what you and others are experiencing on DMT. It has nowhere to attach itself so loses border and just sort of leaks out and becomes totally malleable. So it extends to your ENTIRE sensory experience, and there is no perceived border. Hence infinite.

Do you see that is exactly what is happening when you breakthrough on DMT? That is not ego death, it is loss of center.

I don't believe there is an absolute I. I think all forms of I are tacked onto what is by default without one. Redness doesn't come packaged with an I. The I is the ego. The idea/thought of self that is appearing, is adding the I on as though it were more than an appearance but an actual entity sitting there either: Watching red, being red, or comingling with red.

What would happen if you lost the ability to perceive any sense of self? Since the sense of self is exactly that, it is a "sense". What is the self you perceive was fuckin' DELETED completely but somehow red was still there. Did you know that can happen? And then if the red can remain when there is zero perception of any self, I, life, person, how can any of those be said to be necessary components in anything? If red CAN appear without you, no matter how brief, it shouldn't be possible at all. If the you was in fact the alleged ground of reality.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

The I part isn't necessary.

You is I.