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

[Razard86]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You cannot open another's mind.   But you can try ..like this guy. 

https://youtu.be/pbj4Te_guxY

 

Lol I will struggle to integrate the beauty of that scene.

[Breakingthewall]

The absolute is i. I am who I am. There is nothing but i. Reality is i. Existence is i. Nothing is outside i. "Outside" is an absurd. And you, the person who is thinking about it, is the i. The only

 

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Where is there an "I" in red? It's cope...... Ego = I. Ego death = it's actually not there anymore.

"Atman" is just religious bull. It's literally just the Bible "soul" presented as something wiser.

Anatta.

No such thing as a self, or a Self. There is no character here. There's only an idea there is, generated in the space left by the sense of reality being at a distance in 3D space. Even if as 2D as you seeing a plane (Salvia).

You become God.  You become red.  Thus you ARE God.  Thus, you ARE red.  When we say I we are recontexualizing the meaning of I.  @amanen hit on it.  The key is identity.  When you become it you identify AS it.   This is implicit.   That's what we mean by I.  Not the ego although that is a form of I.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Inliytened1

[RMQualtrough]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

The absolute is i. I am who I am. There is nothing but i. Reality is i. Existence is i. Nothing is outside i. "Outside" is an absurd. And you, the person who is thinking about it, is the i. The only

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.

[Razard86]

4 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

 

There's only an idea 

^ What is an idea? Really ponder what that is. What is an idea....since you are so sure you got the illusion figured out....what is an idea?

[amanen]

3 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Where is there an "I" in red? It's cope...... Ego = I. Ego death = it's actually not there anymore.

"Atman" is just religious bull. It's literally just the Bible "soul" presented as something wiser.

Anatta.

No such thing as a self, or a Self. There is no character here. There's only an idea there is, generated in the space left by the sense of reality being at a distance in 3D space. Even if as 2D as you seeing a plane (Salvia).

There isn't an I in red. The red is the I. They are the same thing. The red is you. I'm not talking about someone watching the color red but about the color red itself. The I isn't a quality different from the color red, it is the same thing.

Well since even making it this clear you are not seeing it, I give up.

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, RMQualtrough said:

f 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.

When? Do you mean ego death? Without ego still you are. You always are there

[RMQualtrough]

Just now, Razard86 said:

^ What is an idea? Really ponder what that is. What is an idea....since you are so sure you got the illusion figured out....what is an idea?

Say a thought, a feeling... Sensation...

(Some sensations are weird, like the sense of distance. Because the sense of what 10 foot is can change to seem shorter or longer but there isn't a word for that alteration).

The added idea is that a thought can't be thought without a you. That there MUST be a thinker in order for a thought to be, or a see-er of red for redness to be. The for some reason difficulty of understanding that reality is made of redness and soundness and thought without seer, hearer, or thinker. That the redness and soundness and thought is the ONLY element present.

 

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, amanen said:

There isn't an I in red. The red is the I. They are the same thing. The red is you. I'm not talking about someone watching the color red but about the color red itself. The I isn't a quality different from the color red, it is the same thing.

Well since even making it this clear you are not seeing it, I give up.

I only recently started seeing your posts for some reason but all of your stuff has been right on the money.  Thank you for your contributions here.  And welcome since I never got a chance.  You are obviously one of the few here who has had legit enlightenment.    Hopefully you aren't @Michael Jackson who (I know was awake) has since vanished from the forum and is your only follower.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Inliytened1

[Razard86]

1 minute ago, RMQualtrough said:

The added idea is that a thought can't be thought without a you. 

 

^ Here we go.....now...why are you imagining a separation between thought....also...you said YOU. What is YOU? Remember...we only separate as pointers as tools, to point to source, but all that is not different from source....it is exactly the same as source.

So.....if there is a YOU that thought cannot be separated from.....then what is YOU and what is thought?

[RMQualtrough]

3 minutes ago, amanen said:

There isn't an I in red. The red is the I. They are the same thing. The red is you. I'm not talking about someone watching the color red but about the color red itself. The I isn't a quality different from the color red, it is the same thing.

Well since even making it this clear you are not seeing it, I give up.

Don't have even 1% clue what you're talking about, no. Just sounds like drug trip "ego replacement" which I know well, recontextualization of ego rather than ego death.

E.g. when you stop feeling your body and center, thus the you floods out (with nothing to attach itself to).

This is even there when the chunk of the ego is dead. AKA the story of you is dead (but the sense of a "viewer" is still happening).

I know what a drug breakthrough is like. That's like n,n-DMT.

[Razard86]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

I only recently started seeing your posts for some reason but all of your stuff has been right on the money.  Thank you for your contributions here.  And welcome since I never got a chance.  You are obviously one of the few here who has had legit enlightenment.   

Yes....you need to read his trip report....it was profound...one of the best I ever read. 

 

[amanen]

11 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I only recently started seeing your posts for some reason but all of your stuff has been right on the money.  Thank you for your contributions here.  And welcome since I never got a chance.  You are obviously one of the few here who has had legit enlightenment.    Hopefully you aren't @Michael Jackson who (I know was awake) has since vanished from the forum and is your only follower.

Thanks. I started some months ago, so I haven't been around for too long. I'm not @Michael Jackson, I'm from Finland.

Edited September 18, 2022 by amanen

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, RMQualtrough said:

This is even there when the chunk of the ego is dead. AKA the story of you is dead (but the sense of a "viewer" is still happening).

There is a next step, when there is not a viewer and a view, just the absolute. That is the i am. It's the infinity. 

 

[Razard86]

3 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Don't have even 1% clue what you're talking about, no. Just sounds like drug trip "ego replacement" which I know well, recontextualization of ego rather than ego death.

E.g. when you stop feeling your body and center, thus the you floods out (with nothing to attach itself to).

This is even there when the chunk of the ego is dead. AKA the story of you is dead (but the sense of a "viewer" is still happening).

I know what a drug breakthrough is like. That's like n,n-DMT.

What is the sense of a viewer? What is that?

[RMQualtrough]

1 minute ago, Razard86 said:

^ Here we go.....now...why are you imagining a separation between thought....also...you said YOU. What is YOU? Remember...we only separate as pointers as tools, to point to source, but all that is not different from source....it is exactly the same as source.

So.....if there is a YOU that thought cannot be separated from.....then what is YOU and what is thought?

Separation where? You don't even exist. You = a thought. It's not a real entity actually sitting there hanging out. So separation between the appearance and what?

The false idea of a you existing is also appearing. Like the red is. And there's no I having the thought of I, the thought of I doesn't have a thinker. The thought of I is what is appearing. There isn't an extra additional character.

Whatever difference between Atman and Anatta I am strenuously attempting to convey, I think I demonstrated well visually with the tape measure. Where the ego and "I" being (the thought of it) generates itself in an imagined 3D space, in a location imagined to be distant from the appearances swirling around.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, amanen said:

Thanks. I started some months ago, so I haven't been around for too long. I'm @Michael Jackson, I'm from Finland.

Thanks for your honesty.  I kinda had a feeling ? 

[RMQualtrough]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

There is a next step, when there is not a viewer and a view, just the absolute. That is the i am. It's the infinity. 

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.

[Breakingthewall]

@amanen

5 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

 

 

3 minutes ago, amanen said:

I'm @Michael Jackson, I'm from Finland.

Are you? I missed Michael!

[Razard86]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

Thanks for your honesty.  I kinda had a feeling ? 

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

2 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Separation where? You don't even exist. You = a thought. It's not a real entity actually sitting there hanging out. So separation between the appearance and what?

The false idea of a you existing is also appearing. Like the red is. And there's no I having the thought of I, the thought of I doesn't have a thinker. The thought of I is what is appearing. There isn't an extra additional character.

Whatever difference between Atman and Anatta I am strenuously attempting to convey, I think I demonstrated well visually with the tape measure. Where the ego and "I" being (the thought of it) generates itself in an imagined 3D space, in a location imagined to be distant from the appearances swirling around.

What is existing? What does it mean to exist?