There is No You.

Originally Posted by Gem

I was just sayin' and I don't see how it could actually be true, but I work on the following principle:

Even a clock that does not work is right twice a day. ~Polish Proverb

This is assuming it has hands. This assuming there is such a thing as time.

This is assuming that 'right' means something. And did you say this was a Polish Proverb?

In simple, understandable words, what is it that you are standing for and standing against? I have a basic idea, but am not clear about it. Spill the beans, bro.

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't imagine I aren't, it's just a postulate where what we really are is not experientially verifiable, like a tree is experientially verifiable, but what a tree 'really is' is not.

In all the claim there is no you is wholly reliant on first inventing a false definition then claiming the definition is not true, where experience of any thing only implies you are... but there is no really a tree like there is no really a you.

Some will call it a "false Definition".. some will see it as the use of language to convey the understanding of an experience.. different perceptions of the same situation..

Be well..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Lisa

This is assuming it has hands. This assuming there is such a thing as time.

This is assuming that 'right' means something. And did you say this was a Polish Proverb?

In simple, understandable words, what is it that you are standing for and standing against? I have a basic idea, but am not clear about it. Spill the beans, bro.

There is no for and against, and who would deem themself the bringer of truth, who spills the beans are definite and sure, and let interpretations be made, some in agreement others to tear me down, for the conclusion that there is a you is as fair and valid in the temporal sence and no you is in that of eternity where all context is removed, but as now is at hand this is what. The beans are only the magic things the gullible trade their now for and in the end, as they must, they cut the beanstalk down.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


Some will call it a "false Definition".. some will see it as the use of language to convey the understanding of an experience.. different perceptions of the same situation..

Be well..

There would be 7 billion ways of seeing if each pair of eyes were counted, but the cantonese could not convey anything to those who do not their language, yet I understand they see what is intrinsically the same thing as I do, but there is no one way of seeing what is one, so variety is the essence of ever satisfactory meals, and difference is in every morsel.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Gem

There is no for and against, and who would deem themself the bringer of truth, who spills the beans are definite and sure, and let interpretations be made, some in agreement others to tear me down, for the conclusion that there is a you is as fair and valid in the temporal sence and no you is in that of eternity where all context is removed, but as now is at hand this is what. The beans are only the magic things the gullible trade their now for and in the end, as they must, they cut the beanstalk down.

Context is experienced as real for as long as there is belief and self-awareness. To be human right now is to have a contextual experience. I think the potential is there to have a non-contextual experience though.

Duality and context are really the same thing. Non-duality and non-context are also the same thing.

[sound]

If there is no you then what on earth does that word you mean?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by andrew g

Context is experienced as real for as long as there is belief and self-awareness. To be human right now is to have a contextual experience. I think the potential is there to have a non-contextual experience though.

Duality and context are really the same thing. Non-duality and non-context are also the same thing.

Duality is void of context, but the fallacy that context can be derived from duality is vehnemently upheld because all theory and idealizm is reliant on it.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by sound

If there is no you then what on earth does that word you mean?

Thats a very very good point. The actuality of the word, the actuality OF self-awareness points to an individual consciousness (or a Self). Hybrid really did use a great metaphor when he spoke of the mirror reflection on your thread Kate. As I keep saying the problem is less with the idea of an individual consciousness, but with the need to believe in the truth of that idea.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Gem

Duality is void of context, but the fallacy that context can be derived from duality is vehnemently upheld because all theory and idealizm, is reliant on it, and the fundamental relationship prior to form but subsequent to thought are equally refuted for the same reason.

Context is about 'boundary' and Creation/duality/difference comes with boundary. Otherwise there would be no unique experiences happening. However, when we no longer 'believe', we have a non-contextual, non-dualistic, non-separate, non-different experience.

Are you still saying here that thought is prior to Creation?

[sound]

Yes I agree it was a great metaphor and even though I didn't comment on it over there I do appreciate it for what it is ...

yes the actuality of self [awareness] ...we find it extremely difficult, no make that 'seemingly' impossible, to disbelieve it all together ... while ever we are enjoying Its reality that is lol