No self/consciousness?

[Ewwerrin]

What is ment by it? No self, no consciousness.

Does it imply an inability to measure or define self/consciousness/other?

Or do they mean by it that there literally is no self and no awareness and no experience?

Cause I always think, if I am not aware, then how come I am experiencing stuff?

I can agree linguistically, that I dont exist, because my consciousness is not physical or measurable, but beyond linguistics, when asked how they respond to a question if they are not even aware of the question. Then they say "This is nothing appearantly happening. Nothing speaking. Nothing appearing as a response."

And again, I agree, it can be nothing in the sense that it cannot be defined. But isn't there any awareness of all these undefinable things? And even if no one and nothing exists. I still experience the appearance of all these undefinable and thus nothingness'.

And then they say, "you cant proof that you exist, not even to yourself."
But do I need to proof my awareness, if I am experiencing it myself?

I dont have a set unchanging identity, but I do have an ever evolving identity that is totally free.

I don't know how to interpret what people mean by "No self, no consciousness."
What is actually ment by it?

I mean, if asked further, they say "This has absolutely no meaning or purpose of any kind. Nothing has meaning or purpose or value."

And whenever something of seeming value is pointed out, they say that that is just an appearance. And I agree... We can believe whatever we want and it will be true. And they are free to choose for themselves what they want to believe or not. But even if they are literally aware of nothing. And they literally dont exist.

Are they then saying that I am the only one who exists? Cause religion does say that consciousness is singular. Or do they mean that even I don't exist.

Then again, who is experiencing this. Am I the only exception to non existence?

I just dont get it. It sounds more like a statement of absolute freedom and independence. Because that is how they emotionally communicate when referring to the absolute. They are expressing the absolute unlimitted joy and freedom of consciousness. And then they say there is no consciousness..

And I think, yeah consciousness is just a word. So you can say that. But what they mean sounds very different from what they are saying. And then to confuse things further, they say that there is no meaning. And I just take that to mean "you are free to create your own meaning." Cause otherwise they woulden't grin with absolute excitement when making that statement.

What do you think?

[Maisy]

I was pondering something similar a few days ago and wrote a lengthy post but I deleted it as it got too big. Some words to me don't fit their definitions. Like "mindfulness." To me what that "is" has nothing to do with being full of mind. Another term or word that is kind of non-sense to me is selfless. Who or what is the thing that is selfless? Well it's the self lol.

English as a language has a lot of problems I think. Being selfless I think has nothing to do with not having a self. It is about what that self is which can be a lot of different things. Think in terms of an open minded person verses a closed minded person. Very different "selves" there. To me the word "selfless" is referring to a particular kind of self. Open minded, loving, questions their own beliefs and thoughts, free of ego identification, not selfish or self centered etc. But we are a self and will be for eternity in my opinion.

It's these English words I think that are not well defined and have multiple definitions and meanings depending on the context and usage etc. In one usage consciousness means to be awake and alert. Like the EMT says, "this person is unconscious" (without consciousness present) and they try to revive them so they are conscious, with a consciousness present. Ancient Buddhist texts refer to consciousness as something we don't need to be enlightened. My reading of that stuff makes me think they basically used the word consciousness in place of the word ego. But then did that word even exist 2000 years ago? I don't know.

Just remember when someone says, "I am selfless" or "I am free of consciousness" someone is making that observation or claim. Who is that one? One can say it's the self or consciousness. A self or consciousness does not have to identifying with any of it's content in my opinion to be a self or consciousness. It can be empty and aware, and still be the self or the consciousness, that which is the perceiver, that which is aware.

[J_A_S_G]

From my perspective and experience it's the difference between reflection and Source, between "I am conscious" and Consciousness itself.

Since "I am conscious" is a reflection it cannot exist without Consciousness, however Consciousness exists even without the thought "I am conscious".

Another way I sometimes phrase it is it's the Extraordinary (Consciousness) masquerading as the ordinary (I am conscious). The Infinite masquerading as the finite. That's the veil.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

No self, no consciousness. Does it imply an inability to measure or define self/consciousness/other? Or do they mean by it that there literally is no self and no awareness and no experience?

Good questions. I don't have answers, unfortunately. It looks like this will be a very intriguing thread.

[AngelBlue]

For me it's simple.
Our "self" is not the life we live ,
No consciousness, is that our past lives are rubbed out of our memory as young children.

In "real " life we have both in our true pure being .

[Starman]

In my opinion, self consciousness is a reflection which allows us to have a sort of objectivity; its like looking in a mirror, we can point at ourselves and say “I exist.”

In non-duality there are no reflections, we exist as one, and therefore some may say we do not exist. But we do exist always, just not as an objective being, or an object which we can point to.

“I think therefore I am” refers to duality; there is thought and there is me, that is the dual nature of the human state of being. As long as there is duality there is an objective reality. Non-duality is totality and absolutely subjective. For me this is the difference.

To exist without words or thoughts, without this or that, without something outside of ourselves or inside of ourselves; no outside or inside. We are so used to living in a bulky human form, that has an outside and inside, with thoughts and emotions, along side seemingly other individual human forms with the same dynamics.

The very fine and subtle whisper like presence of spirit seems like non-existence when compared to the heaviness and bulkiness of having a human body. Our standard of existence has been influenced by our human state of being; mostly by our own mind.

Words developed for a three-dimensional dualistic existence can not accurately describe a non-dualistic one dimensional existence. In my opinion.

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Starman

In my opinion,...
... In my opinion.

Oh hey, I didn't see your reply.
Ty for sharing that. And yeah I totally agree.
That's also why I don't mind when people say "I don't exist." or "there is no you."

But beside that, it's still funny how the mind reacts to hearing that. And interesting too.
Like a giant conspiracy that "I have never existed. I didn't experience anything, ever..."
It's so open to endless possibilities. Like a blank canvas.

And funnily enough, the unlimitted freedom of consciousness works that way aswell. Like a permanent blank canvas. No amount of realities leave any impression. Nothing is impossible. Total absolute freedom. Ever expanding in resolution and realness. To all degrees of joy and preference. Expanding in ever greater allowed realisation of freedom.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

That's also why I don't mind when people say "I don't exist." or "there is no you."

But beside that, it's still funny how the mind reacts to hearing that.

Mind (read Ego) doesn't like to let go of what it believes it owns - Being. I am alive. I am conscious. I exist. I Am.

From the film 'Lucky' https://youtu.be/-IMNs8UtPk4

[Ewwerrin]

Thanks for the replies.

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

From my perspective...
... That's the veil.

Originally Posted by Maisy

I was pondering something...
... which is aware.

Now, when I read that, that makes total sense. I think it can most likely be a unique usage of language. Or an unorthodox way of communicating a conclusion of something that they don't have a satisfying word describe.
They do express audible excitement when saying "this is pure anarchy". They are most likely talking about the unlimitted freedom of Source Consciousness.
As maybe they don't have a word for the True Self, they simply say "its no self."
If a certain way of communicating works reasonably enough for them, why change it right?
But you know, I can never be 100% sure. So it's good to hear your perspective on it. Thanks.

Originally Posted by AngelBlue

For me it's simple. ...
... our true pure being .

Funny you say that. I actually wanted to make a topic about that very thing. How we lose or dont have memory of pre life. I think it might be that we are a limitted extension of our greater Source consciousness. Limitted on purpose, for the purpose of physical and specific focus. Like a self imposed limitation or veil for the purpose of specific and joyful focus.

But I also know that we are energy motionally, emotionally, inseperable, as physical/limitted extension, from our greater source consciousness and its greater knowing. Parents may teach children to deny their Source Consciousness. But when the child chooses to do so, it will never feel good. Even when thinking all those false ideas all the way to adulthood. Our emotions never lie to us. Can't run away from it. We simply cannot disconnect from our Source. And the obvious unconditional freedom of it.

The most important question would be, How much pain is enough? At what point does a person say, THIS IS ENOUGH. I WILL TAKE CHARGE OF MY OWN FREEDOM TO THINK WHATEVER I WANT TO THINK. TO FOCUS INTO PHYSICAL REALISATION WHATEVER I WANT. I AM ETERNALLY FREE, TO CREATE MY OWN REALITY. DEAL WITH IT...

Like a decleration of unconditional freedom.
And in a way, that is similar to what these nondual speakers are sharing.
They say "There is nothing and no one." as a decleration of unconditional freedom and joy.

That is kind of how I pivoted to this topic. Because emotionally it is very obvious what they are saying. They just have a deliberate unconventional usage of words. As they are not responsible for teaching anything to anybody. And everyone can feel their own emotions.

And since it is mostly a teaching beyond words, an emotional communication, people keep coming back. Because in the end, no matter how unconvential the words are they use, people can't deny the joyful resonance they feel when they themselves also come into focused alignment with their own unconditionally free and joyful unlimitted unbounded source consciousness. So I guess it doesn't matter what words or methods they use to help people get there. In a sense, it is more effective if the teacher teaches nothing. Because the whole point of the message is a decleration of your absolute freedom to literally focus into physical realisation any desired reality you so please.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

At what point does a person say, THIS IS ENOUGH.

That was a fun soaring post there for me!