Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Lacewing]

The consciousness looking through these eyes does not believe itself to be the thoughts that project the ego/illusion of "roy dopson". Nor does it take the body to be self. This is a higher level of self Awareness than consciousness that takes itself to be the convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations.

Funny how "higher levels of awareness" can still be immersed in ego, despite denial. Perhaps it draws on an even greater ability toward delusion from those greater states of consciousness. Makes sense that more awareness and consciousness lead to more creative ability and craftiness. Considering this, might it be that the closer we claim to be to some kind of "real truth", the further we might actually be?

[seeds]

What is going on in this thread is people not letting go of their egos.

There is no "I" or "you". Those are your egos; not the real Self.

Says who? Who is the "your" in reference to, if there is no "I" or "you"? Does ego create/define "real Self" vs. "false Self"? Who/what makes up the ideas of these divisions, and why?

That which is looking through those eyes. Which is the same awareness that is looking through these eyes.
Same singular consciousness.

Is this so-called “same singular consciousness” actually conscious of itself (as in self-aware)?

Or is it more like some kind of nebulous cloud of the essence of life?

Furthermore, would this “same singular consciousness” still exist if the physical phenomena of the universe did not exist?

In an alternate thread you stated the following:

This realm is not fundamental reality and "your name here" is not true self.

If that is so, then in what form and context does the “true self” exist?

In other words (and without using vague terminology), please describe the literal features of the “true” self and that of the ultimate context in which the true self resides.

In that alternate thread, you also stated this:

Ultimately, we have to give up our life at death...

Is that what you would say to comfort a child with a terminal illness who asks you “what’s going to happen to me when I die”?

I bring that up quite often because the promoters of nihilistic philosophies such as the one you are pushing...

(i.e., philosophies that insist that the human self/soul is destined for eternal oblivion at the moment of physical death)

...never seem to realize or consider how utterly useless their theories are to humans in the darkest and most frightening moments of their existence.
_______

[roydop]

Is this so-called “same singular consciousness” actually conscious of itself (as in self-aware)?

Humans have the capability to be absolutely self aware, which means we know we exist in and of ourselves, but we still have our awareness "outward" on thoughts and sensations. Absolutely self-aware humans have been called "Enlightened."

Furthermore, would this “same singular consciousness” still exist if the physical phenomena of the universe did not exist?

Yes. The world disappears during dreamless sleep but you still exist. The death state is simply a larger cycle of the same state.

If that is so, then in what form and context does the “true self” exist?

True self is the context. However, as the Tao Te Ching says, this Absolute (requiring nothing relative to it for it's existence) state is completely indescribable. That being said, the qualities I find to be synonymous with true self are: perfect contentment, timelessness, absolute happiness.

Is that what you would say to comfort a child with a terminal illness who asks you “what’s going to happen to me when I die”?

I bring that up quite often because the promoters of nihilistic philosophies such as the one you are pushing...

(i.e., philosophies that insist that the human self/soul is destined for eternal oblivion at the moment of physical death)

...never seem to realize or consider how utterly useless their theories are to humans in the darkest and most frightening moments of their existence.

I would tell that child that nothing will happen to them when the body dies because they are not the body. The world arises and passes within you, not the other way around. You see, all of humanity has an inverted view of reality. THIS realm is what is empty. Isn't that becoming increasingly obvious? Look at our species. Why are we acting the way we are? It's because we have misinterpreted the physical realm to be fundamental reality and instead of investigating ourselves and our minds, we keep adding more and more experiences thinking that some day this will satisfy.

I find the statement: "...never seem to realize or consider how utterly useless their theories are to humans in the darkest and most frightening moments of their existence." hilarious. I'm trying to show you the way to end all suffering in your life, including fear of death, and you see this information as "utterly useless." The way it is useless is if you ignore the message and don't do the work/practice.

[Age]

What is going on in this thread is people not letting go of their egos.

There is no "I" or "you". [/quote]

So, who/what is communicating back and forth with each other then?

Those are your egos; not the real Self.

"YOU" have said that the 'real Self' is NOT "you" nor "I", so then Who/What is the 'real Self' then?

And, how many 'real Selves' are there?

And, of those 'real Self/ves' how many egos does it/do they have?

If these are 'egos' communicating back and forth with each, then how many 'egos' are there to one human body?

All of these are very SIMPLE straightforward and EASY questions to answer, if you really KNOW what you are talking about.

[roydop]

What is going on in this thread is people not letting go of their egos.

There is no "I" or "you".

So, who/what is communicating back and forth with each other then?

Those are your egos; not the real Self.

"YOU" have said that the 'real Self' is NOT "you" nor "I", so then Who/What is the 'real Self' then?

And, how many 'real Selves' are there?

And, of those 'real Self/ves' how many egos does it/do they have?

If these are 'egos' communicating back and forth with each, then how many 'egos' are there to one human body?

All of these are very SIMPLE straightforward and EASY questions to answer, if you really KNOW what you are talking about.
[/quote]

Dive deeply into the space between thoughts. The conclusion to questions is there.

[Age]

Have there been times in your life when you thought you knew something, only to realize later that you didn't? How is it different now?

BEFORE you ask a second question, immediately after your first question, and the second question is based upon an answer which you PRESUME i will give to the first question I suggest that you, instead, wait for my reply to the first question FIRST. That way things do NOT get twisted, distorted, nor go astray.

I'm trying to save time.

This kind of "saving time" however will NEVER allow the actual Truth from another human being to come to light.

You answered easily enough below.

So, are you now able to SEE the clear distinction between what I do 'now' compared to what was happening to me 'before'? Or, by just quoting only that that you have here allowed you to miss, disregard, or just not care about what else I wrote with this?

As I explained, what I wrote below use to happen, that is up to a few years ago.

there were times I thought I knew some thing, AND believed them to be true, only to realize later that they were NOT true.

Since then, I have NEVER "thought" I knew some thing. I either KNOW some thing or I do NOT. If I do NOT know some thing, then I only THINK some thing.

Uh huh. You are saying you know the difference between knowing and thinking...

I would NOT say it like that. I would say; I now have a PERCEPTION/VIEW of the two words 'knowing' and 'thinking' and define them in particular ways and differently, and so now use those two words in particular ways and differently.

I would also say; I 'know' of A difference between the two words, which I can illustrate and SHOW using a dictionary, but I would NOT say I know THE difference. The word 'the' implies one of. If I was to imply that, the I am implying that there is only ONE FACT, also. There are many different perceptions/views of just about ALL things, so to imply/infer that I know 'the' difference is to NOT acknowledge that many people have many different perceptions/views of what 'the' difference between 'knowing' and 'thinking' is.

and that when you "know", you really know, and it's not because you think it.

If you had changed the 'the' word to the word 'a', and we discussed the definition and meaning behind that definition for the 'really' word, then I could agree wholeheartedly with your statement here.

But without the full knowledge of how you define words and without knowing the full meaning that you put behind those definitions and behind the sentence in a whole, then I might not agree with your statement.

just about EVERY thing that I now say is just how I VIEW or THINK things are.

Of the things you say, what percentage would you say is what you know, and what percentage is just how you view or think?

If we WANT to LOOK AT this from the actual and real 'Truth of things' level, then the only thing I could possibly ever 'really' KNOW, are the thoughts within this head. EVERY word that is expressed under this username is just one of those thoughts, and each 'thought' is just a 'view' in and of itself gained along the way, since this body came into existence. Every view literally becomes a thought. Each and every thought/view expressed under this username could be WRONG or partly WRONG. Of the words that are expressed under this username 100% come from a 'thought', and a 'thought' ultimately is literally just thinking. So, 100% of what is said here under this username is just a view, or a thought.

But, if we WANT to LOOK AT this at a more just 'what is true from the human perspective' level i would be unable to tell you now what percentage of what i have said in the past is what i know from what i view or think. (i could not be bothered going back through all of it.) However, and on first thought, moving forward I might be able to express what is 'known' and what is just a 'view or thought' with each sentence/statement expressed from now on. If that is what you would like, we could try it?

But even if I were to state that I KNOW some thing, for sure, I would still NEVER "believe" it is true, right, and/or correct. I do NOT do this for the obvious reason that; If I were to BELIEVE any thing, then I am NOT fully and completely OPEN. And, only when one is FULLY and COMPLETELY OPEN is when thee Truth can be and IS SEEN.

Got it. If we take "belief" completely out of the equation, is there anything else that might distort/disrupt your "knowing"?

Yes. Absolutely EVERY thing that EVERY human being expresses MIGHT distort/disrupt "me". For example, the ears of this body continually hear words like; 'We need money to live', 'We need to work', 'You have to go to school', 'God created every thing', 'In the beginning', 'Children need discipline', 'You must dress a certain way', 'There is nothing that we can not agree on', 'We will never have peace in harmony here on earth', and countless other sayings that TRY TO do distort/disrupt My 'knowing'.

You wrote: "Now, do I acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs and assumptions, then the answer is no."

You are MISSING some words that I write.

I can NOT acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs, because I have NO beliefs, however, I can acknowledge my assumptions can cause distortions because I MAKE assumptions.

That's not what your sentence said -- so how is it that I'm missing words?

WHAT is NOT what my sentence said?

WHAT did my sentence say, which you now say it is not what it said.

The word that I THINK that you are missing IS 'beliefs'. You asked me;
Do I acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own 'beliefs' and assumptions? My answer is NO. Because I have NO beliefs whatsoever so I do NOT acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs. Besides the fact that I could NOT acknowledge YOUR question because of the very FACT that I do NOT have some thing that you are implying I have in your question, you have also asked your question based on an ASSUMPTION, which you THINK it true, so this, in and of itself, is helping to distort and/or NOT allowing you to SEE the very point that I am trying to make.

I will NOT acknowledge what I do NOT have. Just like if the 'park over there', for example, had NO trees whatsoever, then I would NOT acknowledge that that park had trees. If I do NOT have beliefs, then I can NOT acknowledge that some thing happens because of non-existent beliefs.

Now, this is from MY perspective/view, which as expressed many times already, could be WRONG or partly WRONG. Either you are missing my point because you have missed that I do NOT acknowledge the distortion caused by my own 'beliefs' for the very fact that I do NOT have beliefs. Or, you are the missing my point for some other reason.

If it's all so simple (as you've said), why isn't it?

Why things are NOT simple to human beings is simply because human beings grow up BELIEVING and ASSUMING that they already KNOW 'what is right and true', which they obviously do NOT yet know because some, and collectively they, are continually LOOKING for what is Right and True.

I suggest it's because of the convoluted definitions and ideas that humans (including you) create.

I agree wholeheartedly up to a certain point. That point is NO one has heard ALL of my definitions nor ideas YET.

(Again that is NOT to say that what I want to say is even close to be true or right at all. In fact absolutely EVERY thing I say could be completely and utterly, or partly, WRONG and/or FALSE. But until I learn how to communicate/express 'it' more succinctly and clearly WE will NEVER know.)

Are you saying that there is generally no sub-conscious or unconsciousness at work through you to suit yourself?

NO I am NOT saying that. As I just expressed if there sub-conscious or unconsciousness doing that, then I would be partly aware of it or not aware of it at all. The words 'sub-conscious' literally means part aware, and, the word 'unconscious' literally means unaware or non-aware.

I said if there was 'sub-conscious' at work that yes and no I would notice it. Meaning that I would partly notice it. I also said that I would NOT notice if I was 'unconsciously' doing it, meaning that if 'unconsciousness' was at work, then I would NOT notice it, obviously.

Did you NOT read what I wrote, NOT understand it, or read it and the subtleties of it triggered some thing and you to express the thoughts that you just did here, which on a more thorough LOOK will SHOW that you are asking me if I am saying what what was in direct contrast of what I actually said.

Really?

YES.

There is nothing you are trying to show?

Who said; "there is nothing that they are trying to show"?

To UNDERSTAND things, from another's perspective, then it really is best to read the actual words that they write down, and comprehend them from their perspective. This involves thorough OPEN clarifying questions.

LOOK AT what I wrote, and then what you THOUGHT I wrote, or meant. Can you SEE a difference?

Then what was the point of you saying the subtleties of what you say becoming more apparent as time goes on?

Just to explain (maybe to future readers?) that the subtleties of what they can OBVIOUSLY SEE now, where NOT so obvious to "others", when this was written.

Assumptions are a natural part of being human (it seems!),

Agree up to a certain point.

and interpretations vary widely -- some say "there are as many as there are people".

Agree wholeheartedly. In fact I have one of them that say this.

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that.

Who said that there was anything wrong with 'interpretations vary widely'?

I, for one, would NEVER even suggest such a thing. I, however, would suggest that making ASSUMPTIONS can cause to confusion and lead to having distorted and/or wrong views, which is obviously proven to be the case in this forum.

I find it interesting when people claim that there are ultimate truths for all to agree on, and it seems that such a thing is said by those who claim to KNOW such ultimate truths.

I KNOW this. You have expressed this many upon many times so far. WHY you clearly express it repeatedly when having discussions with me I find interesting.

What you miss, or forget to become aware of, IS; Do ALL the people claim what you THINK they are claiming? Without Truly OPEN clarifying questions, you are just ASSUMING that is the case.

As I have pointed out before, unsuccessfully?, is that I am NOT doing what you ASSUME I am doing. I am NOT claiming that there are ultimate truths for all to agree on. Even though I have said this a few times already, in different ways, this just seems to get by passed, missed, or ignored.

Why is that necessary?

How do YOU define 'necessary'?[/quote]

IT is NOT necessary, to me.

Is something "wrong"?

In regards to WHAT exactly?

Absolutely EVERY thing is PERFECT, to Me.

Are you speaking of what is real and true FOR YOU at this moment or state in time/space?

Yes.

Okay great. So, that is 'what is real and true, TO YOU'.

Do you think that "others" are allowed to also speak of 'what is real and true, to THEM'?

In my experience, change and movement seem to be organic across levels and spectrum. I'm dancing in it. I don't think there's a particular spot to land on, or place to go. I don't think I am anything in particular either. I'm guessing that it's ALL energy in movement.

You have informed us of this before, on a few occasions already.

Do you think that there is some thing 'wrong', and/or that what you THINK is 'right', and that it is therefore necessary for "others" to be made aware of these?

The 'Me' that says It KNOWS what is real and true might just be the 'Me' inside of 'you', but unfortunately 'you' are blocking from SEEING this because of those past experiences, which you base your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS on, from which you make up truth from.

Not sure what you're suggesting.

Fair enough.

I think your own assumptions and beliefs are revealing themselves.

If you are going to use the word 'beliefs' in reference to 'me', then SHOW what the 'belief' is, which you, yourself, THINK you SEE.

There is probably no separation. I'm at peace with that. I can be happy playing without knowing. I don't feel a need for hierarchies.

That is good that you are somewhat able to see that there is no separation. I am glad you are at peace. I am glad you are happy playing without knowing. However, you appear to have a very strong NEED of portraying that you are happy without knowing, yet you appear unhappy when "others" say they do things differently.

I wonder if this apparent NEED is in some sort of list of hierarchies?

You do NOT appear to be really happy unless you make it KNOWN to "others" that there is NO truth, which we ALL agree on.

If you are Truly HAPPY, at peace, and like to just play and fun, then that is great. Just do that.

If you find what "others" say INTERESTING, then if I was you I would just play with them, instead of coming across as though you do do NOT like it. Why do you NOT play with them and prove that they are WRONG? Would that not make you happy?

Just for your information this is NOT even a tiny fraction of what else there is that I want to say and SHOW.

I thought you said earlier there is NOTHING you want to show?

This is my very point when I said; You are MISSING some words that I write.

I wrote: There is NOTHING that I have that I want to show or prove 'HERE', so there is NOTHING to suit myself nor align myself to.

Can you SEE the word 'HERE'?

What does that MEAN to you?

Am I providing good examples and evidence to you?

NOT at all.

Just maybe what is happening here now is that you are providing some examples of what I have been saying, that is; You are MISSING some words that I write.

Perhaps you are more unconscious than you realize.

Maybe. Maybe NOT.

If we are take the word 'unconscious' and relate it to unaware, and you do not think that 'you' are any thing in particular, whereas I say I am aware of exactly who and what the 'you' is and Who and What the 'I' is in relation to the question 'Who am 'I'?', then some might say that one of "us" is more unconscious than the another one is.

what it is in agreement, is what IS True, Right, and/or Correct.

So a vast expanse of infinite possibility is wrong?

I am unsure of what you are inferring/asking here.

Is "truth" some kind of static state?

NO.

A state to be "reached" and "known"?

A Truth state is NOT some thing that HAS TO be REACHED or KNOWN. But, some people are searching for It.

CAN it be reached and known? Is it moving or evolving?

Both answers would depend on knowing what the 'it' is, which you are referring to here, first.

the 'purpose' might be so that 'I' can live can create a far better Life then the one that exists now on earth.

Why does that require any particular path or knowing or agreement among all, at all?

Do you find creating things, among and by people, when people are in disagreement easier or harder than when they are in agreement?

Let us just say that by following some path, let us call it a path of being Truly Honest and Open with one another (and NOT the false honesty and openness that ALL adults portray), and during that time people started coming across some knowledge, which they realize was just actually unconsciously KNOWN knowledge, but that had never been taught/expressed before and that had actually been within them always, and surprisingly which also happened to coincide with the EXACT SAME knowledge that EVERY one else had ALL also. Do you THINK that that would help or hinder human beings in progressing and moving forward, in a direction that they ALL now want to go anyway?

[Age]

What is going on in this thread is people not letting go of their egos.

There is no "I" or "you".

So, who/what is communicating back and forth with each other then?

Those are your egos; not the real Self.

"YOU" have said that the 'real Self' is NOT "you" nor "I", so then Who/What is the 'real Self' then?

And, how many 'real Selves' are there?

And, of those 'real Self/ves' how many egos does it/do they have?

If these are 'egos' communicating back and forth with each, then how many 'egos' are there to one human body?

All of these are very SIMPLE straightforward and EASY questions to answer, if you really KNOW what you are talking about.

Dive deeply into the space between thoughts. The conclusion to questions is there.

Okay, I have arrived at THEE conclusion.

Now WHY did you NOT provide a different answer to each different question?

If you want to express things as though you KNOW what the True answers are, then I, for one, would love to SEE thee answers that the one labelled 'roydop' has arrived at and concluded.

[Age]

Says who? Who is the "your" in reference to, if there is no "I" or "you"? Does ego create/define "real Self" vs. "false Self"? Who/what makes up the ideas of these divisions, and why?

That which is looking through those eyes. Which is the same awareness that is looking through these eyes.
Same singular consciousness.

Although 'you' say the SAME 'awareness/consciousness' is looking through ALL of these "eyes", how come there are so many conflicting views?

The answer to that is a very simple and easy one.

[Age]

That which is looking through those eyes. Which is the same awareness that is looking through these eyes.
Same singular consciousness.

Then why say this...

There is no "I" or "you". Those are your egos; not the real Self.

Why use the word "your" if there is no "I" or "you"?

Why CREATE separateness by saying what is "real" and what is not?

Such inconsistent statements reveal an ego at work behind them.

Great point.

[Age]

That which is looking through those eyes. Which is the same awareness that is looking through these eyes.
Same singular consciousness.

Then why say this...

There is no "I" or "you". Those are your egos; not the real Self.

Why use the word "your" if there is no "I" or "you"?

Why CREATE separateness by saying what is "real" and what is not?

Such inconsistent statements reveal an ego at work behind them.

While one is playing a video game, they refer to their avatar as "Me" or "I" while simultaneously possessing the inherent intuition that that's not the "real" self. This is the state from which "I" use the same language. "I" just don't want to use "" each time words are expressed.

Does that one labelled "roydop" SEE the contradiction here?

If, "" just don't want to use "I" each time words are expressed, was written instead, then, to me, that would NOT be as anywhere as contradictory as it appears now.

The appearance of separation arises from mistaking the avatar/ego "your name here" to be true self.

Great point.

But can words be written under the label of "roydop" explaining exactly what the 'true self' IS?

[Age]

While one is playing a video game, they refer to their avatar as "Me" or "I" while simultaneously possessing the inherent intuition that that's not the "real" self. This is the state from which "I" use the same language. "I" just don't want to use "" each time words are expressed.

The appearance of separation arises from mistaking the avatar/ego "your name here" to be true self.

Of course. I'm asking about the state from which you identify others as being egos and not their true selves? You are talking AT people as if you are removed from that. In other words, you say "those are your egos" rather than saying "these are our egos". I'm trying to show how you are included.

Furthermore, how do we know what is real beyond our limited human ability?

This is very easy indeed. LOOK from the Truly OPEN Mind, instead of from the already gained thoughts within the brain, then what IS actually Real and True can be, and IS, SEEN.

For example, what does the one labelled "lacewing" think/believe is 'beyond human ability'? And, what do "you" mean by 'our limited' human ability?

We may THINK we know "beyond"... we may say we know "beyond"... but the avatar in the video game could say the same in their own constructed world of many, many levels!

They could ONLY say that IF the creator of them, which is a human being, gave them free will AND the ability to learn absolutely anything, or, if the human being made them say that. At the moment, of when this is written, an "avatar" only says what it is told/programmed to say.

[Age]

"Of course. I'm asking about the state from which you identify others as being egos and not their true selves? You are talking AT people as if you are removed from that. In other words, you say "those are your egos" rather than saying "these are our egos". I'm trying to show how you are included"

The consciousness looking through these eyes does not believe itself to be the thoughts that project the ego/illusion of "roy dopson".

When "roydop" writes words like; The consciousness .... does not believe ITSELF to be ..., and, IF, as "you" say there is NO "you" nor "I", then WHY it is being proposed that 'consciousness' has a concept of IT's Self?

If A thing has a concept of 'It' being a Self, then would that not be in relation to an 'I'?

(which by the way if an 'I' SAW "it's self" as a separate identity to another, then there would be a relationship to a "you"). But that is another topic of discussion. For now, how does "roydop" explain the Self-reference to what the 'consciousness', itself, believes or does not believe?

By the way, Consciousness neither believes nor disbelieves any thing. It does NOT have to.

Also, does any thing 'believe itself' to be the thoughts that project the ego/illusion of "roy dopson"?

If yes, then what is 'that' thing?
If no, then why say that consciousness does not do this?

If the fact is that no thing does this, then obviously consciousness could not nor would not also.

Nor does it take the body to be self.

Does consciousness take any thing to be self?

This is a higher level of self Awareness than consciousness that takes itself to be the convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations.

So, "you" now say that there is a 'higher level of self Awareness than consciousness'. Care to elaborate?

How can a 'level of self Awareness', which "you" say is the convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations, be 'higher' than consciousness?

"Furthermore, how do we know what is real beyond our limited human ability? We may THINK we know "beyond"... we may say we know "beyond"... but the avatar in the video game could say the same in their own constructed world of many, many levels!"

The understanding is experiential, not intellectual. I know what I really am because I have transcended thought.

Would that 'I', which not to long ago "you" proposed does NOT exist, care to share what 'it' really IS?

If the 'I' has transcended thought, then what did 'I', from the perspective of the one known as "roydop" here, find/discover?

Abiding in/as thought free Awareness, all is self evident, thusly no thoughts arise. [/quote]

Well that could sound like one very convoluted combination of thoughts to some.

If "you" (who/whatever that is) propose that there are NO thoughts arising in that head, where the one labelled "roydop" here, gets and writes the above words, then is that "one" aware of just how much Consciousness is actually laughing now.

If there is an actual adult human head, on a breathing, blood pumping human body, where thoughts do NOT arise, then 'I' would like to SEE that. Even while sleeping, thoughts arise within human bodies.

'I' totally agree that FREE Awareness, or being Truly OPEN, then EVERY thing is Self-evident, including Who and What the True Self actually IS. However, a non-thinking adult human being 'I' have not yet SEEN. Although this would liked to be argued against, as many thinking adult human beings, have said that they "know" some one who does NOT think at all, the Truth is actually different.

Consider: If thoughts are what are affirming thoughts to be correct (which one will recognize upon acute observation) then where would such a system lead?

EXACTLY to where human beings are right now, when this is written.

[Dontaskme]

There is no "I" or "you".

So, who/what is communicating back and forth with each other then?

"YOU" have said that the 'real Self' is NOT "you" nor "I", so then Who/What is the 'real Self' then?

I or SELF or YOU ...are relative concepts - anything relative is always within itself appearing as a point of reference to itself only.
Concepts are the voice of the voiceless. Images are the images of the imageless.

The concept ''ego'' is just an idea arising with the Everything and Nothing ...there is no separate individual ego existing or doing anything. All doing is one unitary action, in other words doing is done, but no doer thereof.


SELF is this immediate self-shining self-evident ever luminous ever-present NOTHING AND EVERYTHING.

Nothing and Everything is life living itself as one unitary action. Nothing in this unitary action is in relationship with something else, except as a thought - but even that thought is couched within the Nothing and Everything...so the thought ''I am doing and being'' is an illusion within the Nothing and Everything.
So in essence it is Nothing and Everything doing, living, being, conceptualising, and thinking.

When you try to point to the actual location of the individual SELF ...where is it? ...you'll see that is does not exist apart from the Nothing and Everything...it cannot be located to exist anywhere, there is no exact location of it, because it's just an idea, it's a thought, and thoughts are invisible... thoughts are actually invisible...and we all know this to be true.

So for anyone who wants to argue that there is an individual ''You'' aka ''Ego'' ... then all you are doing is identifying with something invisible.
Nothing and Everything has no concept or image of itself. Anything SEEN is a concept, but the seer has no concept, so to say well look here ''I am seeing'' ..that is still a concept within non-conceptual seeing..aka truth.

You cannot point to anything seen and say this is who ''I am''...because that then leaves the question what or who is pointing?

You are still left with the problem of who or what is seeing the seen. Auspicious seeing is when seer and seen are SEEN as the one unitary action of Everything and Nothing.

When this auspicious seeing is seen that Everything and Nothing is all there ever is, was, and ever will be, then that is the entrance into Nonduality...the true SELF.




.

[Dontaskme]

You are not an ego or a body, you do not have a head or a brain or a heart etc....these are all known conceptual images experienced via ''thought'' known by awareness which is invisible..this is who you are. No conceptually known thing has ever been seen or exists in and of itself separately from the knower, they are only KNOWN by the only knowing there is which is not a thing seen or known by any object....for the only knowing is conscious awareness invisible... this immediate unknown knowing.

This is so obvious, because if you try to point to the ''knower'' then all you can point to is a conceptual object, ..but you see, you cannot experience yourself as an object because you are the invisible awareness of the object...not the actual object.

That which died never lived, and that which lived never died. Awareness is neither alive nor dead...death and birth are mere illusory conceptual appearances within who you already are, is, and always will be.



.

[surreptitious57]

Consciousness cannot manifest itself through me when I am dead but only when I am alive
But life and death are merely different states : one of awareness and one of no awareness
I am looking forward to being free of suffering in the state of no awareness when it comes
This state will be an eternal one and it is the reason as to why I do not fear death anymore