I’ve met nihilists before on my journey and had to listen to their semantic clap trap before. I have attained Satori and yes it was brill (I couldn’t feel the ground under my feet for 3 days) but that was years ago and I have felt no need to repeat the experience. It really has nothing to do with the price of potatoes - it doesn’t mean you can give up your day job and the rent will still get paid.

I am not my body my brain or anything material. The true I is eternal spirit (a spark from the Godhead) that is the I that lives eternally.

Now the real question is; are you going to live eternally with the Godhead?

You seem to be assuming that who I am should be identified with my subjective experience of who I am. I don't. While I think those experiences are a component of who I am, I also think that the objective physical correlates of those experiences is also part of who I am.

However, I don't see how this is relevant to the claim that the self doesn't exist. Whether you identify the self with a physical body and mind, or with only psychological factors, it still seems like I exist.

Independent of what? I am not arguing for the claim that there is a self independent of my body or experiences. I don't believe in mental substances. Here's the problem. If you reject the idea that the self can be exhaustively defined by your subjective experiences, then Gorodeckyj's claim that the self doesn't exist because it isn't part of our phenomenological experience of our mind fails.

It seems to me that, contrary to what Gorodeckyj said, what is really going on here is a rejection of an immaterial soul. I agree with that critique--I just don't think that is the only account of the self on offer.

Well, I think most people's believes here are wrong as well. However, I don't think they are wrong to believe that the self exists, rather I think they are wrong to believe that the self should be identified with an immaterial substance.

Basically, it seems to me that Gorodeckyj is telling us to look within and see if we experience the self--understood as an immaterial soul. When we do this, we find no experience of a soul--all we have are thoughts, feelings, desires, pains, memories, etc. So, on this account of the self, and presupposing some basic empiricism, we should reject the existence of the self.

However, if you understand the self as I do, as a collection of thoughts, feelings, desires, memories, etc., grounded in a physical body, when we "look within" we find that the self does exist. I experience my body, I think/feel my thoughts and feelings.

Moreover, even if you reject my view and think that the self should be identified solely with our subjective experiences, I still don't think we have adequate reason on this basis to claim that the self doesn't exist. Sure, now its existence over time doesn't consist in its being the same substance over time. But there are non-substantial accounts of the self that must then also be dealt with (such as Locke's relational account of the self).

I think the goal here is to promote a feeling of happiness and peace by helping people to accept what they cannot control. I don't have a problem with that goal. I just disagree with his claim that we discover by looking within us that we don't exist. Furthermore, since I don't think that the effectiveness of meditation in achieving this goal depends on accepting this claim about the self, I don't yet see a good reason to accept it.

It's true there is an illusion of "I" in the sense of, "I tell my brain and body what to do." There is no "you" that is separate from your brain, directing your brain. There is only the brain. That doesn't mean that there isn't an actual experience of self as an emergent property of this brain, though.

Seems to me OP is just saying that the concept of "you" doesn't exist as a physical entity, but the same could be said of any abstract idea. It's still a term for something that's "real."

sorry to keep butting in on the OP, but having PMd him we are pretty much on the same level.
the issue is that people here already know there is no physical entity, i.e. 'you' dont exist, as in , a ghost doesnt exist, a spirit doesnt exist, a controller doesnt exist.

BUT, and I feel I may come across very assuming here, and almost arrogant (and yes I know thats just giving people amo for their next reply), BUT, most people are constantly trying to protect an ego,even nice friendly confident open likeable people. Its basically a confusion between whats real and whats not is what is being discussed here. I THINK that the confusion lies in the fact that every knows that there is no entitiy controller,alot of people will say they know this, but they will then go on and carry out their lives behaving and like you even said, experiencing, this self.

What im trying to say is, that this is the bit that can be cracked. and then the confusion ends.
May I give an analogy?

Do you know someone with an erratic , unexplainable fear of harmless spiders. Now can you imagine you went up to them and told them that domestic spiders are harmless. They would agree with you, completely 100%,Yet the deep inner belief carries on.

This is kinda what Im getting at, but level with me if you really think im talking absolute Bulls!it.

The people that tend to crack this are people that say , "yea I know the self isnt real, there is no self, just this body" yet will admit that there is an experience of this self. Just like you put it there.

Its this experience that you then go on to crack.

I am the author of this post. You are the author of the post I am replying to. I and you both have to exist for these two posts to exist.

my post above explains the confusion here, the body exists in real life. These bodies are typing these posts. But no more than that, thats his point.

Yes - you doesn´t exist.

No, YOU IS NOT TERM FOR ANYTHING REAL - that´s my point. That is all I am saying.

Right. You don´t control that.

Yes, there have been thoughts about typing letters on keyboard, but trought repetition, mind do things automatically. But still no you in that. Its not your mind either.

You don´t do anything.

About computer - yes, sort of. You are near. Think about this: when I know what food do you like, I will know exactly what food will you choose from every menu. Every decision can be seen like that. You choose what to do only becouse your past experiences. If I would have all your experiences, I would decide every decision same like you. If I would know you perfectly, I would know all your decision, before you will make them. I will know what you will choose in every situation. So the question is: Are there any decisions at all?

Are you trying to say that what I think of as 'myself' doesn't exist, in that the thing I call myself is just a thought in my brain?

I know that my brain is just wired to have a sense of 'self' in order to survive, and this sense of self will cease to exist once my brain stops working.

Is this what you are getting at?

CLICK

Does it? That sense is just a feeling as a result of a deep belief that its real.
So what we're talking about is breaking open that belief. And truly genuinely seeing its not real.
Now please dont get me wrong, I know you know fully and conceptually understand that its just a thought, but its the belief thats dug deep (probably caused by a lifetime of affirmations...(I,you,me, self, and possibly human intelligence and a need to justify the origin of thought)
Its possible you may accuse me of assumptions here, I dont know, but I get the feeling you know what the OPs talking about now.

That 'sense' can cease to exist once you see that 'you' are only an illusion, not the body, not the brain, not guts, blood , limbs, whatever, but the you.
Does does mean life goes on? Of course! why? Causethe self is just an illusion, its not real, just a thought.
It never was real, so theres no reason why life cant continue to be enjoyed. Like Superman is an illusion. He is a fictional character that can be seen on TV, but Superman himself is not actually real.

Just a rehash of the mind-body problem? It seems there is more to it, like an exercise in grammar or something.

Not really sure what you mean there . Could you elaborate? Cheers

It seems like, if I don't exist, then I (despite my nonexistence) must find some other way than "I" to refer to my (nonexistent) self, possibly in the third person given that self-reference is impossible if I don't exist.

Well you see there is no issues with using the word I, I guess if you really wanted to be perfectly ridiculously clear about it, you write out a response in word and replace every I with "the body that is currently typing this".

But thats not needed imo. Language is a useful tool. Unfortunately it seems language is what has driven home this sense of self,

I would imagine that babies live in the moment, I doubt they cross reference or interpret things through the self, I would imagine what they see is simply direct experience, no interpretation.
As months and years progress and as they have a name, and they are constantly referred to as 'you', and 'yourself', and they instantly understand that that means 'this body', I would presume that this over time is enough to create a strong sense of individuality for the rest of their life, and as a result, an ego.
Now tbh, I actually dont know the cause, I really dont thats just a theory, perhaps another theory is that we our so intelligent that we need to find an answer to everything, and if we cannot then we must create one. As thoughts pop in and out of the brain you are convinced that 'you' are creating them. Now not all the time, from time to time you will admit 'damn I cant stop thinking about that' or whatever, but on the grand scheme of things, people generally believe they have control over thoughts.

Heres another blog, there are a few experiments in this one, this one is experiment 1, but if you look you will see links at the top for exp 2, exp 3 etc.
http://ghostvirus2011.blogspot.com/p...iment-no1.html

If anyone is genuinely interested in this stuff let us know, there are other links too, this concept isnt new (especially not in philosophy or buddhism), but I think there are new techniques alright.

This whole enlightenment thing needs to be taken right out of the spiritual and philosophical realm and more into a scientific and practical thing.

This is the mind-body problem again. People are not referring to their body as an object with the word "I" in all cases. Sometimes they mean themselves as a subject or their subjective consciousness distinct from their physical selves.

Unless someone suffers a psychological disorder, there is no way to get rid off of 'I'.
But there exists an 'I' behind this 'I'. The 'I' behind this 'I' is called in the world after: 'hell'.
Religions try to show you how to get rid of the 'I' behind the 'I'.
Without the 'I' behind the 'I' those people would never celebrate their wedding like this. Why they wouldn't? While there are so many people in the world who are in love and cannot marry cause they lack of money, or cause their culture or social environment (often times religious doctrines) doesn't allow it, or cause their partner did die one day before the wedding or whatever else, how could someone ever celebrate a wedding like this without the 'I' behind the 'I' and break the hearts of so many people? Someone who did get rid of the 'I' behind the 'I', if you would give him the power of the two worlds, he wouldn't do it. Therefore millions of people , after thousends of years did pass, still praise Buddha, Jesus , Mohammad and alike.
But why is the 'I' behind the 'I' ignorant and doesn't care and celebrates a wedding like this? Because it knows that its existence is an illusion and therefore very vulnerable and at the end it will disappear.
Now why 'does' this 'I' behind the 'I' needs to celebrate a wedding like this? Cause it almost always, in any of us, tries to hide its leaks. We want to be succesful poker players, basketballers, scientists, economists, artists.....etc (we want to have a home, a wife, children, job, cars...). All of this only because we want to hide our leaks in front of the eyes of others. We know about how vulnerable this 'I' is especially in the light of an upcoming and inevitable death and this produces 'Angst'.
"To get rid of the 'I' behind the 'I' which produces Angst and suffer, some people like Moses go in to the mountains, or like Jesus in to desert or like Mohammad in to a cave, they are driven in to those places because their love to god has become overwhelming. They tell to themselves either I get rid of the 'I' behind the 'I' or I die. I haven't anything to lose, cause eventually I will die." (= spiritual enlightenment).
And some other people go to an Armani shop, or buy a rolex or a rolce royce. But the leaks of these people will be exposed after they die and they will have to leave with those leaks: Welcome to hell.

I've claimed enlightenment recently. Is it sustainable? Hasn't been for me. I blame variance. After all, I have no control over my actions anyway. (lol)

...let alone the actions of the other almost-7 billions (and all the other stuff our world is made of).

This whole "enlightenment" thing has been hijacked and raped by Goa-party survivors and wannabe-gurus with too much time on their hands.

Put their babies in dark water tanks, deprive them of all sensory inputs and don't feed them - you guess how many of them will "grow up" to develop some of that New New Age "mystical" nonsense.

"Enlightenment" meant not being prone to attacks on your intellect by religious dogma, superstition and being immune to the feelings associated with societal status, while being curious about what "holds the world together" and makes it work the way it does.

Now it's some invincible, immortal ghosts and spirits scenario, being in your head all your life, dying, then traversing the clouds of candy in a parallel Universe made of sugarcoated thoughts of giggling elves. I don't know. Seems like a waste of time and just a "Religious Mystical Bull**** Theater 21st Century Remix".

So many of these "enlightened" individuals in this world, with mental superpowers and stuff; somehow they contribute NOTHING to society.
You'd think they'd have solved all these little problems (little, compared to the grander scheme of thoughts that go on in their heads every day), but somehow the worst they can do is bug you with their "mental" diarrhea (or invent some sunlight-diet and tell you stories about their visits to the Otherworlds) and the best? Start a cult/religion and have sex, walk around in fancy robes in their mansions and tell their confused/ignorant followers to work/pay/steal/die for the cause of their "holy (spiritual) father's" ego-less ............ego.

Or you can stop feeding your ego, by pretending to understand it (unlike the not "enlightened" mortals) and sing this song by Bobby McFarrin, who summed it up in one line that he stole from Meher Baba: "don't worry, be happy".

^^^ Quality post and I completely 100% stand by this, even that word is offputting to normal regular joe soaps. Despite the fact that ANYBODY is capable of simply looking at this. You dont have to attend satsangs and meditate for 30 years to become 'enlightened' or awake or whatever.

BUT I think you can one further than what you said here.

Look to see the ego isnt even real, its just a thought or illusion. Actually look, on a practical level, not in some philosophical spiritual level. Check if its true basically, thats all you have to do , and then you will hit the same spot as these "gurus".

Little example, imagine your car, ok , now there is a thought of a car in your head, is there ACTUALLY a car in your head? No, can you go outside and confirm that the thought is based on real experience yes. Look actually at your car. So there you have it, 2 things, the illusion of a car, and the actual car.

Now the ego, think about the ego. Now try and do something similar, try and check if the thought of the ego is based on anything real like the car was.

Don't worry be happy is much better than 'you don't exist.' Haha.

I came back to say didn't Bill Hicks say it more eloquently, 'Life is just a ride?'

I think enlightenment comes with mastery of the body. Avatar represents what it is to me. Radiant health.

^^^ It's very possible that clean living and a clear head are all the "enlightenment" you're ever going to find or need. Not a common pitch however since no one in a position to sell that message to the masses stands to gain by your freeing yourself like that.

Hicks was a smart man, plus comedians can get away with telling the truth, when it makes people laugh.

The Leiber & Stoller "Is that all there is?" performed by Peggy Lee is still my favorite in that whole "why so serious?"-department.
Especially the "I understand how the world works and that this life is all there is, but I won't make up any "alternative explanations" and I won't kill myself, cause I know death is the biggest disappointment"-climax. LOL So much rational, truth and atheist gunpowder in such a little, cute piece of music. lol

Why do I need to try to become enlightened?

If what you say is true, I can ignore this and when I die, it will become immediately obvious that everything was an illusion?

Correct? Why not enjoy the illusion while it lasts?

Gorodeckyj and adecleir want to convince us that the self/ego/I doesn't exist, because they think if we realize this we'll become happier. That's a nice goal to have. Unfortunately, their argument is mostly crap. Here's the process of reasoning:

"Think about what the self is.
Does that self exist?
If no, you're right! Here, now eat a cookie and be happy.

If yes, then you're not thinking about the self.
Now, imagine the self is something else. Does it exist?"
Wash and repeat.

It seems to me that instead if we want to be happy we should just ignore that stuff about the self not existing and go eat a cookie.