I've done this and I've found that my conception of the ego is based on my thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. Since my thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. are real (i.e. I really have them, I don't have the illusion of having them), does that mean that the ego is real?

Again, the definition that is being attacked here is the one expressed within the visceral belief/intuition present in almost every human being. The content of that intuition isn't exactly defined as "immaterial soul", it simply says that I am right here and now, and that stuff happens to me, and that I do, think, see, smell, choose etc. There is no precise definition within that intuition, there is only this visceral, unreflected, intimate sense that I exist. Obviously you can define "self" as you wish, but I don't think that you can belittle the assertion "self doesn't exist" only because it doesn't address your definition of self. I think you have to respect the context.

No, we start out with the notion that if direct proof of self is anywhere to be found then it is within subjective experience. The understanding that self can't be found within subjective experience is a result of the investigation and not a previous assumption.

The challenge is to look within and investigate if there is something present that can be called "I". We usually understand that self can't be experienced directly, we look into the mirror and are able to say that the face we see is not the same as what we mean by "I", it may be a part of "I", but it's not "I". The next step is to see if we can at least indirectly experience self. For this we look at real life experience and investigate whether there is something that is initiating and causing anything to happen, be it thoughts, decisions or physical actions. It will be then seen that even the simplest actions, decisions and thoughts happen spontaneously and that no amount of willing is directly responsible for the arising of thoughts, choices, actions. Even willing itself arises spontaneously. Once seen that not only can the self never be directly experienced but also that there simply is no subjective operator, in other words, that even if there is a self then it is entirely impotent and imperceptible, the notion of there being a self collapses.

Happiness and peace are irrelevant in this. The goal is to simply see first-hand if there is a self to be found in actual real life experience. The effectiveness depends on the honest investigation of actual first-hand experience, not on accepting an intellectual claim.

As you say, many of us have some basic intuitions about who I am and so on. We try to make sense of these intuitions in various ways. One way we've tried to make sense of them is by positing an immaterial soul. I'm okay with you saying that doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that those inchoate feelings and intuitions don't exist, or are wrong, it just means that one way of making sense of them doesn't work.

The problem I have with the line taken by the OP is that it seems intellectually lazy to me. He argues in a way that seems (to me) meant to show that there is no immaterial soul, and then concludes on that basis that the basic intuitions and feelings about the existence of the self are false. But that doesn't follow. There are alternative accounts of the self that don't fall prey to his critique.

This seems to just restate what I said, so I must be missing something. My understanding of the argument is that it goes like this:

1) If the self exists, it is experienced as some sort of quality of subjective experience.
2) The self is not experienced as some sort of quality of subjective experience.
3) The self doesn't exist.

I'm not saying that you are assuming (2), but rather that you are assuming (1). This assumption rules out from the beginning any view of the self that identifies it with our bodies (as it rules out an understanding of the self as having objective features).

I don't know, this seems like a really poor test to me, based on the most simplistic kind of empiricism. If you want to know whether the self exists, what you should do instead is first have some idea of what it is you are looking for. If you don't it would be very easy to just miss an experience of the self.

Furthermore, by making your assumptions about the nature of the self clear, you can be less biased in your evaluation of the subjective evidence for the self. For instance, here it is apparent that you think that one of the features of the self is that it is supposed to be some kind of unmoved mover, that in some sense it is outside the causal framework of the world. However, that is not a feature common to all theories of the self. Instead, it is mostly characteristic of those who view the self as an immaterial substance--as a soul.

If instead you view the self as I do, as the collection of thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. and their objective correlates in my body, then there is no assumption that my actions or feelings are not determined. But we'll only realize this if instead of being vague about what we mean by the self, we make explicit what notions of the self we are investigating.

Here's the general point. My skepticism about this method of determining the existence of the self is that I think the "visceral, unreflected, intimate sense that I exist" is not some pre-theoretic idea or perception. Rather it is itself a way that our subjective experiences come to us already organized by our minds. This means that a simple empirical method of just "look and see" will be held hostage to how our mind works and the background sorting mechanisms of rationality. So if you want to say that the self doesn't exist, you have to have a basic idea of the self to evaluate.

In my view an honest investigation of such a question requires us to at least posit various intellectual claims.

Anything exists which you believe to exist. If you don't believe 'you' exist then you are defining 'you' in a manner to make this true (God also). 'I' can be my body (origon/0), or 'I' can be the universe (mind/1). I am clearly separate from my surroundings , unless I look from outside of myself (i.e through the eyes of another person or even from the moon), which is impossible to do, unless you believe you can. No matter what everything is 'bull ****' and everything is relative to your own observance.

OP do you accept duality or not? Because you seem to contradict yourself. To be able to look at yourself as seperate from where you are looking from is to admit duality. You can't look to see that you don't exist without existing in the first place. You just beleive there is no mirror, and this is the choice of will. As easily as you slipped into your delusion you can slip out of it, notice your pursuit of such (and preaching) was based upon a desire to do so also, more hypocrisy.

It is also obvious I exist because of Ki or chi. I can feel it when I tense my hand. I can feel it when I focus on another being, or the sun, or the 'empty' night sky.

TADAAA... YES!

No need to have sence of yourself in order to survive. In fact, sence of yourself doesn´t bring you anything good. Its pretty ugly and evil parasite.

I didn't find this groundbreaking at all... I have always known this

Once you see the truth you cannot unsee it. You will see it always. On the other hand it can be deepened to gain more peace and joy (like Eckhart Tolle did), but its up to you what you do with that.

There is big difference between understanding that (or knowing) and in actually really seeing that (when you see that, its called liberation or enlightenment). From understanding to seeing it could be long way.

there is no difference between knowledge and observance, everytihng you know you only know because you have observed it, so someone can;t know something without observing it first. I think the next thing for you to realise is that you are moving from one delusion to another delusion.. no matter what you are existing within an illusion created by the universal network of everything. And notice that 'within' ... self is finite, self is but a pixel on a screen. Mind within a mind.

Don´t worry be happy is the goal, which you cannot really get for long time when you belive that you exist. Or are you really happy and without worries for all your life? If so, congrats. You should definitely use your skills to show others how to do it. Like I am trying to show others with "you don´t exist".

This line of thought results in aesthetic monks. Sick life.
Desire has a purpose and it was created by the external as you were, ignoring it could be defined as a sin and leads to a lower quality of life.

You are wrong - there is big difference between knowing about something and really experience something. There is huge difference between your own experience and if someone tells you about something he experienced. I will not move to another delusion. Its you who is living in one big lie - that you exist. Your whole life, all you are saying, all your opinions are about you. They are all based on wrong assumption.

You didn´t answered my question.

This line of thoughts results in realizing truth.

Nothing wrong about desire. All is wrong about lie, that you exist. But you believe it.

The only point I can agree with is that I am not separate, as nothing is separate as separation = numbers = finite = impossible. I still exist, its just a matter of how you DEFINE 'I'

If you can see you don't exist only proves that you exist. Can you not see how you are still existing within an ego? YOu have only changed it through belief in order to make yourself happy. The lesson here is believe what makes you happy about yourself. This changes person to person culture to culture.

what question

Lol... NO, you are wrong. If you believe in flying spaghety monster does it exist? NO. If you believe your body don´t exist, but it exist you are wrong again. Next.

Please, stop this dancing around with all these philosofical bulls... Look at simple truth, that what you call "I" or "me" doesn´t exist and never was. Thats all.


Philosophical bulls... again. I can say that what you call you doesn´t exist without admiting I exist.

Ok so there is energy in your hand. There is feeling of energy on another being, the sun, night sky. So what? Does that mean, that you exist? NO, OF COURSE NOT.

Yes, It exists within my belief, just not yours, as does the chair I'm sitting on and the desires in my soul.

Define 'I' or 'Me' before you make such a claim. You will then see that I is defined in what ever manner you CHOOSE to define it. Be that blank or be that what you are led to believe. Maybe your point is that 'I' is blank? 'BLANK' STILL EXISTS. Your argument is like saying a void does not exist.

me in your mind, and me in my mind, are separate, and so I agree with you, for the same reasons you are wrong about the flying spaghetti monster.

Of course so, for I am tensing my hand, the tensing of my hand is proof that I exist. By you looking at yourself and seeing 'blank' , the blank is proof that you exist.

It proves only that my brain realized that what is called I, me, myself, ego - that sum of thoughts about me, who am I, what I like and dislike, all my fears, everything I was defining myself - was wrong. It was never real. There was never real person with defined with all that. That was character which I was playing. Only role.

No, the lesson here is nothing about believe. Lesson here is: you don´t exist, you live in lie. I realized it and now I am trying to show you, but you are acting like coward, talking bulls... when you should honesly look, If what I am saying is right or wrong. Not just talk some random bulls... about culture, but honesly look. Do you see yourself somewhere? Is that real?

Or are you really happy and without worries for all your life?

OMG. NO. If you believe in something that doesn´t mean it exist. It could exist in your thought, but that doesn´t mean, it really exist. Its only fiction.

You define I or ME. Than I can show you how wrong you are.


There is no me in my mind. There is no you in your mind either, but you didn´t see it. Lol no, flying spaghetti monster doesn´t exist even if you believe in it. Its only fiction.

Your hand is only proof, that there is a hand. No proof of yourself in it.

What did you do yesterday? If you can recall, and it is true, then obviously you existed. If you are defining 'I' as your future, or if you are evaluating yourself with terms like successful, happy, fat, ugly' then ok I agree that this 'I' is not real (but it is if you believe it). Please can you define 'I' for me. I honestly think you are limiting yourself with these thoughts, realising you are nothing is a step to realising you can be anything. The universal mind is exactly the same, it is nothing and it is nowhere, otherwise how can something have been created,. just like you it was still created and both obviously exist through the fact that once can observe.


I agree, hence I said no matter what everything is bull****, what makes you think you aren't still living in lie? To be honest I find it cute and naive to trick yourself in such a way.

I have looked, and I come to the same paradoxical conclusion of duality being logical. And I accept I can never understand but onyl trick myself into believing I do, as you are doing. One cannot be omniscient until they die and the closest we get to this is meditation or sleep.

I see things around me, so I am somewhere and I have these things as reference. Where are they? To answer that I need to look at something else, where is all that? To answer this I need to look somewhere else. And so on, forever, and I also need tro accept that my brain cannot know for its view is not omnipresent like that of the universal mind. Only when I find perfect meditation am I no where. Where am i? The ORIGIN or 0 or NOTHING. The question is where is everything else...


If I believe I am happy I am happy.

nobody needs to become enlightened, life can be lived perfectly fine without it. Its just not real. Just like no one needs to stop believing in ghosts. Life can be lived perfectly fine in that case too. Except its just not real.


when you die, the brain is finito! im afraid therell be no knowing anything.

Well this is the key question, why not enjoy the illusion while it lasts! Personally for me, I was a very happy person prior to liberation, busy with things, job , friends whatever,had a good life going on, but it was all smothered by the experience of something illusory. that feeling that others here have mentioned, that feeling of experiencing a self. Knock that feeling and you got yourself reality first hand. Everything is the same, still busy, friends, job , etc but now its with focused non misinterpretation.

Not that I like to 'sell' it as a good thing, just a true thing, is worth noting that it could affect your poker. Would it make you a technically better player? Absolutely not. Would it allow you free focus instead of distracted focus. Sure yea.

and you truthfully dont experience it? just wondering...maybe you became liberated already I dont know. We are not talking about concepts here, we're talking about jumping right in to see where the feeling of it comes from.

Many inventions have been "thought together" as a Gedankenexperiment, before they became reality and could be observed. Your internal "laboratory" is the only place that you can communicate in AND with (that's a HUGE observation (lol), because it makes you realize that "you" are not ONLY what you think "you" are), without any external stimuli or without the need to COMMUNICATE said ideas in a manner that is accessible to others (compression of data, the major part of what constitutes "intelligence"), by using external media (no matter if mathematical formulas, songs, how to build car engines and so on, to communicate this "knowledge" and "experience", you have to use an external medium and compress the data in a format that is understandable by others).
As mammals, which started out as little creatures with no need for much 3D-thinking, the scenting ability was more important; welcome to the world of pheromones. A way to communicate. Sounds and later the physical appearance began to play a central role. Through that, the external reflection of internal "values". A woman can still look at the skin right under your eyes and internally determine if you are genetically fit or not. All of this is just the evolutionary process playing with resources it doesn't directly need for the survival of the species it creates. We have so much more of these resources to waste these days than our ancestors (processing power/intelligence), that our ways to show the world how much stupid stuff we can do BESIDES mating (because we can afford to do it and still survive), grows. But I digress.

Your "self" is like a camera which changes the focus of the lens and "all of a sudden" sees the "clear picture". Some call it an Eureka! moment, "inspiration", etc...
The landscape is not your "self" though. Because what you observe as "consciousness", is just the evolutionary playground that sits above layers upon layers of automata, functions and algorithmic automatisms. Or so it appears. But if you had the means to observe the huge ant colony humanity is (in the end), over centuries, you'd see that despite being made of individual cells and organs (cities/states/continental groups of countries), it's an evolving organism. And (like you), it all came from a single cell. This is an analogy of your brain at work.

You are "humanity", just as much as the hair that fell out when you were combing your hair, is You.

So as much as "humanity" is a transcending, "immaterial" concept in the sense that it's more than the sum of its parts, your "self" is more than the "I".
In fact, 99% of what the brain tells you it was being told by the external stimuli, is what it itself constructs of the data it receives. Only 1% is the real data.

And while you make roughly 40 conscious and "sub-conscious" decisions, every second (while you can "think" about only A SINGLE ONE at a time), your brain makes 40 BILLION of them, without actually telling "you".
"You" are not what you THINK you are, "You" are what the brain thinks of "You". Which is a huge difference. An alien species might think that humanity is a single organism and that it is "conscious" of itself and that it "thinks".
It isn't "here" and then disappears.

Unlike what you understand as "consciousness" that is the product of your brain. 40 times a second, it shuts itself off from the external world, to think about itself, then it opens itself up again, to receive stimuli.
You are Schrödingers Cat's Intellect. You are "thinking", "the You is", you are "conscious"........but then for a period of time (albeit short), none of this is true and "You" don't exist. Unlike Schrödinger's Gedankenexperiment.........you can't open this box to look inside. You have to accept that the moment you THINK you understand or at least observe the "I", it actually never existed and the moment you realize that it never existed, it's actually thinking about "you". "Don't worry, be happy" should be your final answer to everything. "Don't worry", if you realize the nature of things and "be happy", because you will never fully understand it.

P.S.: Eckhart Tolle is meh.

There is a fairy on my desk, it exists. Now you can say to me 'no it doesn't- I don't see it' but to me you are no different to the fairy, except I have enough imagination to be in control of the fairy, and not skitzo enough for the fairy to have its own life. Just like I could make you disappear with enough imagination, I would just become skitzo from your perspective.

I am energy. I can give this energy a name (or rather my parents). I am also my potentials. I am also blank. 'I' depends on everything else.


If I cannot believe that I am part of the energy in my hand via the nervouse system because there is no proof then there is no proof of anything including any theories you create

simple desire is fine, if I see chocolate cake I want that chocolate cake.
Hell, if I see a nice car , i think hmmmm itd be nice to have that.

Its the desires that we crave to satisfy the self, i.e. craving true happiness etc are the ones which can often result in more of a headache than a success.

You know..."quit living in the past".... and all that.

unfortunately monks do it the wrong way around, they spend their life time wishing their desires away , hoping to God , that somehow this will enlighten.
Well bad news, you cant control your thoughts ,and hence you cant control desires. I feel sorry for them all those years constantly pretending they dont want stuff.