I had to stop reading here and reply. I completely agree, especially about the hair, except it is short sighted, you are separating humanity from the galaxies outside our own, you are separating that first cell from the genesis that caused it and that from all the atoms in the sun. Now you might be all like 'no I'm not' however you really are, because you are not thinking about 'why'. Science will never answer this question because what it is observing is infinite/analogue/omnipresent/omniscient and it only has finite and digital means to do so. OUr brains are finite, the celss are individual monomers of a whole, but when we break ourselves down we are energy, just part of a wave, part of a mind, and this gives us 'will'. Do not look at our species from the view of hypothetical aliens, it is a mistake I use to make.



Interesting, but no. The means of attaining this knowledge, shows a limited scope due to a limited observance. '40 billion decisions', and how do you know there aren't decisions being made in-between decisions? It is more chaotic than you think, it has to be. In the scope of it 40 billion is a very small number, there are no decisions, only flow, these 40 billion decisions is merely information existing within observable reality, a physical effect with a metaphysical cause

I disagree here, I think about several poker problems at once when grinding, and I can analyse more than one thing through hyperfocus, which is very similar to meditation and looking from 'mirrors edge'..

You realize this is an absurd position, right?

In claiming anything is "just a thought in my brain" you have already implied a "myself" exists. You can't have a "my" of any kind without a self to which the "my" corresponds. That is, "my" is meaningless without self simply by the self-referential nature of the word's definition.

Yes, sorry I just say tadaaa and forgot to point out that it is not your brain, just brain. Now, is there agreement that it is right?

you can't look at yourself because you are yourself. Unless you have a mirror, and thoughts can also be reflections, everything that isn't you is a mirror of sorts as it creates relativity. If what you are saying is something different then word it differently, to me you meaning to define your enlightenment as saying that self is not separate from entirety, which imo is a pretty easy thing to grasp and is an enlightening realisation

Well you can't look into your body or brain. But you can look at whatever you do and try to see yourself in that. If you are really honest with describing what you see, you will realize, there is no you anywhere. By the way: Your definition of enlightenment is wrong.

Senseless reliance on senses. You shouldn't start with existence or non-existence, and neither should you start with the senses.

Experience is, and is the only thing that can reliably be said to be (since the act of claiming this proves it).

You have started with what experience is. A common flaw.

You can start where you want. There is experience. But you don't exist.

What do you get out of it?

A methodology has been suggested. If the methodology is being followed then it will be seen that one interpretation of the intuition is false. The false interpretation is that there is a self present in subjective experience and that it is responsible for choices, actions, thoughts etc. If, after having completed the investigation, you still insist on using the word self, then you have to use it in a way that exactly excludes it being about a subjectively perceptible and operative self. You can do that if you want to, I just think that it would be silly to talk about a self that doesn't satisfy the mentioned criteria and I have no interest in persuading you to not use the word self in such exotic ways.

Like I've said before, "immaterial souls" is a description that misses the point about what it is that is being investigated. Again, you can interject all kinds of exotic definitions of self that are impervious to the evidence gathered from the investigation, but then you're simply missing the point and context. Further, given that it can be verified that there is no self to be perceived either directly or indirectly, how then would it make sense to keep asserting an existence of self? Why not then simply specify the exotic definition to be actually about the continuity of a biological organism, narrative identity, subjectivity? It seems to me like you're not actually defending the existence of a self, you're defending your use of the word "self" within a definition or speculation that not only could actually do just fine without that word but also suffers a diminishing of precision in insisting upon the use of that word.

For the sake of precision restate 1) as "If within my subjective experience there is no proof of the existence of my self, then my self doesn't exist". This doesn't rule out that my self may depend on the functioning of objective processes, it only rules out the existence of my self if there is no presence of a subjective experience of that self.

I've already shown for what kind of self we're looking for. "Simplistic" is relative and I disagree that it is simplistic, the evidence gathered actually is quite profound. The investigation demands us to be as alert and aware as humanly possible so as to exactly not miss any sort of experience of self.

"Subjective experiences as organized by our mind to be belonging to a self" is itself a subjective experience. It's an experience of a pattern, very similar to how we see patterns in clouds or fall for patterns in optical illusions. But, as with any illusion, if we look closely, we can see through it. The suggestion that the pattern in question shows is that there is an operative self. We can take a close look at this suggestion and see if it holds true. We will be held hostage by it as long as we keep interpreting from within that intuition and refuse to actually look because we imagine that there is no escape from that intuition. Fortunately it is possible to see the pattern for what it is and experience life from without the context of that pattern.

Uhm, I don´t know. Maybe nothing. Maybe someone will read this and honesly look and see what I am talking about. That would be nice. But if not, its ok too.

wow you are confusing. 'There is no you anywhere' lol?

'Self' is 'here' , 'here' is the present or the origin. And that is somewhere, just like something else is elsewhere relative to self... defining that 'somewhere' is another matter and that's why relativity in theory exists.

You are forgetting about mass also, there is no singularity, there is no point, where you are, because you are everything (or a fraction of everything (everything is infinte and so this fraction is in fact a single point just like the whole universe is a single point because infinte = zoom out forever until it dissapears))), if you was not anywhere then how come I can move? How come I can dream and be in other places?

Now I can see why you would argue different, your realisation is that there is no such concept as soul? but how can you realise anything? how can you enlighten your spirit without spirit? answer... By not separating yourself from entirety. Saying there is no self is like saying there is no reality and there is nothing. If there is no self then there is no earth and there aren't other beings. Maybe we are saying the same thing, I don't know.

My point is, you can search where you want, becouse you cannot find you anywhere. If there is you, it should be still present. But when you look and see there is no you now, why should be anytime else? Also you can look again whenever you want and you will not see it again.

When you say self is here, what do you mean? Where is your self? Show me. Describe me what do you mean by that. If you ask yourself who am I? What is the answer? Is that true answer? Really?

There is no point where you are, and you are not everything. You is nowhere, you don´t exist. Everything else does. You are not everything for sure.
Are you asking me how your body can move? Look at your school book of anathomy. There is answer. Dream is just a dream. It is not your dream. No you in that.

I am not saying, there is no soul. I don´t know that. I am only sure, there is no you. If concept of you doesn´t exist, that doesn´t mean there is no earth and no beings. Everything else is real. Just you doesn´t exist.

The only things which exist are those things which dont think they do. Cool.

To say to find myself is like, there has to be 2 of me, of course there isn't another me somewhere that I can look at (apart from in imagination/memories). But I am 'here' and you are 'there' and we are also 'there' relative to a tree.



The present. The origin, which everything else is relative to. Self is relative to everything else. It is apart of something. Yes that is true answer. I am here and it is indisputable, and I can make a good go at defining here, 'no where' is still 'somewhere'.

I am a part of everything, before I was born and when I die this will become obvious. The point was is that if there was no self, then I would not be able to change, because I would always be nothing, for now, I am something, jsut because I am finite does not mean I do not exist... time is further proof of self.


you make no logical sense whatsoever. If beigns are real, and I am a being, then what the hell are you an about saying I don't exist. I quite clearly obviously exist. The only things you should be realising is that you are made of something, your thoughts are made of something, and there is no distinct separation from this something- to everything. I am half convinced this is actually what you are meaning to put across. Claiming there is no self is absurd. Claiming there exists a balance of self:everything else, but they are still one unified 'see saw', is rational. Self can be defined as the pivot of the sea saw.

When you say I am here, what is here? There is body, thoughts, feelings... But thats all.


Self is not relative to anything. You only think about you in relative to everything else. You are not here, here is body, here are thoughts ...


You are not part of everything. You that you call me is nothing. It doesn´t exist in reality. There is only body, thoughts, feelings...


Yes beings are real. What is not real is what you call yourself, that sum of opinions, ideas, you likes and dislikes, hates and loves, everything you think about your self. Thats just one big lie. There is no entity like that. It is only character you are playing. It doesn´t exist in reality. When you realize that, you can throw it away and act free.
- It is not perfect answer, but I am in hurry and my english is bad. Will get to it later.

obviously 'here' is within my body/mind which in turn is within entirety which in turn is within omnipresent mind/universal network. Surely you can grasp that you are in your concious and within your nervous system? You ARE your concious and nervous system. (all this is soul, you don't have a soul, you are the soul)



wut? ofcourse self is relative to everything. Thats how the word self comes about, talking about, 'me', as a separate thing, to other. It is both true and false, it is like saying the first cm is separate to the other 9cm in a 10cm length.

your body, your thoughts, your feelings, you don't own these things, self IS these things. Self is defined as the mass of energy which constitutes as to your being. Your thoughts are energy, whether material or not who cares. I am not saying that I am greater than the sum of my parts, the sum of my parts does not exist, because relative to infinity, it cannot. PARADOX.

No. when you realise it you can only change it, and that's what sets you free, not getting rid of your identity, but manipulating it for a universal purpose just like fusion and fission. You can't throw it away, it is what makes us human. Like I said throwing away identity and desires turns you into an aesthetic monk which ironically is just another identity. saps. Plz accept this, you have realised something but you are limiting yourself. As am I, but to a lessor extent. Unless you happen to be some incredibly awesome person and not an apathetic cynic.

e: the niggest prrof self exists is that I am my thoughts, and you are you thoughts, and this are exclusive. You are mega mega confusing

Grunch, does enlightenment finally bring perfection? I'm pretty sick of messing up all the time. Can we just choose to be enlightened or do we have to do something? What do we have to do?

I don't think its possible to be perfectly aligned with the present moment (self) through decision...
However there are moments of infinite clarity each time the pendulum of tilt passes through the centre, its called epiphany, you can get it from merely seeing a bird in flight or looking at the stars/sun or listening to the wind, or you can get it from an apparent sheer coincidence (omen) such as nearly dieing, or even dieng and coming back... but its like vibrations and waves, very quantum... and like someone in the thread said earlier, there is variance. Have you tried just looking at the sky and meditating, have you tried being at one with a flame, or with the cosmos, or with the air in your lungs, or with another being, or with nothing... once you learn how to focus its awesome, all the meta **** opens up, very useful in poker.

I would suggest reading literature, this forum is all good but to be honest, we are all rambling morons and the cumulation of perspectives is important, everyone has differing degrees and different paths to the same goal, do you meditate at all?

Enghtenment doesn't bring you perfection. You cannot choose to be enlightenment. Enghtenment is realization of truth. It can bring you new view on everything you think about yourself.

Yeah, that must be nice. You can spend All your life in quiet meditation, trying to get peace and calm your thouhts. But when you end meditation, you are back, in normal life. Getting bored and angry, sad and disapointed.
Or you Can try to find a truth. Go to war and burn all lies in yourself. Go throught the patch of destruction and in the end, finally see the truth. You doesn't exist. What is the point in getting you more peacefull? You is a lie.

Ok enough of philosophical bulls... I think, you can have now a lot of info about this. Is here anybody who wants to try this?

There is only one rule. Truth or nothing. I will ask, you will answer. But I want to hear/see only truth. If something is not truth in 100 %, it is lie in this game.

What you can lose? Only yourself

No such thing as perfection im afraid. Thats another belief. Well i guess theres perfection in a conventional sense, as in you could theoretically play perfect poker. Pretty hard though.
Seriously though , without making it sound all new agey , there is actually no such thing as perfection in real life. Enlightenment is complete and utter and acceptance of that , and do you not think that would be pretty cool?

Try here maybe... http://www.ruthlesstruth.com/arena/viewforum.php?f=3

they treat it like a game of poker, well more like a game of chess. You make a move, they respond, you make another move, they respond again, until you actually work up the balls to look for yourself to see if its true. Dont wait for them though, just look to see if the self is real, actually look, not think about it. you mightnt even have to bother going on to that side. In theory you shouldnt you just look, burning focus, not thinking, but looking.

List of blogs that are all for this new and funky style of enlightenment.

http://ghostvirus2011.blogspot.com/
http://burningtruedotcom.blogspot.com/
http://www.v4vivality.blogspot.com/
http://primalcrusade.blogspot.com/
http://www.ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/
http://theselfisfalse.blogspot.com/
http://laser-focus.blogspot.com/

theres the body, just no self, its not that confusing, you just have to look to see if its true thats all.
As for no you anywhere? Well if there is no you in that body, its hardly outside of the body is it? hence 'theres no you anywhere!!!"

Ok theres a thought in that head you are calling 'here' as for where the self is located , Where exactly though? Where in the brain? In the back? In the front? Where is "here" in terms of the self.


Again , heres confusion between whats being said and what its being interpreted as.
That body exists in real life. Those dreams are thoughts in that head. There is no ownership whatsoever of those thoughts, nothing, they are whizzling around in that brain but theres no 'you' owning them.
Are they seperate from someone elses thoughts? Sure! I cant 'read your mind', but they are simply thoughts, there is nothing real in them, and there is no true ownership of them either.

no ones enlightening any spirits here, no such as spirits.
I find it easier to treat the word as literally as possible.
What happens when someone tells you how to figure out that difficult maths sum. You now know something true that you didnt know. Thats what enlightenment feels like. Some people call it awakening cause it feels like your waking up from a dream (of course you're not but it feels that way).
A bit of an analogy, when you wake from a dream , describe the difference between what you know now and what you knew as real in the dream. The only way of describing is by saying "YOU JUST FVCKING KNOW!!!"
Not saying you are in a dream , just using that as an analogy of what it feels like.

Does enlightenment mean you suddenly know everythinng ? Nope, you just know truth. You get direct experience of reality without it being interpreted and filtered through the self. You have probably seen people every day in your life interpret things differently.
Something you think isnt a problem at all someone else gets worked up over.
Its different interpretation. Enlightenment is when the brain has direct sight of whats going on. Yea sure theres a few glitches now and then, nobodys perfect but overall you see reality in its true state.

You both kind of are saying the same thing, but people often dont admit they feel a sense of "me", and its this sense we're talking about, its a deep belief , yea you can say conceptually you understand but often for people that belief is still deep. They just dont like to call it a belief. This is not a denial of the existence of the body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO3sBulXpVw