It's time to wake up!

So do you understand that the sense of self is an illusion?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Yes, if you're not getting then I have to blame you. But at this moment, our conversation was such a mess, I forget what your counter arguments to my writings were. In fact I'm not sure I ever did know.

Then it would seem that the one not getting it is you?

Turnabout and all that jazz.

Honestly the point is that DE ends where metaphysics begins so, someone who has had those experiences looks at DE and thinks, hey that is a direct form of self-help. Sure beats all those books and lectures.

What I can't do is sit here and pretend that it is paradigm shattering. Unless you are the Count of Montecristo, letting things go are part of your paradigm.

Even if you don't let go, it makes no difference. Some things cannot be unseen.

a reply to: daskakik

It's not that you pretend, but you see it was quite a revelation. I don't know if we were ever talking about the same things.
But what was the whole point of this conversation I wonder? Why did we spend so much time replying to each other when you think about it?

originally posted by: Andy1144
It's not that you pretend, but you see it was quite a revelation. I don't know if we were ever talking about the same things.

Why, because I don't give them the importance that you give them?

But what was the whole point of this conversation I wonder? Why did we spend so much time replying to each other when you think about it?

I was trying to point out that DE might not be what mystics of yore were describing.

I had already said that hadn't I?

a reply to: daskakik

It's not about what direct experience might be, it's about what it actually is. You've been bought into the belief that anything involving the words enlightenment, here and now, ect ect involve some new age mystisizm or any of that bull crap.

My message is simple. The entity you call you, is an illusion. We have the sense that we choose our thoughts but we don't. Seeing through this illusion has major positive implications. There is no quantum metaphysics involved at all. Pure rational science and common sense.

I don't know what you've experienced, but how do you know you've experienced a so called awakening? What if your thinking about something else?

Perhaps you haven't experienced it and it actually has big implications?

dp

originally posted by: Andy1144

And all that just so you can be right?

a reply to: daskakik

Can't I just quote your writings and say the same thing? What difference does it make?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Can't I just quote your writings and say the same thing? What difference does it make?

Yes, but I am not trying to "teach" you anything.

I am not talking down to you. I don't insist that you don't get it just because you disagree.

You accuse me of playing symantics and then engage in the same thing. "Sadness isn't suffering" for example.

I have been through similar exchanges with itisnowagain. "Nothing" is a concept which works great for setting up a circular argument. That is why I usually don't take that bait.

I saw DE as different, despite your use of similar terms but I see that the circular logic is being used there as well.

a reply to: daskakik

You have insisted as much as me that I didn't get. We've been doing that this whole time almost.

Just to understand where you are coming from, what do you mean by "I saw DE" How or what was that experience like? Does it have anything to do with the falling of the illusion of self?

Also, anything can become semantics if you confuse perspectives, which we have both done. I have tried to explain cleanly but I meant by what I meant and admit there were paradoxes. But you seemed to accuse me that the paradoxes in my statements were used as a method by which I can make my arguments seem right or something. Where the issue was really a lack of relating to certain concepts.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You have insisted as much as me that I didn't get. We've been doing that this whole time almost.

No, there is a difference. It is subtle.

Just to understand where you are coming from, what do you mean by "I saw DE" How or what was that experience like? Does it have anything to do with the falling of the illusion of self?

Let's be clear, I meant, "I saw you bring DE up in the thread".

Also, anything can become semantics if you confuse perspectives, which we have both done. I have tried to explain cleanly but I meant by what I meant and admit there were paradoxes. But you seemed to accuse me that the paradoxes in my statements were used as a method by which I can make my arguments seem right or something. Where the issue was really a lack of relating to certain concepts.

I called it a version of the god of the gaps.

You don't have an answer so you fill in with "It's a Paradox".

a reply to: daskakik

You don't have an answer so you fill it with "It's a Paradox".

What if I did have an answer and you only used that as an excuse because you didn't have one yourself? It can go both ways can't it?

I remember you saying that you have experienced DE and that it was no big deal. Again my question was, did that experience have anything to do with the falling of the illusion of self? Yes or no.

originally posted by: Andy1144
What if I did have an answer and you only used that as an excuse because you didn't have one yourself? It can go both ways can't it?

It can but, I am not doing that.

I'm not even really making any claims.

I remember you saying that you have experienced DE and that it was no big deal. Again my question was, did that experience have anything to do with the falling of the illusion of self? Yes or no.

I actually already answered that. It did not.

a reply to: daskakik

It can but, I am not doing that.

I'm not even really making any claims.

Every argument you make against what I am saying is a claim, vice-versa.

I actually already answered that. It did not.

Then if you haven't experienced it, how do you know it doesn't have positive and major implications? You said that it doesn't without even experiencing it.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Every argument you make against what I am saying is a claim, vice-versa.

No, you seem to be falling into the same trap religious people fall into when they ask you to prove god doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative.

ETA: Just to be clear. Just because I say that you can't prove something doesn't mean that I can. I don't have to, it's a negative.

Then if you haven't experienced it, how do you know it doesn't have positive and major implications? You said that it doesn't without even experiencing it.

You asked if DE "have anything to do with the falling of the illusion of self".

I had already answered that I had experienced that before. It would seem easy for anyone to deduce that my experience with DE was a later identification or it happened afterwards.

a reply to: daskakik

No, you seem to be falling into the same trap religious people fall into when they ask you to prove god doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative.

By making a claim I simply meant trying to make your own point. Let me know if that's not what claim means here.

You asked if DE "have anything to do with the falling of the illusion of self".

I had already answered that I had experienced that before. It would seem easy for anyone to deduce that my experience with DE was a later identification or it happened afterwards.

I still don't understand. Experienced what before? You said you haven't experienced the falling of the illusion of self, so what exactly was it in simple words?

originally posted by: Andy1144
By making a claim I simply meant trying to make your own point. Let me know if that's not what claim means here.

But my points are not necesarily asserting the opposite of your claims, so I am not claiming the opposite.

I might just be asking for proof.

I still don't understand. Experienced what before? You said you haven't experienced the falling of the illusion of self, so what exactly was it in simple words?

I said that I did experience the falling of the illusion of self but that it wasn't through DE.

Simple enough?

a reply to: daskakik

But my points are not necesarily against your claims so I am not claiming the opposite.

I might jusat be asking for proof.

It must have been subtle, I did remember being told I have no proof, which I tried to give. It was messy.

I said that I did experience the falling of the illusion of self but that it wasn't through DE.

Simple enough?

Then you didn't experience the falling of the illusion of self. You can only experience such a realization in direct experience, you can't think about it while your having it without DE.
Im being nice, perhaps you meant direct inquiry?

originally posted by: Andy1144
It must have been subtle, I did remember being told I have no proof, which I tried to give. It was messy.

You have no proof. Simple as that.

Then you didn't experience the falling of the illusion of self. You can only experience such a realization in direct experience, you can't think about it while your having it without DE.
Im being nice, perhaps you meant direct inquiry?

You can be whatever you like. I experienced "the falling of the illusion of self" before ever hearing about DE.

I then realized that it was the same thing that DE was describing.

Does DE have a patent on that experience?

a reply to: daskakik

You have no proof. Simple as that.

So then that is your claim/argument. Don't say it isn't.

You can be whatever you like. I experienced "the falling of the illusion of self" before ever hearing about DE.

I then realized that it was the same thing that DE was describing.

Does DE have a patent on that experience?

I want to know what you think DE means to make sure we're on the same page.

DE is necessary for the illusion of self to be seen. Plus, even if you did have the experience, isn't it possible it only lasted a short second before identification came wooshing back? It happens often to people as far as I've read and they don't have the chance to experience the true pangs of the realization with that small glimpse alone.