The0Self

I haven’t even finished reading but I resonate so incredibly much with this and it’s just so familiar to my story. I had the same thing with utter solipsism and non-doership and to explore it further I took psychedelics and I, my dream character, treated it as if I were going to war every time I tripped. And the psychedelic was taking me, not the other way around — this perspective literally seemed to be the reality at the time. All stories now but I literally have the memory of having the experience of creating the entire universe timelessly. It was just impossible to stop, for a while. I too have always felt disconnected. But for me it was because I was consciously disconnecting myself. I’m the kind of character who laughs a lot more than most, and get the urge to cry with a sort of blissful sadness quite a bit. Not so much now but most of my life. I would intentionally hold back and each time it felt wrong like I was fortifying the wall I built to keep truth out of my comfy lie. I’ll read the rest of this later. Sounds like you’ve had a crazy journey. ?

That which has a beginning and an end, is not. The black hole of non-being on both sides fills God with fear and so God looks away... Having successfully bamboozled itself, God celebrates... By living as you.

Really, solipsism is a stage you go through, it seems. It can become obvious that not only can nothing be known besides I AM — it’s not even imaginable that anyone including the almighty God could know anything at all besides I AM. So, that becomes clear... But then, that doesn’t mean I AM is known either, it just means absolutely nothing else can be known.

Nice! at once; timelessly

If you seem to be in a universe which is other than you, then your universe is your own -- it isn't shared. But really there's no one in, and nothing outside, the appearance that is pure emptiness appearing as everything. Not making any claims here, but in any case, whatever the truth is, simply is. Whatever is false, simply is not. It's no use resisting what is true.

@Breakingthewall In that sense yes, you are that — only without the you or the that. It’s not meaningfully condensable, as it’s without basis or core, and so it is and is not, and there is no it. Nor is there a not-it; not-this. That’s why being wrong about this is impossible. In other words, there is neither a case-closed, nor is there not a case-closed, nor anyone to arrive at it.

There are no other life’s, and there is no one with a life. There’s simply the whole of everything, which isn’t a thing — there’s no separation of any kind at all, but attachment (“your” life) can seem to appear in that. In a sense, death is the imaginary place where you reside and hide, incognito — which is self-referential and empty since you are simply that which hides as the imagination of death... There is no you, and no death.

^^ @Breakingthewall Underneath all the layers of self, there isn’t a primordial core — It’s not that you see through your self to your true nature... the self is just seen straight through, such that it isn’t even seen. The so-called layers of self (emotional and personal attachment, etc) seem to function to miraculously avoid facing what is most absolute, direct, and obvious: that there’s nothing else; this is everything, for no one.

Just to reiterate, if you're talking about the particular, same "self inquiry" that I am, then any questions are kind of just taking you in a direction away from the direct actual technique. But inquiry as a general practice in stillness, such as Adyashanti's description, can be wonderful as well -- reminds me of a sort of blend of Culadasa's analytical meditation and still point meditation, if you've read TMI.

@Rilles Page 25-30 of Adyashanti’s The Way of Liberation pertains to your post very directly. Here’s a quote from page 30: ” Inquiry is the art of questioning all of one’s assumptions, beliefs, and interpretations as a means of opening up space in the mind for intuitive wisdom to arise. Once space is opened up, simply rest the question in the stillness of conscious being. Watch. Keep faithful vigil with the unknown. The vital moments of breakthrough come when you least expect them. ”

Sorry, wasn’t implying you didn’t. Just saying the process of self inquiry can be a lot simpler. But inquiry as a whole in the way you describe can be fruitful, sure. Idk, maybe try “what’s left?” or “for whom?”

That doesn’t really describe what is usually referred to as self inquiry. See Nahm’s response (which include Ramana Maharshi's instructions).

You didn’t arrive at the end, and I’ll just say: you absolutely don’t need to. If the final liberation is reached, “you” see through everyone and everything, including what you called “you” — your own character — not to their core, but straight through. It is quite clear here that, contrary to what I had assumed while on the path, meditation doesn’t even matter for this. But it can certainly make your life rather blissful.

exactly

You claimed "1." I negated with "not two."

There is simply not two -- no separation. But that's not a claim, it's just what appears to be -- every claim is married to doubt.

It was mainly a joke, but also pointing away from obviously baseless lines of reasoning or assumptions. Ultimately there's only the appearance of a head, and no you, so you do not have a head. But in relative reality, others have heads, as do you when looking in the mirror. Your inquiry on this matter is very surface level, wherein anything will just be what appears anyway. A better question would perhaps be why do other people behave as if I were born? The answer would follow the same lines, even though birth is utterly imagined.

Exactly. “I” has no fixed definable reality.

Nothing

Thinking is not needed.

So, "I refer to I as I." Now, doesn't that sound just a little bit self referential; arbitrary; tautological?

To answer as I am now I would have to use the convention "I"/"you" which means nothing. It's just what's appearing to happen. Or, it could be said, it's just obvious when it's seen.

The crazier you sound, the truer your words doesn't always hold true.

Because there's already no you. Ta da!

That character is not happening to that character. That character is that character. There's no fixed you. You = I, yes, yet they can mean different things -- e.g.. when I am talking to you (so I and you are two separate things in that example) -- therefore they have no absolute defined characteristic other than what they really are, which is undefinable, which is all there is.