"The perceiver never existed" ...what?

[Mafortu]

Many nondual teachers say this, but I do not understand it.

I don't feel like I am putting resistance here, I used to believe in free-will but Leo convinced otherwise in one video, I cant argue with solid logic, so yeah I am pretty much open to have my conceptions challenged and destroyed.

But from my perspective Perceiver never existed  sounds... ummm... stupid.
I totally accept that I am imagined, and that everything I perceive is imaginary, a fiction, this flows well with my current spiritual growth. But "I dont exist" just rings nothing inside me but cringe.

Fiction is "something" afterall, its a difference, a manifestation, therefor I am "something", even if I am not material.

Unless this is just a play in semantics... if the only real thing is that which is unchangeable => nothingness. Then yes, I agree with this, but then I would not agree to relate unchangeable with realness. Isn't the point of nonduality that both nothingness and everythingness =true?

Edited November 13, 2020 by Mafortu

[Byun Sean]

Of course you can't understand what it means for you to not exist. You have to die first to understand that.

It's obviously not true for you.

Thats all that matters.

If you believe them or come to some logical understanding of nonduality it still does you no good because your still not conscious of anything new.

You've only created a nice intellectual model in your head.

Models can be useful to a certain extent, but never confuse the model for the territory.

 

For all you know, Nonduality is false. 

You don't know until you do the exercises to raise your own consciousness and see. 

Keep doing self inquiry, meditation, yoga, psychedelics, whatever works for you.

 

 

 

[Javfly33]

It didn't existed in the absolute/truth sense.

As an illusion, yes, the perceiver exists.

 

[The0Self]

It's not possible for someone to imagine what it's like to not be there, as they already aren't there, so it's just seemingly missed/looked-over. Everything simply appears, but the subject doesn't even appear, it is only assumed/misunderstood to be there -- in which case the appearance seems both exclusively real (rather than simply: what is / empty / not as it appears / unfathomable / neither real nor unreal) and actually happening, because it's happening to me. The subject is absent from the appearance. There's no underlying ultimate substance to anything and everything is only "is," which isn't, as "is" is not a thing.

[LastThursday]

17 minutes ago, Mafortu said:

But "I dont exist" just rings nothing inside me but cringe.

It really comes about because of separation. Normally when someone says "I" they mean the thing that is separate from everyone else and the rest of the world. But the deeper you go, the more it's realised that there isn't a separation. Eventually, you become the world and you become everyone else. Everything flows together into one big whole. Then it seems like crazy talk to say the "I" exists.

It makes you cringe because it sounds like spiritual cheesy woo woo.  Which it is. But only from your perspective. But maybe it also makes you cringe out of fear. Who knows?

[Sempiternity]

Imagine a videogame screen. The game is being viewed through the main character, seeing the videogame world through first person-person perspective. Everything in this game world, on this screen is not real (obviously, it's just a videogame), including the main character. It's all meaningless, just a game. Imagine that main character was programed to think he was real and separate from everything else on the screen. Now imagine there is no screen, but the images still exist as if there was a screen, just images appearing in nothingness. Now imagine the first-person perspective main character and everything in this game world he experiences, were all that there was. No one is viewing the images, as the images are all that there is. Now imagine that those images are God experiencing itself. 

[Jonty]

That's a real thought salad my friend ? ? Some great advice above.

What you're looking for isn't a belief and not something you can agree or disagree with.

Once it becomes clear you'll understand there has never been a truer phrase than "I don't exist" 

[Mafortu]

7 minutes ago, Sempiternity said:

Imagine a videogame screen. The game is being viewed through the main character, seeing the videogame world through first person-person perspective. Everything in this game world, on this screen is not real (obviously, it's just a videogame), including the main character. It's all meaningless, just a game. Imagine that main character was programed to think he was real and separate from everything else on the screen. Now imagine there is no screen, but the images still exist as if there was a screen, just images appearing in nothingness. Now imagine the first-person perspective main character and everything in this game world he experiences, were all that there was. No one is viewing the images, as the images are all that there is. Now imagine that those images are God experiencing itself. 

Like I said in my post, I have no problems identifying myself as fictional and imaginary. I also use videogame examples like yours when I explain some stuff to people.
But to me, fiction is something, therefor it exists, even if its not "material". Ideas are as much a manifestation like you and I.

I just think the phrase is very silly... it puzzles me when I read/hear it in an otherwise profound video or lecture.

[Shin]

56 minutes ago, Byun Sean said:

Of course you can't understand what it means for you to not exist. You have to die first to understand that.

It's obviously not true for you.

Thats all that matters.

If you believe them or come to some logical understanding of nonduality it still does you no good because your still not conscious of anything new.

You've only created a nice intellectual model in your head.

Models can be useful to a certain extent, but never confuse the model for the territory.

 

For all you know, Nonduality is false. 

You don't know until you do the exercises to raise your own consciousness and see. 

Keep doing self inquiry, meditation, yoga, psychedelics, whatever works for you.

 

 

 

[Mvrs]

1 hour ago, Mafortu said:

Many nondual teachers say this, but I do not understand it.

I don't feel like I am putting resistance here, I used to believe in free-will but Leo convinced otherwise in one video, I cant argue with solid logic, so yeah I am pretty much open to have my conceptions challenged and destroyed.

But from my perspective Perceiver never existed  sounds... ummm... stupid.
I totally accept that I am imagined, and that everything I perceive is imaginary, a fiction, this flows well with my current spiritual growth. But "I dont exist" just rings nothing inside me but cringe.

Fiction is "something" afterall, its a difference, a manifestation, therefor I am "something", even if I am not material.

Unless this is just a play in semantics... if the only real thing is that which is unchangeable => nothingness. Then yes, I agree with this, but then I would not agree to relate unchangeable with realness. Isn't the point of nonduality that both nothingness and everythingness =true?

The perceiver is also being perceived by something? This leads to infinite regress problem. There is no perceiver the thing u call an observer is what the movie or the happening is about . The movies about perceivers there is no one watching it though. 

[Mvrs]

Think of like Leo said the color red out in space with no one watching it . This is what the observer is . The observer is an object if u wanna think of it that way and not really a being watching something 

[Moksha]

52 minutes ago, Mafortu said:

But to me, fiction is something, therefor it exists, even if its not "material". Ideas are as much a manifestation like you and I.

Fiction is the only thing that does exist. Nonfiction does not exist. It is.

Hint: Exist means "to stand out".

[Mafortu]

44 minutes ago, Mvrs said:

The perceiver is also being perceived by something? This leads to infinite regress problem. There is no perceiver the thing u call an observer is what the movie or the happening is about . The movies about perceivers there is no one watching it though. 

Wow thank you!, this made a lot of sense to me.

So there is no perceiver, but there IS perceiving.

[Moksha]

17 minutes ago, Mafortu said:

So there is no perceiver, but there IS perceiving.

There is a perceiver, it just doesn't exist. Consciousness perceives itself. It doesn't exist, because it isn't a thing. It is a nothing.

Consciousness is watching all movies, and is starring in all movies.

[Shin]

10 minutes ago, Moksha said:

There is a perceiver, it just doesn't exist. Consciousness perceives itself. It doesn't exist, because it isn't a thing. It is a nothing.

Consciousness is watching all movies, and is starring in all movies.

666 posts.

I wouldn't believe this member If I were you.

[Moksha]

Just now, Shin said:

666 posts.

I wouldn't believe this member If I were you.

Does anyone smell burnt almonds? ?

[mandyjw]

They say nonexistent to point you in the other direction of what you've already believed all your life. If you see a mirage of water in the desert, what you see, the mirage, is real. It's just not actual. Like you can't drink the water in the desert you saw, you can't die or find your separate self. 

[from chaos into self]

2 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

It didn't existed in the absolute/truth sense.

As an illusion, yes, the perceiver exists.

 

This is the answer. There is no object that is the perceiver. It is an illusion; the perceiver is not really there. There is only perception; the perceived. the experience. the perceiver is imagined.

[Shin]

13 minutes ago, Moksha said:

Does anyone smell burnt almonds? ?

You're good now, move along ?

[Nahm]

Many not-two teachers?