Informer

Nice link Sean! Unfortunately that is nothing to do with RT teachings. Nothingness can be experienced eternally after you die, why would you bother with it now? If you feel you are preparing yourself for death, that's fine, talking to spirits maybe? If I had to choose one for myself, either existence or non-existence, I would most definitely choose existence. Although that is not the case.

Once one signs for an account there, it is biased and without an opposing side. One becomes at their mercy, which is not benevolent.

I already know of nothing and know that it is not everything. I feel nothing as well as I can feel everything. Yin and yang, not yin or yang,

I can feel the spirit, which is the only way I know to know it.

Excuse me?

Motion to delete thread so that others may not fall victim to this false dichotomy and potentially irreversable pychological damage!

I is the spirit within me. You have not proved you don't exist, all you have proved is that you can't find you . . duh. That does not mean that you do not exist . . . . . . There are more options!

Burden Of Proof The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case. There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority, but can he back up that claim? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." For example, you can't prove that God does not exist, therefore he does. Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Sound familiar?

You denied yourself existence. You cut all ties. You have become a hallow, empty, vessel that has only one mission, which was given, to bring others into the void. So what you speak is true from your perspective, although it is not true for everyone.

Irretrievable. So goes another soul denied by itself existence never more, forever more oblivion is now home

Now is the paradox obvious to you? You can imagine you are looking for yourself, but how can you be really? I am the subject. I am looking at my keyboard (object). I (subject) look at a reflection in the mirror (object) I (subject) look for I (object)? So since this isn't possible, to make it possible I must create an illusion that is not I so that I can look for I. Or I can imagine I have created a mirror which to look at. But how will I know any of these illusions will result in a truth? I could just pretend and believe others when they say there is no I, but that isn't really knowing. Therefore I will just ASSUME there is no I, because there is no possible way for me to know there is no I. How else can I look for I with I? Paradox . . . .

Yeah, that example doesn't apply. RT proposing to look at the self with the self. Don't you see that doesn't make sense? Do you disprove a unicorn by having it look at itself? Do you disprove a car by having it look at itself? All of the examples you put forth have an object and subject which are different. "self" looking for "self" is simply ignorant. Of course it won't find itself!

But how do you "know" this? How could "you" know anything if you don't exist? How could you formulate the conclusion with controlled thoughts that "you" do not exist? How is any of it formulated and fallowed, dismissed or accepted? Sure if you turn of internal dialogue there is a blank state, but that doesn't prove anything about the self. It proves that thoughts can be supressed, and let out, sorted out and counted. What is deciding to do this? What is deciding to sit here and type this stuff about no-self? Did you decide to do that? Of course not you don't exist, so it must have been another influence that directed you to do this. So I take it you believe there is no such thing as free will as well?

Irretrievable

No, you are not hitler. If you forgo individuality, then you are only everything, how could you be hitler? Hitler would be an aspect.

Again with the lies, then why are you promoting ruthless truth and their methods? Make a post on there (RT) stating what you just said.

How can anything be observed if there is not an observer? How do you manage to make the subject (I) veiw the object (I) which is already the subject? You want me to use objective tools to judge something that is subjective? Why wouldn't I use the subjective tools which would be much more relevant? Like feeling, which is in the same realm as I.

I said it was heard . . . Enough of your cherry picking, answer my questions. how do "you" know that "you" don't exist? How do "you" know that "I" don't exist? How do "you" know anything for that matter?

Bodyoflight, Are you aware of the spirit inside of you?

Once you awaken you can begin to ponder enlightenment

Let's see if I can open up my third eye and convince it to look at itself. Nope, pretty impossible.

Umm, but how do "you" know that "you" don't exist? How do "you" know that "I" don't exist? How do "you" know anything for that matter? So what is being investigated? the root of I? It is a spirit that is a concentration of energy. Can I see it? No, for that would require conjuring a mirror inside inside of the head,(if it even has a reflection) which would interfere with normal brain functionality. So If I can't see it, then can It be heard? Maybe! Can It be felt? Definitely!

"There is no you... investigate is this true? In direct experience. In seeing... there is just the seen, no seer. Is this true? etc... (you can do it with anything)" No this does not seem to be true. If it were true, how would I know it? (this is your que to jump in start making insults and ask me the same question again with adding in look and focus)

I think you misread what I typed, please read it again! Have a safe journey and I hope you find a good teacher! Where do you live at? There are yogis all over, I am sure they could instruct you of the basic teachings before making a long and expensive journey to find a master. As you already know, there is no garuntee that you will find a master to teach you. Especially probably not the basics or the culture.

I don't know. It isn't proof in my opinion, and I do not know that he is buddha. The camera's were at a pretty far distance with a lot of strings attached to them filming, which they had to agree to get any footage at all. I have seen more documented and realistic instances of people going without food and water for long periods without being claimed they are buddha reincarnate. The evidence presented is pretty bland tbh, imo.