a reply to: LucidWarrior
I is a concept, you is a concept when reading there are concepts as subject... no you or I? Then one reads the concept as a subject not oneself as an
existing object unless one exists.
When eating, is there an I tasting? No there is a tongue sensing what it senses as taste? Relative to ones programming or conditioning whether that
good or bad, no one else can tell you what your tongue senses unless you agree to that sense being shared.
Someone may say hey this tastes good and even if you agree yes it is good; both of you could be eating something entirely different in unawareness of
it's difference the only agreement is "good" you could think you both are eating spaghetti not having asked what is this? They just eat it, you made
it so you think hey this is spaghetti but them not having asked? They could see steak. You enjoying your spaghetti and they enjoying their steak...
how would they know what it was you were making unless asked or planned?
Even with the term good there is a doubt to what it is both are agreeing too, with the subject... they could just be speaking of the company and the
So the assumption is made from an attachment to a subject one thinks they know in their own egotistical bubble of awareness of an assumed reality. Is
it the absolute reality? No never could be. It always is just as it is... of course someone running around going this is spaghetti, do you like this
spaghetti testing that self assumption is control and paranoia.
So leave concept to concept, it is considerate to ask what they may want to eat first if they are even hungry, but it is just as inconsiderate to turn
ones nose up to whatever it is. Of course the more one "knows" someone the more they can be considerate knowing what they like to eat and enjoy...
instead of some random crap they would never buy or eat.
But selfishness doesn't consider anyone except themselves, thats why self acceptance is easy other acceptance is one of the most difficult things
there is when ego is involved.
So leaving the assumption and expectation out of things; then less fault occurs... things can be just left as they are.
Trying to tell someone how they comprehend things or the point of view in which they do? Makes the assumption someone is your subject instead of the
material or topic at hand... if you are making someone your subject it is very rude to assume they want to be the subject and then expect them to
answer you. Most people do not listen to anything other than the conversation or inner dialog that they have assumed is them, identifying with those
things floating around no where called thought as a self...
None of that is a self, it is empty bubbles of concepts and ideas others have given to allow a construct to communicate and understand a system, leave
it as a subject and no one need become subject or slave to it... it just is what it is, no self does anything to make it different... the conglomerate
of concepts alters, twists and is fractal in nature... blending and twisting reality into a subjective one, instead of the one unaltered.
Such is the nature of grasping; trying to control what cannot be controlled because it cannot even but known only relative to a perception... eyes
see, all eyes only see that is their function it never changes... the concept the eye sees changes no where but in the one holding concepts... cease
the concept and the eye goes back to just seeing nothing arises in the seen as a concept to mirror some past grasping that is false, not true not
reality... that grasping is a personal truth and only a relative personal truth, no one else could ever share it, it is unique impermanent always
arising and always passing.
The collusion that it exists is a conspiracy that there is a sameness, when there is no sameness in the thing itself, just the concept that it
What is an I? That conglomerate attached to concepts as real and tangible, but they cannot be found... when does wood cease to be wood? From tree to
chair to table... it never does, the illusion says it does. All of these concepts arise and pass not permanent not absolute truth, but in trying to
make them absolutes when they are just variables is a futility.
It is an attempt to control the uncontrollable, it makes all life subject to nothing but subject itself, a conceptual construct in the agreement of
slavery to the unreality instead of the actual reality underneath all things.
Seeing this clear in experience directly, not just rote understanding or grasping of it... is the experience of truth... it is a void and yet not
void, it is subject and object from an awareness not either. In such a manner it is and it isn't because the awareness is neither, it just is and
undifferentiated in all things except by the holding onto as something as real and existent when it just is... what it is matters not, the thinking it
does is the biggest joke and yet the saddest thing there is. It gives rise to all joy and all suffering right behind it... letting it go? Freedom,
death and life still occur but it is not experienced as thought. Moment to moment as no subject can be subject unless subject, otherwise it is and it
I'm not trying to be complicated; it is just a state of being and awareness where all grasping and concepts must be lay down where no consciousness of
any sense dwells and only awareness remains... things arising and things passing countless but known seen but not grasped heard but no dwelling felt
but no differentiation.
Some would say such a state is love just because it accepts all that is as it is; but in non reciprocation then it is a rock to a bare foot, a thorn
to a side... and in empathy? One bares such knowing that at some point the ones grasping the most at empty nonsense as full will empty those senses
and then truly live.