What's the easiest thing to do?

[Dontaskme]

...there is no you to do. ... the you is the done.

This may very well apply to you, Dontaskme, but you ought not to extrapolate from your experience to other people.

I may be wrong and don't want to project, but I think what DAM says applies to this example, which makes it universal and perhaps understandable.

When you learn to drive a car, if you can remember back that far, you must think about all the aspects at the same time, especially the physics of speed.

Foot controls, hand controls, a changing environment, distractions, everyone knows that was hard. When you get to the point when you can stop thinking about it, it’s not only easy but effortless. So effortless that some folks can drive, eat a big Mac, have a smoke, talk on the phone, process information off the GPS, yell at the kids if they’re getting rowdy without their electronics, but of course not all at once. Multi-tasking one at a time, quickly and effortlessly.

Extrapolate the principle of effortless behind the reality of driving a car, to all of life. It’s the way humans function when not locked into a limiting identity which is required for learning to drive a car ... because what's learned is more than muscle memory, it’s a natural processing unfolding reality beyond the encumbering time-constraints of logical analysis, which requires a “you.”

Yes, very good, thankyou Walker, well put.

That which is doing the grass, and turning night into day, and day into night is the same that which is doing the human being.
And it’s all effortlessly spontaneous and automatic.

.

[duszek]

Saying OM.

Grabbing something that you want to have.

Snoozing.

[QuantumT]

Hating.

Everybody does it without any effort.

[-1-]

Grabbing something that you want to have.

Donald Trump is certainly going the wrong way about it then. Because despite all his grabbing, I don't think he'd want to have a veejay.

[-1-]

This may very well apply to you, Dontaskme, but you ought not to extrapolate from your experience to other people.

I may be wrong and don't want to project, but I think what DAM says applies to this example, which makes it universal and perhaps understandable.

When you learn to drive a car, if you can remember back that far, you must think about all the aspects at the same time, especially the physics of speed.

Foot controls, hand controls, a changing environment, distractions, everyone knows that was hard. When you get to the point when you can stop thinking about it, it’s not only easy but effortless. So effortless that some folks can drive, eat a big Mac, have a smoke, talk on the phone, process information off the GPS, yell at the kids if they’re getting rowdy without their electronics, but of course not all at once. Multi-tasking one at a time, quickly and effortlessly.

Extrapolate the principle of effortless behind the reality of driving a car, to all of life. It’s the way humans function when not locked into a limiting identity which is required for learning to drive a car ... because what's learned is more than muscle memory, it’s a natural processing unfolding reality beyond the encumbering time-constraints of logical analysis, which requires a “you.”

Yes, very good, thankyou Walker, well put.

That which is doing the grass, and turning night into day, and day into night is the same that which is doing the human being.
And it’s all effortlessly spontaneous and automatic.

.

Dontaskme and Walker, your point of view makes perfect sense from your other point of view.

However, if you subtract the other point of view, you certainly must admit there is a you.

Your basic premise or predisposed conclusion was that there is no you.

Sure there is. You and you are both perfectly delimited from your environment. That's all I was trying to say. If you say that you is actually an appendix of something else, then you may or may not be right. Depending on future discoveries (at present there is no evidence, pro or con, so you believe what you will). But you can't actually deny that you is not I, and you is not him. You is you. To deny that would be to deny the law of the (excluded middle, identity, etc.)

[Dontaskme]

However, if you subtract the other point of view, you certainly must admit there is a you.

Your basic premise or predisposed conclusion was that there is no you.

Sorry for the long response, because when we try to explain things like this it does tend to take a long time, so here is just a tiny snippet of the story...

There is a YOU, but this you in not a finite you. It's infinite...experiencing itself as finite..it's in-finite.

The finite you is a temporal appearance / a dream character within the infinite you. But each finite character is a unique finite experience of the INFINITE YOU as and through that character, namely, the mind body experience, the vehicle for expression. This infinite you is the only you there is, it knows itself simply by appearing to itself as finite experiences as and through the mechanics of the body.

The finite you does not exist as a real character, it's akin to characters appearing in a dream. The real you is that in which those finite dream characters appear.

It's not that there is no you, there is a you, but I have repeatedly said there is no separate you, aka finite you..this finite you is inseparable from the infinite you...this is oneness experiencing itself as the many. All ''things'' aka IMAGES ON THE SCREEN OF AWARENESS are existing within the same ONE reality all at once, namely, herenow, nowhere inseparable from the awareness of them....every thing is breathing the same one air and sharing the same one space....this seamless reality is all that is and ever will be of which there is nothing outside of that arena.

The infinite you in order to experience itself appears to itself as a finite object, it cannot know itself as the object, or experience the object directly because the object is only an experience the ultimate subject is having, only the awareness is real.

The finite you has no reality in and of itself, just as a tree or a flower has no concept of itself to know it exists as that object, these things are known only through the infinite you which is always behind all finite images illuminating each image into temporal manifestation. An image is inseparable from that which is looking at it. The seer cannot see the seer, only what it's looking at inseparable from itself.All things seen are images of the one seer that cannot see itself except as a finite temporal image upon its screen...The screen known as awareness has to be infinite else nothing could or would ever appear or disappear...or be in-finite...no thing would ever show up...without a screen to appear on.

Awareness aka the infinite you is the knower of an object, the knower is not the object itself. An object is only known to the infinite seer, the ONE seeing it. An object does not know it exists or is the seer, it is the SEEN..and that which is seen is A finite thing and not real, only the infinite awareness of the image is real.



The finite you is necessary although it's an illusion, else there would never have been the experience of being a you in the first place. The illusory finite you is only real in that it is an appearance of the real you which is always and forever hidden from view so as to give the finite you centre stage, basically, one has to pretend it's two else how could one thing be known to itself? So clearly, not hidden but in plain view in -finite.

Now this might seem like nothing more than just a pile of word salad, but to fully grasp what is being said here, is to fully investigate this for yourself.

There is a you but no separate individual you...where is the dividing line between my awareness and your awareness...?...answer is, there isn't one because it it only ONE...APPEARING AS THE MANY.



.

[-1-]

However, if you subtract the other point of view, you certainly must admit there is a you.

Your basic premise or predisposed conclusion was that there is no you.

Sorry for the long response, because when we try to explain things like this it does tend to take a long time, so here is just a tiny snippet of the story...

There is a YOU, but this you in not a finite you. It's infinite...experiencing itself as finite..it's in-finite.

The finite you is a temporal appearance / a dream character within the infinite you. But each finite character is a unique finite experience of the INFINITE YOU as and through that character, namely, the mind body experience, the vehicle for expression. This infinite you is the only you there is, it knows itself simply by appearing to itself as finite experiences as and through the mechanics of the body.

The finite you does not exist as a real character, it's akin to characters appearing in a dream. The real you is that in which those finite dream characters appear.

It's not that there is no you, there is a you, but I have repeatedly said there is no separate you, aka finite you..this finite you is inseparable from the infinite you...this is oneness experiencing itself as the many. All ''things'' aka IMAGES ON THE SCREEN OF AWARENESS are existing within the same ONE reality all at once, namely, herenow, nowhere inseparable from the awareness of them....every thing is breathing the same one air and sharing the same one space....this seamless reality is all that is and ever will be of which there is nothing outside of that arena.

The infinite you in order to experience itself appears to itself as a finite object, it cannot know itself as the object, or experience the object directly because the object is only an experience the ultimate subject is having, only the awareness is real.

The finite you has no reality in and of itself, just as a tree or a flower has no concept of itself to know it exists as that object, these things are known only through the infinite you which is always behind all finite images illuminating each image into temporal manifestation. An image is inseparable from that which is looking at it. The seer cannot see the seer, only what it's looking at inseparable from itself.All things seen are images of the one seer that cannot see itself except as a finite temporal image upon its screen...The screen known as awareness has to be infinite else nothing could or would ever appear or disappear...or be in-finite...no thing would ever show up...without a screen to appear on.

Awareness aka the infinite you is the knower of an object, the knower is not the object itself. An object is only known to the infinite seer, the ONE seeing it. An object does not know it exists or is the seer, it is the SEEN..and that which is seen is A finite thing and not real, only the infinite awareness of the image is real.



The finite you is necessary although it's an illusion, else there would never have been the experience of being a you in the first place. The illusory finite you is only real in that it is an appearance of the real you which is always and forever hidden from view so as to give the finite you centre stage, basically, one has to pretend it's two else how could one thing be known to itself? So clearly, not hidden but in plain view in -finite.

Now this might seem like nothing more than just a pile of word salad, but to fully grasp what is being said here, is to fully investigate this for yourself.

There is a you but no separate individual you...where is the dividing line between my awareness and your awareness...?...answer is, there isn't one because it it only ONE...APPEARING AS THE MANY.



.

Sorry, but your post here contains some absolutist claims that 1. are unsubstantiated 1. are unsubstantiable and 3. I can't and won't agree with.

Your argument is built on premises that I deny are valid.

You brought up too many of those to mention.

Let it suffice to say that I agree to disagree with you. Strongly.

[Dontaskme]

Let it suffice to say that I agree to disagree with you. Strongly.

Excellent!

I never once asked you to agree. I'm not here for agreements or disagreements.

I'm here because that's what's happening.

I'm simply reporting my surround as I personally experience it. I cannot experience you, or anyone else, and you or any one else cannot experience me.

We can only experience ourselves.

.

So like, do I even give a fuck about what you think of my own self evident experience?

.

[Walker]

Let it suffice to say that I agree to disagree with you. Strongly.

So you learned something.

The question is, what are you going to do about it?

The other question is, have you ever read The Only Dance There Is?

[Dalek Prime]

You know something's wrong when I'm too tired to wank.

(Now, there's a show stopper.)

[Walker]

Falling off a log.

[Dalek Prime]

Falling off a log.

Being landed on by the guy falling off the log. Completely passive state.