Again, this is meaningless. If I am the universe, then I am the wave too.
Being part of the universe doesn’t mean “I” don’t exist. Being part of the universe means “I” do exist. Read what AHunter3 says.
The fact that we are connected means we both exist. Because we are connected - not the same thing, connected.
‘I am connected to the rest of the universe, therefore I don’t exist, and therefore everything is pointless’ contains too many logical errors to be useful. Yes, I am connected to the universe. Therefore, both I and the universe exist.
If there is no difference, then there is no difference between enlightenment and samsara, and any discussion of the difference is wrong from the outset. If the universe is enlightened, then I am enlightened. If the universe is samsara, then if I become enlightened I will no longer be part of the universe.
I guess I am done with the thread. If you want to be miserable, go ahead. Just don’t blame it on the Buddhists - they already got enough troubles.
Actually that’s not right because the point being made is that there is no I or self, or ego. That’s what the second paragraph was illustrating. There is no "you’ just the universe, which is what is being said here. Saying there is a “you” implies a sort of separate independent existence. So when you are using “I” and “you” in your explanation you are missing the point. My problem is that I don’t know a way around that part.
That is profoundly idiotic. It is like saying that there is no such thing as a tire because it is a part of a car, or there is no such thing as a spring because it is a part of a clock, or there is no such thing as a finger because it is a part of a hand, or there is no such thing as a star because it is a part of a galaxy
BEcause it is fundamentally"cut from the same cloth" and doesn’t exist independently of anything else. There is a saying among people who believe that where they call it “there is no death just the passing of form” (calling death an illusion). As for the finger part, the argument there is that human make arbitrary cutoff points for body “parts”. That annblat link goes on about it (though his story involves two birds).
I have two articles of clothing that are, in fact, literally cut from the same cloth.
Sometimes I wear one. Sometimes I wear the other. I’m neither of them. If one gets destroyed, it’d be no big loss to the other one — or to me. I also have some articles of clothing that aren’t cut from the same cloth; losing one wouldn’t be a big deal to me. Now, if I lost one of my fingers, that’d be a big deal to me…
…but if someone else, on another continent, lost a finger, I may never even find out; but, depending on who it is, I may even say, what is that to me?
What I guess they mean is probably rooted in the no-self stuff from Buddhism. That things are made of and dependent on other parts for their existence and such have no inherent essence. In the case of humans there is nothing you can point to that is a self because it came from somewhere else. Your tastes, likes, dislikes, they aren’t inherently you they are the result of other things. “you” are a collection of parts but none of those parts are inherently you, so there is no essential “you”. There was some Koan about “what was your original face before your mother and father were born”. By original face they mean nonduality, whatever that is. My guess is that it has something to do with the universe before it expanded.
The only saving grace I think I have here is that applying quantum physics findings to the macro world doesn’t work, but even then I don’t think that’s what it is.
You say that I have various “tastes, likes, dislikes”. And you, presumably, have different “tastes, likes, dislikes”. And let’s say that someone else, somewhere else, differs from both of us when it comes to “tastes, likes, dislikes”. What is that to a fourth person, who (a) while knowing not us, (b) announces that he’s always been roaming with a hungry heart, summing his situation up with a declaration like, say, ‘much have I seen and known, cities of men, and manners, climates, councils, governments — myself not least, but honored of them all — and drunk delight of battle with my peers; for I am a part of all that I have met, yet all experience is an arch wherethrough gleams an untraveled world’, or some such?
Let’s say two people, who know of one another, are quite alike: they’ve had similar experiences, they have similar “tastes, likes, dislikes”; they make similar decisions and lead similar lives; some would say They’re Cut From The Same Cloth. Say two other people, who also know of one another, are very dissimilar: they have vastly different experiences, and vastly different “tastes, likes, dislikes”; they make vastly different decisions, and lead vastly different lives, and maybe on occasion they ask each other for advice; some would say They’re Not Cut From The Same Cloth. And let’s say that two other people, neither of whom knows the other exists, live through and learn from their own experiences while making their own decisions in light of their own tastes and likes and dislikes — which, in many cases, are exact opposites.
What, in your opinion, would have to change for one of them to look at himself and at someone else and meaningfully draw a distinction between “I” and “You”?
How do you know that my guesses are wrong? It seems like you guys haven’t read anything I linked or posted here which is why you aren’t getting what they are saying:
Past performance is not indicative of future results. Like I said, people haven’t really addressed what the links or paragraphs are saying here. This isn’t me saying it, I’m just showing you details about it.
You also have demonstrated an inability to realistically evaluate sources, or even show a modicum of discrimination in latching onto nonsensical ideas. Your links are, for the most part, garbage.
But it isn’t entirely without reason, the paragraph I posted on this page explains it yet people keep telling me it’s just nonsense without saying why. I mean scientifically it seems like it makes sense since everything is made of the same atoms at the base level, everything contains the atoms present at the start of the universe. Then heavier elements formed and we have what we see today. So how is everything not the universe then? People keep saying no but they don’t explain to me how.