Not two but one, not one but zero Thats as simple as ive found to explain it.

The two are the observer and observed The one is the non separate self (THE self) The zero is non dualism

If you would humor me with a definition in your own words?

Real is illusory and the illusion is real, that splits both our points right down the middle. Can we find agreement in that common ground?

Im just not sure you understand what non dualism is. I just want to help convey

The illusion is real. But dig deep enough to the core and you encounter non dualism.

If you had to, how would you describe non dualism?

Or rather its definition negates any interpretation of it

My reply is going to be short but encompasses everything touched on above.

Again, you cant have an experience without an experiencer, an observer without the observed, a tango without two. The self is real in this.

But non dualism says the two are secretly one, and one is secretly nothing bc theres nothing to relate it to.

Your understanding of non dualism is where we are having confusion i think. A definition for non dualism really cant be put into words, or shown, or viewed in any real way.

Because its definition negates its own definition

Some people have to play the roles of believers in god and some have to play the non believers as it takes two sides to play a game. We are god playing a game with himself.

This implys that we are separate from god, or that there is “someone” that dosnt have free will. But we are god. God being the core experiencer or “self” that we all share.

I didnt mean you in particular, i meant we usually see ourselves as separate

Exactly, like a light cant shine on itself, ergo you dont exist to yourself.

The self is the nothing, experiencing the something.

The illusion is real lol, i think we can both find common ground in that answer

It is an illusion, you see your “self” as separate from your experience. But one cannot exist without the other. No apply to your understanding of what i said above.

Basically saying. Something is synonymous with nothing.

At the cores core no, but yes just ONE self. The confusion lies in non dualism. Black symbolizing nothing White symbolizing the ONE

neither color can exist without the other, therefore they can be looked at as One entity. This is where the paradox kicks in cus now we are back where we started. The two are ONE now, but there is nothing besides it lol. Its impossible to describe in words non dualism bc the very act of doing so implies a dualism.

first paragraph, (if nothing is separate)

There is a self, but its not a separate self, an experiencer, but not separate from the experience. And again, is nothing is separate, than nothing exists.

Think of two points in a void, the position of one point can only be described -in relation- to the other point. 1 point in a void has an indeterminable position. (This scenario doesn’t paint the full picture, as the void itself can be looked at as a third point (or entity). Non dualism would say that the single point and the void are secretly -one- bc they only exist in relation to each other. So behind this -oneness- is nothingness, because there is nothing to relate the -oneness- to. Existence is entirely rooted in relationship, or the context of separate things in relation to each other.

Bc the self is an ever changing, non static, mask, that grows from past experiences in memories.

By “I” i dont mean the human being, i mean the experiencer behind all experience, to which no labels (except for the purposes of this conversation (“I”)) can be attributed to.

This “I” represents a self that is not separate from anything, simply bc it is what experiences everything.

And if nothing is separate, then nothing exists, bc in order to have “some-thing” you have to have something else to reference it. This is known as non-dualism. And is why there is a buddhist belief in “no-self” or nothing separate.

My question is why do they have methods, if there is no “I” that can really do anything. If my will is the universes will as a whole.

I have concluded that the “self” starts from a prenatal stage (genetically determined) and grown through life experiences. And the idea of “me” is an illusion that the prenatal “I” attaches to over time. The ideas of Buddhism are the only thing ive found that comes close to explaining “will”. But If there is no “self” and thus no separate will, is the prospect of obtaining liberation predetermined in itself? (understanding that any “will” you have is the will of the universe as a whole)? How can buddhism have any “methods” while simultaneously believing in a concept of “no self” or “separate will” ?

What can “i” do, if there is no “i”.

I should just watch life go by until one day it hits me?