'No self' my experience so far...

[relaxer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5phfF4qUlU

[Vajrahridaya]

My opinion is that these experiences can't be put in words.

 

 

It can't be PUT INTO words, but the words can be put into the realization. Like you can't put the ocean in a cup but you can throw the cup into the ocean.

 

Words are also arisen dependently and are without self.

[Informer]

No, my whole point is that there is no 'actual thing'. Since things are empty, there is no thing-ness of things.

Purely luminous simply means the lucid, alive, vivid, clear, intelligent, knowing, revealing/illuminating quality of experience or mind

No such things as "actual reality"

there is no such thing as a "self" or "inherent existence"

 

Why do you tend to speak from authority rather then proving the point?

 

Only five aggregates, processes, dependent origination and hence empty. In investigating the five skandhas no self could be found inside or outside, just like no weather-ness of the weather process can be found.

 

No self can be found, so what can you really conclude from this?

 

It sounds like you are tending to speak from authority.

 

 

 

Further, what is relatively dependent arisen is ultimately empty. You have to see this very clearly.

Once you let go of inherent existence, you are liberated.

No, it has to be a realization - no agent, no self, and the emptiness of phenomena via dependent origination.

 

 

No self can be found, so what can you really conclude from this?

 

 

 

This realization basically ends all views.

 

It also ends the view that there is an "actual world out there".

Like I explained, I do not trade one belief over another. The realization of emptiness ends all views. Emptiness， being the nature of everything, can only be realized.

 

How empty.

 

 

No self can be found because it is not a seperate thing. The self can only look at the reflection at best, not truly the self. How could it ?

 

Try to look from this perspective for a second.

[xabir2005]

But my dear Xabir, if it has to be directly seen and realized what of those who do not see it nor realize it? You can't say in all honesty that all those who do not see and realize are blind of sight and understanding. They just don't believe it. Therefore it is a belief system that is incompatible with many other belief systems.

 

Your emptiness is my fullness. We will never overcome this impass. I don't have any more monsters. I killed them all. Don't even recall most of my dreams.

 

Things exist. You exist. You talk a lot about Buddhism. That's fine. It is your belief system. But that is all it is - a belief system. Just as my belief system is Taoism. They both are real to us.

 

As long as you continue to type on the keyboard linked to this board no one is ever going to believe that you do not exist.

 

The truth is that nothing exists permanently and independently. The Buddha existed for a while and shared his insight with others. But now his body no longer exists.

 

One day you and I will no longer exist. But while we are here we should dance now and again. Smell the roses because they exist too. Watch the butterflies - they too exist.

 

Take good care of your 'self' and be well.

You have your belief systems.

 

I have my direct realizations that ends all self beliefs, and is itself not a belief.

 

You can never convince me to believe in a self because there is no way I am going to believe in it again, period... I have realized anatta and that illusion of self has ended.

 

Buddha calls it dissolving the fetter of self-view, sakkaya-ditthi... once that is dissolved, it is permanent.

[xabir2005]

Do you not realize how circular your arguments are?

 

To establish that you do indeed see "the true nature of things", you need to be able to measure your view against the true nature of things.

The true nature of things is that they have no nature. No independent existence with its characteristics. (Like I explained the red flower example)

 

But of course, you need somehow to have access to that true nature, in order to do the measuring. A circle. In other words, you make yourself into the authority, which establishes your authority. You're a loop, pretending to be a sage.

Dependent origination is for all to see, therefore I am not an authority.

 

And how do you expect me to believe that your view is no view at all, that your beliefs that you see the "true nature of reality" is not a belief at all? "I have no beliefs" is itself, a belief.

I can report factually that there is no longer a self-view, a belief in self. Just like I can report factually that there is no belief here, that santa claus is real. I believe you can report the latter for yourself too.

 

What you are describing is the worst kind of delusion. It is the delusion of someone who is so damn certain, that they are not even willing to admit that their beliefs are beliefs. You have left no room for you to be wrong, because you have no beliefs to be wrong, only direct insight into reality.

Yes I have no beliefs with regards to self. Just as I have no beliefs with regards to santa claus. And I have truly seen how there is no independent self, that in seeing is just the seen, in hearing is just the heard, etc.

 

What do you see when you open your eyes. The actual world? No, because your eyes are only receptors for light, and what you see is entirely the construct in your visual cortex. You only see your model. This is built into the human species; we are beings that interact with our own simulacra. The question is whether we mistake this simulacra, for the actual world. Of course, that is the very definition of delusion, and you are parading it proudly.

 

Or no, there is no "actual world"? Well, that doesn't seem to be a very practical way of looking at it. You can insist all day that there is no "truckness" behind the truck, but the truck will still run you over. That's what existence is, the thing that conforms to physics, rather than to your philosophy. All I can say is: better look both ways, just in case.

http://awakeningtore...lf-inquiry.html

 

What the Reasonings Do Not Refute – Conventional Existence

If things do not exist truly or inherently, do they exist at all? Or do they totally and utterly lack existence? The Buddha is quoted as saying, "What the world accepts, I accept. What the world does not accept, I do not accept." In the Middle Way teachings, it is said that things do exist conventionally. The conventional existence of the cup is the everyday ability of the cup to hold tea, to be washed and dried, and to shatter if dropped. The cup is a mere nominality or imputation or "say-so," asserted by the mind dependent upon certain pieces and parts. This conventional cup serves the purpose of a cup even though if it were analyzed with the Sevenfold Reasoning, it would not be found. The fact that it would be unfindable under this analysis is not significant, since nothing could withstand that analysis. The purpose of the Sevenfold Reasoning is not to negate every possible thing that can be negated; rather, it is to negate inherent existence – the conception of which causes suffering.

 

The Sevenfold Reasoning is not applied to refute the conventional, everyday existence of things, such as the teacup, the self that goes to the grocery store, or the Yankees who won the 2000 Subway Series. There are three main reasons for not refuting conventional existence. One is that conventional existence, according to Middle Way Buddhism, is not the cause of suffering. Therefore, there is no necessity to refute it. Two, not refuting conventional existence allows Buddhism to be able to "speak with the world" by accepting what the world accepts.

 

 

(Back to top)

 

Three, not refuting conventional existence provides a way for Buddhism to present the Four Noble Truths and the eight-fold path to the end of suffering. Even though the Buddhist teachings are vast and profound teachings, they are still conventional existents. By not refuting conventional existence while indeed refuting inherent existence, Buddhism itself can tread the Middle Way between the extremes of existence. If conventional existence were refuted along with inherent existence, the Buddhist path would not be possible since nothing would be said to exist. Refuting conventional existence would err on the side of nihilism. Retaining conventional existence avoids this extreme.

 

On the other hand, if inherent existence were not refuted, then too the Buddhist path would not be possible. Inherently existent things are independent of everything and therefore causeless, untouchable and eternal. If things existed inherently, they would be forever frozen in place, and no change or progress along the Buddhist path would be possible. Suffering entities would forever remain suffering entities. For Buddhism not to refute inherent existence would err on the side of eternalism. Avoiding both extremes is the Middle Way.

[Marblehead]

You have your belief systems.

 

I have my direct realizations that ends all self beliefs, and is itself not a belief.

 

You can never convince me to believe in a self because there is no way I am going to believe in it again, period... I have realized anatta and that illusion of self has ended.

 

Buddha calls it dissolving the fetter of self-view, sakkaya-ditthi... once that is dissolved, it is permanent.

 

Hehehe. But I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am only presenting an alternate perspective of the subject at hand.

 

Yes, I know, you and VJ have transcended physical reality. That's nice.

 

I am stuck here smelling the roses and watching the butterflies. How sad.

[xabir2005]

Why do you tend to speak from authority rather then proving the point?

The 'Why' part has been explained in many posts, which you can refer back.

No self can be found, so what can you really conclude from this?

There is no intellectual conclusions. There is however, freedom from self-view. This is freedom.

 

It sounds like you are tending to speak from authority.

I simply speak from realization.... however I do provide reasonings in multiple occasions on how it might be analyzed so that at least it can be intellectually comprehended and accepted (but don't stop there of course).

 

No self can be found, so what can you really conclude from this?

As above.

 

How empty.

And luminous. Luminosity and emptiness is inseparable. Appearance and emptiness is inseparable. The inseparability is what the masters used postive terms like 'Buddha-nature' and so on.

 

No self can be found because it is not a seperate thing. The self can only look at the reflection at best, not truly the self. How could it ?

That's because you presume there is a self behind reflection... the contemplation on Bahiya Sutta (in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard) will lead to the realization that the process itself rolls and knows without knower.

 

However I still think it is good to start from self-inquiry and realize I AM first, then progress to non-dual, and then anatta and shunyata, as per what I documented in my e-book and e-journal: http://awakeningtore...e-journal.html. It is not contradictory to Anatta, they are complementary insights.

[xabir2005]

Hehehe. But I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am only presenting an alternate perspective of the subject at hand.

 

Yes, I know, you and VJ have transcended physical reality. That's nice.

 

I am stuck here smelling the roses and watching the butterflies. How sad.

Actually you didn't know...

 

When you realize Anatta, or even Shunyata, you don't transcend physical reality.

 

And when you realize Anatta... all experience becomes intensely wonderful, incredible, awesome, luminous, alive, blissful, delightful, thrilling, intense, that everything ordinary - roses, trees, becomes a magical fairy-tale-like wonderland. One becomes very very sensuous, and 'trips' on life effortlessly.

 

All these because there is no 'self' separate from what is perceived... there is total intimacy there. There is literally total intimacy with everything - no distance!

 

And I can assure you, that no matter how you try to 'smell the roses' you will never truly experience and see what I do... unless that illusion of self is removed. Yes, you can experience being alive and smell the roses with that illusion of self, but this is really at a totally different level... Now you don't see the mountain, you are the mountain, you dont feel the wind, you are the wind, and even that is not right! There is just wind blowing, that alone is... and is incredibly alive and wonderful with total intimacy.

 

In Shunyata, one wonders at the incredible magicality of the universe - apparent and yet not there... yet so luminous and vivid and yet ungraspable, unlocatable and empty - like a magic show, like a dream. This is very blissful and wonderful to a whole new level.

 

When I debate with people I don't often mention these things and experiences... so perhaps I sound a little empty, but I assure you the direct realization and experience is truly wonderful. And I can tell you that realization is the most incredible thing in life and you will never want to live life in your old ways... You will never want to trade your realization for ANYTHING else... this is way better than even being reborn in heaven (if you believe in heaven).

[xabir2005]

Now you don't see the mountain, you are the mountain, you dont feel the wind, you are the wind, and even that is not right! There is just wind blowing, that alone is... and is incredibly alive and wonderful with total intimacy.

To get a sense of this see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. But I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am only presenting an alternate perspective of the subject at hand.

 

Yes, I know, you and VJ have transcended physical reality. That's nice.

 

I am stuck here smelling the roses and watching the butterflies. How sad.

You keep misunderstanding. No one is transcending anything, that would take a self and an ultimate reality that was somewhat separate from what is.

 

Anyway... What Xabir said.

[Aaron]

It can't be PUT INTO words, but the words can be put into the realization. Like you can't put the ocean in a cup but you can throw the cup into the ocean.

 

Words are also arisen dependently and are without self.

 

 

Obviously you're missing the point and I expected most people to, so I'll leave it at that.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

You keep misunderstanding. No one is transcending anything, that would take a self and an ultimate reality that was somewhat separate from what is.

 

Anyway... What Xabir said.

 

No, I'm not misunderstanding. I am messing with Y'all because of the words used and the way these words are presented. I don't have a problem with the roots of the concepts Y'all are presenting.

 

So there!!!

 

Edited July 31, 2011 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Actually you didn't know...

 

When you realize Anatta, or even Shunyata, you don't transcend physical reality.

 

Thanks for coming back to earth to talk with me a bit.

 

You are right, I will never experience anything in life the way you do because I am not you. The converse applies as well.

 

I have experienced what you speak to but my words for explaining my experience are much different than your words are because we have different belief systems.

 

Please do not restrict enlightenment to only those who follow the Buddhist path. There are other paths to enlightenment beside the Buddhist path.

 

The Buddha was not happy with his reality and that is why he taught what and how he did. I am happy with my reality so his teachings do not apply to my condition.

 

Now please excuse me while I go for a ride on my magic carpet. C U Later.

[Marblehead]

Obviously you're missing the point and I expected most people to, so I'll leave it at that.

 

Aaron

 

Hi Aaron,

 

I got it!

 

I don't agree with what you said about each and everyone of us being special but that is because of a concept not related directly to Buddhism or Taoism.

[Jetsun]

Actually you didn't know...

 

When you realize Anatta, or even Shunyata, you don't transcend physical reality.

 

And when you realize Anatta... all experience becomes intensely wonderful, incredible, awesome, luminous, alive, blissful, delightful, thrilling, intense, that everything ordinary - roses, trees, becomes a magical fairy-tale-like wonderland. One becomes very very sensuous, and 'trips' on life effortlessly.

 

All these because there is no 'self' separate from what is perceived... there is total intimacy there. There is literally total intimacy with everything - no distance!

 

And I can assure you, that no matter how you try to 'smell the roses' you will never truly experience and see what I do... unless that illusion of self is removed. Yes, you can experience being alive and smell the roses with that illusion of self, but this is really at a totally different level... Now you don't see the mountain, you are the mountain, you dont feel the wind, you are the wind, and even that is not right! There is just wind blowing, that alone is... and is incredibly alive and wonderful with total intimacy.

 

In Shunyata, one wonders at the incredible magicality of the universe - apparent and yet not there... yet so luminous and vivid and yet ungraspable, unlocatable and empty - like a magic show, like a dream. This is very blissful and wonderful to a whole new level.

 

When I debate with people I don't often mention these things and experiences... so perhaps I sound a little empty, but I assure you the direct realization and experience is truly wonderful. And I can tell you that realization is the most incredible thing in life and you will never want to live life in your old ways... You will never want to trade your realization for ANYTHING else... this is way better than even being reborn in heaven (if you believe in heaven).

 

So you have this realised as a permanent state? it's not just something you experience during meditation and for about five or ten minutes after every meditation session?

[xabir2005]

So you have this realised as a permanent state? it's not just something you experience during meditation and for about five or ten minutes after every meditation session?

yes. Not a passing meditation experience

[Otis]

The true nature of things is that they have no nature. No independent existence with its characteristics. (Like I explained the red flower example)

Of course the red flower has an independent existence with its characteristics. What it does not have is the mental perception of red. That perception is human. But the flower very much has its own characteristics, which give rise to the perception of red.

 

This is the same mistake you're making throughout your argument, and calling it "liberation".

 

It's not that the actual things in the world do not have inherent existence. It is that the things that we think we see, are not real, because they only exist in the brain. There is no reason to believe that the actual world does not exist, only that it is unknowable.

 

When I see the "red" flower, my brain translates the interaction between my retina, and the photon which bounced off the flower. The signal which is sent to my brain, is translated as "red". Therefore, the flower itself is not "red" in the way that I see it, but it certainly does have enduring characteristics, which give rise to the experience of "red" in the brain.

 

What the Buddha was saying (as I understand it) is not literally that there are no things, but that our experience is not of the thing itself, but of the simulation of the thing that we generate in our head.

 

It is ego (i.e. habit) which puts together the image of the world, including the redness of the flower (although obviously the image is hugely influenced by photons bouncing off the actual world). Suffering rises, not because of belief that the world exists, but because we mistake our inner model of the world, for the world itself.

 

For example, if my inner model of my girlfriend is that she's totally in love with me, then I am flattened, whenever she disagrees, or has a bad mood. If my inner model is that other people are mean and judgmental, then I will spend my life avoiding them. Etc.

 

Liberation, IMO/IME, is about surrendering the importance of the mental models of the world, which of course do not have inherent existence, and which yes, do lead to suffering.

 

But your explanation is IMO taking Buddha's words far too seriously. (Odd that you've included a lecture on the middle way, since you show no willingness to take a nuanced view on existence).

 

So far, the (non-)beliefs that you have explained have, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with life or the world, as I've experienced it. They have no explanatory power, no predictive power, and no suggestion as to how to live life. They sound like nihilism, and sound every bit as useless as nihilism.

 

Now, I'm the first to admit, that the world is not what we think it is. Quantum physics is clear on that. But to deny that it has "inherent existence" is to utterly redefine what it means to exist. What special definition are you making (something must be permanent, unchanging, to exist? - what?). You say "thinking" exists, but then you deny the entire world's existence. This seems incredibly backwards to me.

 

At the very least, demonstrate how your (non-)view of the "true nature of reality" serves some purpose, explain why it's useful to think in the way you do. Because you sound like you're full of it.

 

Seriously, look at the history of mankind, and ask who are the biggest a**holes? They're always the guys who think they have some special viewpoint on reality, who think they're clearer and more privileged in their vision. Who think that reality is exactly the way that they define it, rather than the way that everyone else sees it. Who refuse to doubt their interpretation, and refuse to accept anyone else's way of looking at things.

 

This is the group that you're emulating: the a**holes. Are you sure that this is the company you want to keep? Aren't you the least worried that you're going to wake up from this messianic delusion of yours, a few years from now, and realize what an incredible arrogant you-know-what you've been?

 

Is this compassion, to think that you know it all? To ignore the reasonable-ness in someone else's argument? Is this wisdom, to have already decided that you're done, and through with illusion?

 

It's a good thing that you're "liberated", so that my words won't seem cruel to you. And if you're not liberated, then I think I'm doing you a favor, by calling you on this.

 

You are exactly what's wrong with Ruthless Truth. People who take on one (half-)truth, and become convinced, thereby, that they are enlightened, and that they now see things that others do not see. You sound exactly like a member of a messianic cult, who has been convinced that he has now grown into messiah-hood himself.

 

Seth Ananda, if you're tuning into this, please take heed! Do you really want to be like xabir, some guy who refuses to listen to reasonable alternatives, someone who repeats the same "hearing, no hearer" drivel over and over again, and mistakes it for wisdom? Someone who has already decided that they've arrived, and therefore leaves no room to grow, no room to learn? Is that what you want with the "no self" pabulum they're feeding you at RT?

 

Self-doubt is liberation. Self-certainty is entrapment. The more sure you are, the less able you are to grow, to see, to experience. Thinking you are always and already "right" is just a recipe for conflict with the world.

[Otis]

Xabir,

 

Obviously, I can't know whether you have "beliefs" or not. But you sure imply that you do.

 

Why do I say that? Because you have repeated yourself, over and over again. You have used some variation of "hearing, no hearer", probably a couple dozen times in responses to me, despite the fact that I have been clear that this "argument" is utterly unconvincing to me. This is a sign of a habit-bound person, utter inability to phrase your explanation in any other form.

 

Someone who is "liberated", who sees the "true nature of reality", should be able to describe the world in multiple dimensions, in stunning clarity, because that is supposedly how you see it. You should be able to hear my skepticism, and adjust how you explain yourself, so that there's something in your words that builds a bridge of understanding for me. You should be able to use everyday words, instead of always falling back on Buddhist and RT jargon. You should be able to be utterly clear, and lead me towards an epiphany of my own, rather than just declaring over and over, these small handful of self-contradictory concepts.

 

And more than anything, you should be aware of the danger of certainty! This is an epiphany that you do not seem to have yet had.

 

Obviously, by your response to Marblehead, above, you've had some epiphany, and you've thus had some "luminous" experiences, thereby.

 

But does this constitute "liberation"? Does this mean that you now see "the true nature of reality"? Only you have decided that it means that. Only you have convinced yourself, that your experience is anything more than just an experience, a step along the way.

 

Isn't it entirely possible that you've had an important insight, and felt a lot of great experience, thereby, and thus have come to a premature conclusion of your own enlightenment? Isn't it possible that others on this board have already experienced what you've experienced, gone through it, and realized that there is more? Isn't it possible that you are only on the tip of the iceberg?

 

Are you going to leave no room for these possibilities? Are you going to just stop listening to other people's interpretations, because you're convinced you're already in the right place? Are you sure this is sensible behavior? Are you sure the Buddha would approve? Are you sure you're not going to feel like a total idiot, in a few months or years, when you look back and realize how limited your view really was?

 

Your path is your own, of course, xabir, and I don't really expect to make any headway in convincing you to look deeper. But I don't mind ridiculing your certainty, because you're asking for it. And I don't mind using you as an example of how not to do it, because who am I harming, if there is no "you" there?

 

Best of luck.

[Mahberry]

I see.

 

More often than not people do take the path of least resistance even if it is wrong, it doesn't feel wrong because everyone else is going that way as well.

Haha, very ironic and not the Alanis Morisette kind.

 

So, what have all of you get from shouting down xabir? How has contempt before investigation served any of you?

 

If no self can be made sense of then it would be in a book and everyone can read themselves into attainment. That would be great though, then everyone can do with a lot less suffering.

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron,

 

I got it!

 

I don't agree with what you said about each and everyone of us being special but that is because of a concept not related directly to Buddhism or Taoism.

 

 

Hello Marblehead,

 

I didn't say each and everyone of "us" is special, I said that believing that somehow we can transcend the human condition and become special is delusional. We are always human, whether we've reached enlightenment or not. I encourage anyone to prove otherwise, as in provide me with actual physical evidence. That's really my point, all this evidence resides within the mind, it's merely a construct that can't be proven or reasoned unless someone decides to. That's why actions are more important than words, when we witness someone's actions, we cannot deny them. The problem on this forum is that I see this endless arguing and it doesn't take me long to recognize the attachments and ego driven desires that fuel them. How other people ignore them and justify this is beyond me. I really don't want this to turn into one of those debates though. I just thought (yes thought) it needed to be said.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead,

 

I didn't say each and everyone of "us" is special, I said that believing that somehow we can transcend the human condition and become special is delusional. We are always human, whether we've reached enlightenment or not. I encourage anyone to prove otherwise, as in provide me with actual physical evidence. That's really my point, all this evidence resides within the mind, it's merely a construct that can't be proven or reasoned unless someone decides to. That's why actions are more important than words, when we witness someone's actions, we cannot deny them. The problem on this forum is that I see this endless arguing and it doesn't take me long to recognize the attachments and ego driven desires that fuel them. How other people ignore them and justify this is beyond me. I really don't want this to turn into one of those debates though. I just thought (yes thought) it needed to be said.

 

Aaron

 

Great response Aaron!

 

I totally agree with this. We humans are just another of the 'ten thousand things'. So we have a little greater mental capacity than others. Big deal. Cheetahs can run faster than we can.

 

What I was driving at is that each of we humans are just as special as every other human. All creation is special. But then, all destruction is special too. Hehehe. Ah!, the cycles and reversions. Can't get away from them.

[Informer]

The 'Why' part has been explained in many posts, which you can refer back.

There is no intellectual conclusions. There is however, freedom from self-view. This is freedom.

 

 

I simply speak from realization.... however I do provide reasonings in multiple occasions on how it might be analyzed so that at least it can be intellectually comprehended and accepted (but don't stop there of course).

 

 

As above.

 

 

And luminous. Luminosity and emptiness is inseparable. Appearance and emptiness is inseparable. The inseparability is what the masters used postive terms like 'Buddha-nature' and so on.

 

 

That's because you presume there is a self behind reflection... the contemplation on Bahiya Sutta (in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard) will lead to the realization that the process itself rolls and knows without knower.

 

However I still think it is good to start from self-inquiry and realize I AM first, then progress to non-dual, and then anatta and shunyata, as per what I documented in my e-book and e-journal: http://awakeningtore...e-journal.html. It is not contradictory to Anatta, they are complementary insights.

 

You have once again failed to understand your own supposed conclusion. You are not an authority on this matter, so instead of making erronous claims, prove the point or gtfo.

[Informer]

Haha, very ironic and not the Alanis Morisette kind.

 

So, what have all of you get from shouting down xabir? How has contempt before investigation served any of you?

 

If no self can be made sense of then it would be in a book and everyone can read themselves into attainment. That would be great though, then everyone can do with a lot less suffering.

 

It can be made sense of very easily. I'm not shouting down anyone, this is open forums and I am entitled to present my perspective as much as he is, although what I say as a meaningful train of thought that one can find proof, rather than the meaningless blubberring of someone who thinks they don't exist and can't prove the single point in which they think they believe.

 

On the same note, why do you feel it is any of your concern what I should or should not say and who I should not say it to?

 

Irony and sarcasm.

 

Spending 2 days to become enlightened is a lot of resistance.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Informer

[Informer]

Lets stick to the main point xabir. Don't get sidetracked.

 

You do not find any self xabir, So what does that mean.

 

You are looking but you are not seeing.

 

So then your line of rationale concludes that it must not exist?

 

ARE THERE ANY OTHER POSSIBLE REASONS ??????????????????

 

How could you have possibly looked at something that is impossible to see, as that is the very eye you are looking with?

 

Seriously, the best you can hope for is a reflection.

[Informer]

You have never seen your face xabir, so how do you know it even exists?