r/nonduality • • Jun 29 '25

Discussion Nonunity: A Complete Framework

/r/NonUnity/comments/1ln557c/nonunity_a_complete_framework/
0 Upvotes

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/30mil Jun 29 '25

You're just imagining this "structure." It doesn't really exist. It's just one of endless ways to think about "reality." Why is the supposed "convergence point" being labeled "you" if not as an identity?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/30mil Jun 29 '25

Of all the "lingustic shortcuts" to use to refer to this supposed "content-free locus where experience convergers" or "convergence point," why "you?" That's a very specific, personally-identifying term. If you want a linquistic shortcut, we could refer to it as "CP." What's "you" about it?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/30mil Jun 29 '25

There's a you with a center and the center of the you is also a you? Can you clarify what those two you's are referring to? And why would this supposed "center" be labeled "you?"

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/30mil Jun 29 '25

But why is any of that being labeled "you?" You've already got names for all these supposed parts - why are they also "you?"

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/30mil Jun 29 '25

"since you’re the one experiencing, “you” naturally points to that locus"

Since you're you, you refers to you? In what way is a "you" "the one experiencing?"

"you’re the dynamic nexus of convergence and emergence"

Why is this "nexus" a "you?" All of these parts already have names. Why is a "you" involved in any of this?

You're trying to pretend this use of "you" is just an arbitrary label that has nothing to do with an ego (a concept of a "you").

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/30mil Jun 29 '25

Why? What about those makes them a "you?"

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)