Conversation

In saying you have lost your identity, you are engaging in the liar's paradox. That which is without identity has no self to refer it to.

To put it differently, there would be no you to lack that identity.

Sometimes this may be a language game, borne of necessity. In explaining the lack of an identity we have to use personal pronouns, but...

To feel that you do not have an identity, to feel that there is a you that lacks a role, is itself an identification of the most pervasive kind.

Replying to

In feeling we have no role to play, we are only playing the role of having no role. If you don't have a role, you necessarily stop acting.

Note by "acting" here I mean in the same sense as what we call an actor, that of following a script, taking an identity or improvising a play.

Certainly things that may be considered as actions in a purely mechanical sense take place, but there is nobody there who is acting!

All that this talk of liberation amounts to, then, is letting go of acting, and thus the sense of even being an actor.

But if I'm perfectly honest, I think we've just made things a bit too convenient for ourselves by asserting there is a thing called enlightenment.

There may be enlightened modes of awareness, yes, but I suspect there are as many such as there are enlightened beings.

We can model enlightenment as an absence, a presence, a state, or a process or call it whatever we like, but we won't find any singular thing.