Adyashanti - Object Fascination

So that would imply that the 'you' can exist without thought,isn't it? If so, who is this You? You is nothing but the one who focuses upon something, If so, When this something is not present,what this 'you' is focusing upon? Is this focusing into nothing? It's completely impossible,right? So this perceiver and perceived can't be separted, if you were to separate, it would remove the perceiver completely.

The problem here is you are separating the perceiver from perceived. If something were to appear to perceiver, that would mean that perceiver could exist without something is being perceived. But such possibility is impossible, because if that were the case ,perceiver would have to perceive "nothing", how it would be possible? So my conclusion is, perceiver is perceived as well. When he change his focus from point A to point B, according to your view, point A goes and then point B comes, but according to me the perceiver himself becoming point B(focus changes and appearance changes both are ONE). That's what everything exist as whole, unfolds sequencially(time) in our level, So something is created by filtering from whole or leaving many phases. So something is not created from nothing but everything.

Line1:Perceiver and perceived are not separate,
Line2:but it doesn't mean that perceiver ceases when perceived ceases

Didn't you contradict line1 with line2?

"I don't know why it's impossible for perceiver to perceive nothing"

what is nothing? Nothing can only exist againt something, It can't exist by itself. When there is a perceiver, it is not nothing alone, but it "something" and "nothing(not that thing)" .

" It happens every night in deep sleep."
Deep sleep is not nothing,you are just exist without feedback.Consider you are standing inside the dense fog, now you are disconnected from everything but you are not perceiving nothing,But you know you are inside the fog because you know what is outside world, but if you ever lived inside the dense fog you couldn't know "something".So such a state is not nothing.So when you enter into the deep sleep, it is equal to you ever lived inside the dense fog. That state can only be known by getting into and getting out of that state(when you wake up you know that you were inside such a state).

And stillness or movement both are just alternating focuses.Stillness is repeating the same thought over a period of time.

Actually nobody enters deep sleep("state") nor stays in it.
And deep sleep("state") don't start nor stops.
And this "state" is not "known".
This "state" (which is not a "state") is constant reality.

Well,
first: a perceiver perceiving nothing is not a perceiver anymore.
second : nothing & nobody is left.

Do you know that for sure or is that just an assumption/conclusion?

Everything has to be concluded from our level, there is no other way left for us to conclude. So how can we conclude such a state?

For that, we need to know "who we are"? To answer this question we need to consider the points given below.

1) Perceiver and perceived are One, can't be separated.If we were to separate, it would remove the perceiver.

2)Our focus is continued to change all the time, we can never stops this change.

So "who we are" question has to include above two points without any violation. So by considering the two points, we can know what are all the possibility can't be who we are?

I am the perceiver and appearance is appearing to me(violates the first point)

I am the perceiver exist indepedent of object which means when i look away basis doesn't disappear on my behalf.(This violates the point 1 and point 2)

So" who am I " must be the change between the focuses Or change itself.So I am the ever changing focus(This satisfies both points).
Now conclusion
So I can only perceive nothing by perceiving something which doesn't bring meaning to me(like when you are inside the dense fog).
So two of possbility can't be possible
1)nothing appeared in my focus(would remove the perceiver as well if there were the case)
2)perceiver doesn't exist.(Not possible, because something can only exist by perceiver)