For no you is present when mind is fasting. In a fasting mind no I-concept arises. And there is no inferential entity to assume that it is unfree.
There is nothing consistent or permanent in an I-notion. It is recurrent, but no matter how regular the recurrence may appear to be, nevertheless its intermittence is regular also, and its absences are as inevitable as its presences.
These absences are intemporal, which phenomenally appear as a form of permanence, whereas the presences are entirely in temporality.
Presence in duration comports absence intemporally, but temporal absence, being absence of presence, is also intemporal absence. That is why absence of identification with an I-concept comports its intemporal absence also, for it is the absence of a presence in time, and it is eternal in the full sense of outside the sphere of a space-time continuum.
Noumenally, therefore, its absence is permanent.
The reason why nobody is able to believe that he does not exist is as has been statedthat there is no entity to believe that it does not exist. Less accurately expressed: if there were an entity that maintained that it did not exist, that entity, in maintaining that it did not exist, would thereby demonstrate its existence.
Therefore non-existence, other than as an abstract and inapplicable concept, could not be maintained of itself by any entity. Phenomenally it cannot be said, for it is self-contradictory, since the saying of it, itself refutes it. Nor can non-entity say that it does not exist, for it has no entity not to exist. Non-entity can have no entity to say anything. Non-entity cannot even know that it does not exist.
Only absence of entity and of non-entity, of the concept of either, could either exist or not exist without consciousness of existence, but such total absence of non-entity as of entity cannot either exist or not exist.
(Extract taken from Open Secret by Wei Wu Wei. Publisher: Wisdom Tree)