Xain & Lex

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: Scheveningen, Netherlands

Xain & Lex

Postby lex » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:46 pm

Lex: Hi Xain, warm welcome to you!

No guide appeared yet for you.
I was hesitant to take you on, because we know each other, but this resistance strangely disappeared .
What would you say if we dive into this process, you and me?
I don't expect any personal stuff getting in the way, but if it isn't working, you're free to switch guide.

Xain: All sharing is welcome.
Having been 'immersed' in Advaita for 8 months now the necessary knowledge has been imparted. I have no questions.
The teaching is purely on a mental level, however, and I have no direct experience of loss of the self/ego. Even this, however, is perfect

Lex: So let's go beyond the mind and have a LOOK.

Lex: Did you read any posts from others? Followed any processes?
Did you read the ground rules?

Xain: I have read a few posts and read the Ground Rules.
If I am honest, I don't think I have really and truly looked. I'm not certain why.

Lex: Honesty is highly appreciated.
It is actually a prerequisite as stated in the ground rules.

Lex: But as far I know you, being honest won't be a problem.
Can I ask you for the duration of this process to refrain from reading books or watching videos about any "spiritual" subject, including advaita or even Mooji.
And as far as it is possible to forget ALL you know about enlightenment, awareness, "I am", meditation.
It helps a lot if we start with a clean slate.
Pretend you never heard of anything, try to be open like a child.
Can you do that?

Xain: Yes

Lex: What result(s) do you expect from this process? Take your time. Be exhaustive and don't hold back. Be unrealistic.

Xain: I would like to get direct personal experience of what I truly am (beyond name and form). This reply may seem brief, but that is all there is. Your term 'be unrealistic' is confusing, and I am not sure how to respond. Perhaps a different choice of words may help?

Lex: Often people have expectations about bliss, unconditional love etc., so I ask this to get those out of the way. Kind of clearing the path to the gate. So your only desire/expectation is to get direct personal experience of what you truly are.

Actually that expectation is more tough to deal with than "eternal bliss".
What we attempt to establish here is the insight that there is no such thing as a person.

If there is a true self, there has to be a false self, so can you also drop the concept of "true self" ?

The way to "get rid" of the self is to simply see that it doesn't exists.

Have a look. What is the word "I" pointing to?

Xain: 'Bliss' - To me this is a feeling, a perception in the body. This is not something I am looking for.
Yes, the insight that what my mind (I) take myself to be it not true.

Lex: Have a look. What is the word "I" pointing to?

Xain: I have an automatic reaction that I am a person here, sitting typing this message and thinking these thoughts.

Lex: Ok, that can happen. So take a fresh look.
What is the word "I" pointing to?

Xain: I am tempted to write a reply from my own intelligence, rather than direct experience here, but that would not be helpful.
There is simply an automatic response that 'I' refers to a person that is here in a room, sitting in a chair, typing on a keyboard.

Lex: So to the body labeled Xain?

Xain: Yes

Lex: That is how we use the word "I" in daily life, to distiguish one from another, so that's realistic.

Lex: Ok, look at your keyboard, do you see the Enter key?

Xain: Yes

Lex: Now look inside Xain, do you see a self?

Xain: I cannot look inside myself. I can only look out.

Lex: So inside or outside of Xain, do you see a self anywhere?

Xain: I am carefully answering here. 'Xain' cannot look inside himself, but looks out and sees the body and takes the body that he sees to be himself.

Lex: So "I am this body" - Is that a belief or a definition?

Xain: A difficult question. As you instruct, I am leaving behind all I have learnt. To answer honestly, I would say both.

Lex: I'll put it differently. We have seen before, that conventionally "I" refers to this body, but is it only a convention or is it a belief too?

Xain: It is both. It must be both as if it was not believed in, it would not be used as a convention.

Lex: So, except for the body, is there anything more that this word "I" points to?

Xain: In terms of the word 'I' pointing to another object, no.
I would try to add 'actions performed by the body', e.g. 'I am typing a reply to Lex', but this ties directly in with the 'body' being 'I'. An action is not an object.
Similarly, thoughts and mind would normally be associated with 'I', the body, but I don't experience these as being separate from the body and I do not refer to them as objects.
I will continue this tomorrow, also, as I have to go out. I thank you for taking the time to assist me, and look forward to continuing the conversation, my friend - Namaste

Lex: Hi Xain, can you see what controls the body? Is there a controlling agent? Do YOU control its actions, thoughts?

Xain: I cannot see what controls the body. There is a belief that I control the actions of the body. There is an understanding that the thoughts I observe are not mine and I do not control the thoughts.

Lex: “There is a belief that I control the actions of the body. ”
Can you find that controlling I?
Is that belief correct?
Where does that belief come from?
What controls the bodies of animals?
Is there such a controlling entity in very small children?

“There is an understanding that the thoughts I observe are not mine and I do not control the thoughts.”
Can you see that "I", "the observer" and "the controller" are themselves thoughts/concepts.

Xain: Answers are not easy at this point.
That which controls the action of the body cannot be found, but there must be a controller or the body would not move or operate. Without a controller 'I' you would not receive this message in reply to your question. I take this controller to be 'me'. It is a belief (a thought which I believe in). The belief appears to be an automatic inherent understanding.

Xain: I am attempting to answer the question regarding animals and small children, but I am having a problem writing what I truly feel, rather than an answer which I know to be right from teaching.
I can only speak from the position of 'I'. I cannot state how external things operate.

Lex: So tell me what you “know to be right”.

Xain: Yes, "I", "the observer" and "the controller" appear as one and the same. Since they cannot be found they must be just thoughts that are believed in.

Lex: “Since they cannot be found they must be just thoughts that are believed in.” - That sounds like a logical conclusion. Is it seen?

Lex: Can you find a self/I other than as a thought?

Xain: There may be a conflict in words here, and I do not wish to confuse the issue. My statement 'know to be right' is from knowledge and is therefore a thought. I would refer this to my Advaita teaching. I know this is not the direction to go here, and I am trying to keep it away.

Lex: Ok, let's stick to the essence:
Can you find a self/I other than as a thought?

... long pause ...

Lex: Are you investigating this now?
Or is investigating happening?

Xain: No answer is forthcoming. It is blank

Lex: Look.

Lex: Keep it simple.

Xain: It appears that the only moment 'self' exists is when it is thought about

Xain: When trying to find a reply 'in essence', it is blank

Xain: There appears to be resistance to the question that I cannot explain, that manifests itself as a strange feeling in the body

Lex: “When trying to find a reply 'in essence' ” - I don't understand what you mean by that, but it is probably not relevant at the moment for me to understand. Let's keep it simple.

“It appears that the only moment 'self' exists is when it is thought about” - Exactly. That simple.

Lex: “ a strange feeling in the body” - what location? Where in the body?

Xain: In the Chest area - Like indigestion

Lex: Painful? Or like nervousness?

Lex: You're not going to get a heart attack now we're so close, hum?

Xain: It's OK Nervousness - It is nothing to be concerned over, and is something that has been experienced before when confronting these questions.

Xain: I take full repsonsibility for continuing the conversation

Lex: Ok, I suggest we take a break and you keep observing your body, thoughts and feelings with this question in mind. Take a walk, do the dishes, any simple (or complex) action.

Xain: Yes, I will do this

Lex: see you later. Enjoy

Lex: Xain are you here?

Lex: Do you exist?

Xain: I am here

Lex: And how is life?

Xain: Life is as it is How can I answer that - LOL.
I have been contemplating your questions, although not as much as I would have liked since the time we last spoke.
Your words have power. "Are you investigating this now?
Or is investigating happening?" - Beautiful.
It seems that something inside wants to let go but does not or cannot.
"Can you find a self/I other than as a thought?
My head is swimming. Self/I does not appear until it comes as a thought. Or rather, the self 'I' only appears at the moment when questioned, and appears as a thought/response.

Lex: So is it real or imaginary?

Xain: It is on the level of thought alone. It is just a statement

Lex: Do you exist?

Xain: Something is here. That is certain.

Lex: Yes, any doubt about that already proves it.

Xain: 'I' exist, of course. There is a mental feeling of numbness about trying to write further about what that is.

Xain: 'Imaginary' is a word I use for something that is made-up like a Dragon or a Fantasy World. I hesitate to use it to describe the self.

Lex: “ a mental feeling of numbness” - beautiful, could be a Procol Harum song. Is there some clarity too? Even if you can't find words.

Xain: I am turning a whiter shade of pale . . .
There is something, yes - I can't say what. A falling away of thinking.
A peace.

Lex: Ok, lets define for the moment objects as real, like tables and chairs and keyboards, and unicorns, Santa Claus and fairies as imaginary.

Lex: What category comes closer to the self?

Lex: Or is it more like "library" or "society", some vague concept for a conglomerate of things?

Xain: There is an automatic impulse to write 'I can touch objects, but I cannot touch the self, so the self must be imaginary'
But as soon as it is written, it is seen that I am using the 'I' and it is puzzling

Lex: "'I can touch objects" - you're simply referring to the body here.

Lex: I am using "I" and "you" now to distinguish between two sides of this communication.

Xain: The previous feeling came and went, and I feel I lapsed 'back' into the world of mental thought - I observed and recognise it in myself

Lex: These feelings of peace / contentment / freedom happen a lot, but they are just nice side effects and at this moment a bit of a distraction.

Xain: I understand

Lex: I know I didn't need to tell you this.

Lex: “ I feel I lapsed into the world of mental thought”
“ a mental feeling of numbness”
Funny how you mix feeling with mental activity.

Lex: Can we say:
Mental activity is happening?
Or is that too simple?

Xain: I mention it as I am trying to be as honest and open as possible to the process. Also, there may be others reading this who may gain a glimpse into the process. But this is a side-line.
'Mental feeling' - I did not wish you to mistake it for a feeling in the body as before.

Xain: Mental activity is happening. Yes.
There is no-one here unless I think about it.

Lex: Your full honesty is highly appreciated and paramount. But don't care to share or think of others at this moment. We'll deal with "others" when we're finished with "self".

Xain: Ok

Xain: I observe within myself a high degree of loss of thoughts during the process

Lex: “There is no-one here unless I think about it.” - and when you think about it, is there really someone?
(by now I suppose it's clear that ‘when you think about it’ is synonymous with ‘when the thought appears’)

Xain: When the thought appears, there is no response

Xain: Hmmm .. . . Thought says that if there was a response, who would be replying

Lex: And is there a self? Are YOU there? At the moment the thought is there? Think an I-thought and look.

Lex: Nobody to reply. I think Thought is right here. (With the emphasis on "right", not on "here")

Xain: The self is still operating, but seems dulled. Questioning am I sitting here, or is there just the experience of sitting . . . feeling

Lex: So what is this self-thing and how is it operating?
How can it be operating if it is a thought?

Lex: “am I sitting here, or is there just the experience of sitting?”
the latter, but you can use the first formulation freely as this is more common language, "I" referring to the body.

Xain: There is the desire to contemplate this further - Could we take a break at this point, please?

Lex: I had the same feeling, as Mooji sometimes says: "Simmer in it for a while"

Lex: One thing:

Lex: (á la Columbo: Just one more thing, sir...)

Xain: I loved Peter Falk Sure what is the additional item to consider?

Lex: Never mind, I guess you got the hang of it. Just live life and look.

Lex: See you tomorrow or tonight. I leave the initiative to you. Enjoy.

Lex: “Mooji sometimes says: "Simmer in it for a while" ” - The word he uses is "marinate", I now remember.

Lex: In the mean time, here is something to nibble for the mind:

Marked, Eternal: The Trick of Language

Xain: Thank you for the pointer to the page. Very enlightening and interesting.

Lex: Is there a 'me' or 'you' or 'I' , at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

Xain: It is difficult to know what to reply

Lex: Look and take your time. No hurry.

Lex: Is it clear to you what is meant by “direct experience” ?

Xain: 'Direct experience' is for me to know something for certain with absolute clarity, rather than me knowing it mentally or intellectually

Xain: I am here. That is certain with absolute clarity, whereas 'I am called Xain' - This is an intellectual statement

Lex: Ok. Here direct experience is simply perception without (or with a minimum) of filtering.

Xain: I understand

Lex: Because it is used a lot I will from now on refer to it as DX, (just laziness ), OK?

Xain: Lazy Lex . . . Ok

Lex: Thoughts and feelings are experienced directly. Brains aren't.

Xain: Yes

Xain: I have a brain is an intellectual statement. I do not experience a brain. A brain is a thought.

Lex: Exactly.

Lex: Vision, a visual field is DX, eyes aren't.
etc. Maybe you have a better example?

Lex: Space ? DX or construct?

Lex: Breathing?

Xain: No, you are right. DX - Seeing, Hearing, Smelling, Tasting, Thoughts, Perceptions.
Space is a construct. Breathing is a construct.

Lex: So we got the “concept” of direct experience clear.
I , me , you, the self - DX or construct?

Xain: I, me, you, the self - All constructs

Lex: Is there a 'me' or 'you' or 'I' , at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

Xain: There is a 'me'. There must be a 'me'. Saying there is not a 'me' would be denying my own existence. What this 'me' is, I cannot say

Lex: Is it YOUR existence?

Xain: There is an automatic impulse to associate the 'me' with the body

Xain: Your existence - Interesting. I am 'here'. That is all. I cannot own anything - I don't own 'an existence'

Lex: There is an automatic impulse to see an object with a motor and 4 wheels as a car.

Xain: Yes

Lex: In this existence, is there a “you”,“I” other than as a thought?
Or at its best a conditioned association?

Xain: Yes it is a 'thought' - 'A conditioned association'

Lex: Is there a 'me' or 'you' or 'I' , at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

Xain: Give me a moment

Xain: Without thought, there is no 'me', 'you' or 'I'.

Lex: Are you a thought?

Xain: Difficult. Both yes, and no. Without thought 'I am'

Lex: If you use the word "I", what are you referring to?

Xain: Right now, I have no idea

Lex: There is an undeniable sense of being. But is that personal?

Xain: No, it is not personal. It refers to whatever is here

Lex: I use the word "I" to point to Lex. And Lex is a label used to distinguish a part of reality from other parts (objects), like a table or a car or the sky.

Lex: What controls Xain?

Xain: Labels, Objects, Language, the world of duality

Xain: Nothing can be pointed to or found that is the controller of Xain

Lex: Is it clear?

Xain: Yes, it is clear

Lex: Great!

Lex: Next step = confirmation.

Xain: Fascinating. At this point I have the occasional thought like 'Where would I look' which is immediately followed by 'What is this I?'

Lex: How are these thoughts experienced?

Lex: Are they YOUR thoughts?

Xain: They just appeared

Lex: Are you ready to answer the “final questions” ?

Xain: Thought labelled them afterwards as mine . . .but it is clear that they just appear

Xain: 'I' don't know - Does it matter at this point what thoughts arise?

Lex: Does it ever?

Lex: “If you don't mind it doesn't matter” - Tommy Cooper (while trying to perform telekinesis)

Xain: And he did it just like that. Not like that, like THAT

Xain: Thoughts keep appearing but the 'I' is questioned every time

Xain: There is a sense of bizarre empty confusion

Lex: Do you see that every thought containing "I" is actually a pointer and proof of the non-existence of that "I" ?

Xain: Yes - I feel each time the thought arises, the 'I' is questioned automatically each time - It just happens

Lex: I suggest that you "marinate" in that empty confusion and tomorrow we will see if you are "ripe" for the final questions.

Xain: 'I' feel - LOL - There it is again

Lex: I happen.

Xain: Thank you - Yes, I think that is a good decision, Lex - There is a feeling/intuition that headway has been made here - Thank you


Xain: I will Marinate in it, and you can sell bottles of 'Xain' vintage 2013 at your local supermarket next year

Lex: Are you still marinating or totally dissolved?
Let me know if/when you are ready for the finals.

Xain: Hi Lex. Yesterday was fascinating. In truth, nothing appears to have changed - Not that anything earth-shattering was expected.

Xain: After our conversation I spent several hours in deep contemplation, non-mind, quite emotional, empty.

Xain: It came as a revelation this morning shortly after waking that I was considering that 'I' was that which experiences everything, but since the experiencer could not be pin-pointed, that must mean that I was the experience itself, as that was what was here. (Back in 10 mins)

Lex: Does experiencing need the label “I” ?

Xain: No, it does not

Xain: Perhaps more specifically 'what is here'

Xain: Speaking as 'I' as a pinpoint, centre of what is here - There is no centre, hence no 'I'. There is just experiencing.

Lex: More “marinating” needed? Ready for the finals? There is no rush.

Xain: I will allow you to choose when to ask the 'finals'. Timing is unimportant

Xain: Who can be ready?

Lex: I will allow you to choose when to answer the 'finals'. Timing is unimportant. Here comes the first question.

Lex: “Who can be ready?” - you're asking me?

Xain: That's the first question is it?

Xain: I am smiling. The conversation has lead to my realisation that there is no 'I' - Now you ask if 'I' am ready - It's funny

Xain: 'I am smiling' - LOL - It just happened

Lex: Is there a wish from the yonder end of the connection to talk like: “has readiness already emerged there?”

Xain: Shoot

Lex: Is there a 'me' or 'you' or 'I' , at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
Can there ever be?

Xain: There is no 'I' unless it comes as a thought. The 'I' which would be considered a centre of experiencing cannot be found. Future and Past are just thoughts, but to answer you directly, no - There can have never been, nor will there ever be.

Lex: When you say "I", what in Experience are you referring to?

Xain: (When 'I' comes as a thought, it still does not exist as we have established. It is simply a turn-of-phrase.)

Xain: 'I' has no centre. To talk of 'I' in experience, it would be the experience itself but generally we talk of 'I' as something that can be pinpointed, an object. There is no object 'I' - All that is here is experiencing.

Lex: And in daily life? (Not a standard question, but just pops up)

Xain: Interesting. In daily life it is the same in truth BUT 'I' would refer to the body as a convention. There will be same habitual pattern to return to body/mind being 'I'. I don't feel as if this is a permanent 'shift' into another state.

Lex: “ I don't feel as if this is a permanent 'shift' into another state.”
No special state, states are transient, but did a shift in perception happen? (Another non-standard question)

Xain: I am unsure how to answer. How would a shift in perception manifest itself in awareness/experience?

Lex: Ok. Let's leave that one. For most people there is a subtle shift in how they perceive the world/life without the illusion of a central identity.
Next question:

Lex: Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.

Xain: In honesty, there has been no shift in how the world is perceived

Xain: Do you wish me to continue? The question that you ask will be answered from knowledge

Xain: (teaching/training/advaita videos/mooji/uncle tom)

Lex: Why can't you answer from your own experience?

Lex: Or knowledge?

Lex: Don't you see how it starts and how it is maintained?

Xain: There is a feeling to answer anyway.
The illusion of the separate self comes from what we are taught as the truth, right from the moment our mother's point at us and say 'you' and point at themselves and say 'me'. This is never questioned, and becomes the standard world view of all people giving rise to the ego, that everything and everyone are separate objects.
However all objects including the body are ever changing, being created and being destroyed. Thoughts also arise and disappear. We, however, remain unchanged by all this.

Xain: I can write more if needed

Lex: “We, however, remain unchanged by all this.” - Predictable, of course, but I have to ask you about this “we”.

Lex: Is there a “we” or is that another concept?

Xain: From the point of view of speech, that which we truly are does not decay and is not an object. Language itself is based in duality which is why it can be difficult to communicate non-dualistic principles.
If the nearest that can be said is that all that is here is experiencing, experiencing does not change.

Xain: Objects appear and disappear. Experiencing does not.

Lex: Are you sure about that?

Xain: How can it be said to be different?

Lex: In many ways. For every concept there is a counter-concept possible.
Just wondering if you see “experiencing never disappears” as a concept or an absolute truth.

Xain: If experiencing appeared and disappeared, there would have to be an external experiencer to witness that

Lex: Clever.

Lex: :-)

Xain: (Rupert Spira)

Lex: You thief!

Xain: :-D

Xain: 'I' have never witnessed experience starting or ending

Xain: That which is within experience comes and goes

Lex: Another concept. In the end also experience/experiencing is a concept, so let's stick for the moment to the "I" - concept. The rest of the beliefs we will leave alone. They might collapse by themselves later. Or not.

Xain: I understand - Ok

Lex: How does it FEEL to see this?

Lex: More complete:
How does it feel to see through the illusion of separate self?

Xain: Unsure - With this question, I do not think you mean a feeling in the body - There is nothing special felt

Xain: Your addition to the question helps, but there is nothing to be said

Lex: Any feeling. Here are some examples:
“ There is a sense of bizarre empty confusion”
“ I spent several hours in deep contemplation, non-mind, quite emotional, empty.”

Xain: These feelings/experiences have passed

Lex: So there is no difference at all how life is experienced compared to a week ago? Exactly the same with or without the illusion of self?

Xain: Perhaps more Mooji Marination is needed?

Xain: Life is experienced no differently.

Lex: So the only difference is that the belief in a self disappeared?

Lex: has it totally disappeared or is there still some subtle advaitian belief like "I am awareness"?

Xain: There is some belief left, yes

Lex: I need to focus on something else and soon have to have dinner, so it is marinating time again, I'm afraid. Speak to you soon. Tomorrow afternoon will be fine. Post whenever you want.

Xain: That is fine, Lex - And thank you - It is felt that re-reading our dialogue over the past few days may assist, and I will do that

Xain: I believe you are right, and there is some subtle identification going on.
When I am out jogging and I see other people jogging, there is an automatic reaction to compete - Not to let other runners overtake me - Not to let them get too far ahead. After the thought has come in, I observe it for it's meaninglessness, identification with the ego - but the thought still appears.

Lex: “ there is an automatic reaction to compete” - that is not identification. I see no "I" in there. A tendency is noticed. Seems a natural thing for male animals to me.

Lex: The idea of identification might be more the issue.
Of course you are familiar with the advaita concept of the witness:
My former guru used to say: “where there is a witness there is a suspect”.

Lex: Are you the witness?
Are you the suspect?

Xain: (Amended reply) - From Knowledge 'I am both'.
From my current experience 'I am the witness'
There is the desire to elaborate here. I FEEL that I am the witness to all that is here. I feel I may have pushed past identity with the body, but there is still duality.

Xain: There is the need to say that I am quite a cerebral analytical person. Mind is strong here. Ramana maharshi may have described me as a 'wet coal'

Xain: 'My former guru' - Interesting past-tense

Lex: Should be 'late guru' - language error. It was Alexander Smit. He died.

Mind is strong here.
- Mind is loved here. Mind is not in the way. In the contrary. A very useful tool. It just has to be directed in the right direction.

I feel I may have pushed past identity with the body
“I feel” - witness-identity
“I may have pushed” - controller
underlying belief: It is good to get rid of identification with the body.
Is this correct?

Xain: You are wise.
'Is it good?' Surely it is neither good nor bad.
But on a mental level, I know I am not the body - Why would I want to maintain a lie?

Xain: I have a great deal of Advaita conditioning which might get in the way. Also, I feel that the mind will still attempt to grasp on to an object/concept or some identity.
I am not the body or the mind. What is next? As awareness, I am the witness of all that is here. Can I pinpoint this witness? No, but witnessing happens.

Xain: (Metaphor) I want to get rid of the disease. So much time has been spent studying the disease. I now know all that there is about the disease. Has all this studying got rid of the disease? No.

Lex: At the moment is some other group we are discussing exactly that.
The difference between intellectual understanding and “seeing”.
Sometimes the understanding helps the seeing. I guess in your case it doesn't. I see that the advaitian concepts emerge and are now a hindrance to plain, clear, simple seeing. And I see that you see that too. You SEE that. You don't understand that, you SEE it. You are fully aware that “studying the disease” might even have worsen it.

Lex: “I am not the body or the mind” - that is understood, but not seen or experienced. Also this doesn't need to be seen or experienced to see that there is no “I”.
It is a much simpler situation if it is seen that there is no I to be found in the bodymind than to maintain an I that is not a body or mind.
With the disappearance of the “I” the identification automatically vanishes. The body is real. The “I” isn't. You reverse the situation.

Lex: The strange thing is, that I had the impression that a few days ago all was perfectly clear to you. Something sneaked in again and you started to believe again. Can you investigate if that is the case? What made you revert? Can you try to forget all of advaita-philosophy and even Mooji. After gate you will appreciate him even more, I promise.

Xain: There is the feeling to elaborate a little more before proceeding. Intellectual understanding and 'seeing'. A double edged sword that I see in two ways. First, as an obstacle that I believe is operating in me; Replying to your question from Advaita knowledge rather than seeing. I know this is not what is wanted here in our LU conversation, but I still think it is going on when an answer is not directly forthcoming - It sneaks in, and is therefore a hindrance.
However, the Advaita training is something I have put into practise over the past few months since I came to this realisation and I feel that even though the illusion has not fully been seen through, a great deal of identity/suffering has dropped away from it's use.
From our conversation so far here, I believe that progress has been made and with your kind guidance, I hope for more.

Xain: Anyway - Back to your question.
What made you revert? Unknown. I am unsure if clear direct seeing has taken place. Reading through a blog post by Ilona, two sentences had power for me:
"See if life is happening to me or as me. To I or as I expression?"
"Is it sense that is experiencing or sense is experienced? Is there a gap?"
As you suggest, Advaita and Mooji are dropped as much as is possible. From feeling only now and simply.
I am struggling to answer these questions without reverting to mind.

Xain: Some more to add. I notice that when we first started chatting and I contemplate your questions for a few minutes, I found a large degree of loss of thoughts, and falling away of the mind wanting to 'enter the conversation'.
When approaching our conversation anew each day, this state is not there and I feel that the mind is quite active and wanting to participate.

Lex: “It is a much simpler situation if it is seen that there is no I to be found in the body than to maintain an I that is not a body.” - do you understand that intellectually? I'm talking to mind now, not to direct experience.

Xain: I am not 100% sure I know exactly what you are asking.
If you are saying that it is simpler when it is seen directly, rather than maintaining and living as though it was seen when it was not, then of course. If it is NOT seen, then there would an apparent choice as to how to live. If it is seen in DX then no choice would be available. Once the truth is seen, it cannot then be 'unseen'.
And to pre-empt your next question, that would mean that there is a chooser operating who believes they have a choice and control.

Lex: You say that you are not identified with the body. What do you mean by that?

Xain: I am here. That is certain. In mind, I know that I cannot be the body.
This appears to be the case in DX also, although there is (as we have discussed) some identification present that appears to give the impression that I am the witness of all that is here.

Lex: Ok, let's get back to DX

Xain: I need to look - Really look - Be totally honest - More than I have been before to push through this. This is the feeling right now.

Xain: Kill me, Lex

Lex: I can't. No such thing.

Lex: No killer, no killee

Xain: You are wise . . .

Lex: DX:
Is there an "I" locatable in the body?

Xain: No

Lex: Is there an "I" locatable in the mind?

Lex: be honest.

Xain: Of course . . . I sit here with no thoughts . . . no I . . I think and go to mind and say where is 'I' . . . mind says here

Lex: It was a trick question.

Lex: Where is the mind?

Lex: Or: What is the mind?

Xain: DX. Nowhere. Nothing is present without thought

Lex: Nothing? What about sensations, perceptions?

Lex: So: What is the mind ? (you can answer from intellect)

Xain: Forgive me - I was referencing the mind. DX: When no thoughts are present, there is no mind. IN: When thoughts are present, there are only thoughts . . . still no 'mind' - Mind therefore is a label for thoughts

Xain: IN: Mind is just thoughts - We generalise and say thought comes from mind. However, mind is just a thought. Mind does not exist.

Lex: Is there an "I" when there are no thoughts?
(now you have to look)

Xain: (Powerful question.)
DX: Without thought there is no 'I'. This is clear

Lex: So what more did you expect?

Xain: Fireworks? The world to open up? (Joking)
I sit here without thought, there is no 'I'.
Being further honest, there is an unwillingness right now to attempt to think - Mind is empty

Xain: Thoughts have subsided to almost zero

Lex: Nice, but is it clear now?

Xain: I hesitate to answer as it is so subtle . . . almost nothing

Xain: Perhaps I was looking for much more

Xain: (Who is this I_

Xain: I immediately question the 'I'

Xain: There's no-one here

Xain: LOL

Xain: LOL

Lex: " Perhaps I was looking for much more" -
Could very well be, and there is much more, but as far as LU goes, this is it.

Xain: You are right Lex - In fact, you were right previously - The point had already been reached - I was questioning as (fireworks) were expected

Xain: I? LOL

Xain: I want to sit in this

Xain: There is a desire present to maintain this state

Lex: No more marinating needed. No one to sit in "this"

Xain: But it's always here isn't it - I see that now

Xain: Well b*gger me

Xain: Thank you - Please ask the questions if you feel it is appropriate at this time

Lex: I'll skip the first two, unless you feel an urge to answer them again.

Xain: No, that is fine - The answers would be repeated

Lex: How does it feel to see this?

Xain: Feeling in relation to the body - None. At this moment the mind is almost totally inactive - No thoughts are arising. There is a peaceful serenity. A feeling of blankness and emptiness.

Lex: How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is
curious about it?

Xain: DX: A direct experience that there is no separate self. The only thing present is experience itself, and (IN:) the knowing that it is experienced

Lex: I mean, how would you attempt to make her experience it herself?

Lex: Say you were in my place

Xain: I understand

Xain: 'I' is used in everyday language to refer to a person, but what this 'I' actually points to is never really examined. We need to examine exactly what this 'I' is - Pinpoint what it is and it's location.
On close, honest, direct examination it will be found that the 'I' is just an idea, a believed thought - There is no 'I' except as a thought of what it refers to, which has come from conditioning

Lex: What was the last bit that pushed you over or made you look? was there a specific moment when seeing happened or was it gradual?

Xain: If you look back through out conversation, I think I may have mentioned at several key times 'Powerful question' or 'Your question has power' - It was at those times that insight happened.
If I go back for a moment and pick out some key lines:
You believe that the body is controlled - Where is the controller?
Are you investigating this now? Or is investigating happening? (Very powerful)
Is there an 'I' except as a thought - No

Lex: Although these are standard questions, you are providing nice and useful feedback.
Thank you.

Lex: Now that you see that 'you', the first person character at the core of life, isn't, what do you see when you see 'others'?

Xain: I live alone - Let me find someone outside. One moment please

Lex: Good to see that you only believe DX now. :-D

Xain: Forgive me, but you may have a delay on me responding to that. If you definitely require an answer, I will have to go out into the night

Xain: I'll be going out for a jog in an hour - I will see people then

Lex: HELLO! I'm here! Ain't I an other?

Xain: I thought you were referring to DX

Xain: There is no difference as can be distinguished.

Lex: But OK. Fair enough. Actually I think it is a very good idea to have a DX in 3D of that. But do you really need to use your eyes? Don't you have a DX of "me", Lex now?

Xain: On viewing the screen. On seeing the small photo of Lex. On reading the text on the screen. There is no discernable difference between what was witnessed before.

Xain: If you were expecting me to answer that the world, objects etc were being viewed or 'seen' differently, then the answer is no

Lex: So go outside jogging and see what happens / is experienced. Don't look for something big, like that you feel cosmically connected to everybody and all your judgments have dropped. That's possible, of course, but in my case it was a lot more subtle and it took a while (and some socializing) before I noticed.

Xain: Of course. from IN: I have read about such things. But I will only be writing DX: here for total honesty. So far, no difference. I will write another reply in an hour or two's time once I have been outside

Xain: My mind is still very still - A pleasant side-effect perhaps

Lex: I would suggest: Make contact with someone. Have a little chat about the weather, or whatever. And if there is no difference that is perfectly OK too.

Xain: I will be talking to a friend shortly 'face to face' - I will report back in 2/3 hours time

Lex: No hurry.

Xain: Ok

Lex: I'll put the last question too, then, maybe you can answer this already now:

Xain: Ok

Lex: Is there anything you would like to add?

Lex: or wants to be expressed?

Lex: It's an open question. "No" is perfectly acceptable.

Xain: The insight (for me) is very subtle, but it is seen. I recognise the place as one I have been to many times but not recognised it for what it was.
The only other thing to add is that there is a desire here to pass the teaching on to others. I see it's power to make life better. There was a desire for this before finding LU. It has been with me for a while since seeing through the illusion from just a standpoint of knowledge.
Oh . . . one final thing - Thank you - Thank you my friend

Lex: That is the answer I hoped for. Very touched. Love you.
YES YES YES. Please start to guide (it is not teaching) as soon as possible. The procedure is now as follows:
Three other guides have to confirm. They might come with additional questions. And I'll add that you would like to become a guide as well.
Hope to see you in LU Central soon!

Xain: I will be meeting Ilona Cuinaite personally on Friday in Worthing. That may offer some other insights and opportunities. I mention it here in case it is relevant.

Lex: You told me in a private message already. I'm happy we "finished" before you meet her. It would be so unsatisfactory for my ego if she finished the work I started.

Xain: :-D :-D :-D :-D

Lex: Love you.

Lex: I got some feedback. I skipped one question, so there are still two to answer:
The one that you would answer after the jogging and this one:
In DX, is there an experiencer? Is it the body that experiences? Or is the body simply an experience?”

Xain: In DX, there is only experience - This is clear. The body does not experience, but there is an experience of the body as you suggest in your last sentence. There is awareness of it, as there is awareness of all sensations.

Xain: Ok - Checking in as mentioned. There is no alteration in 'seeing' that can be ascertained, but there is still a major lack of thoughts being experienced (would be nice if this continued to bedtime, as there have been having problems sleeping!)
There is a more general openness experienced which manifested in chatting/passing the time of day with shop staff and with strangers/passers-by. A 'carefree'ness to it.

Xain: Strange - I notice 'Experience of the body' is partly from thought. There is just sensations. Saying there is a body there is from thought.

Lex: Took me a half year after gating and needed dancing classes for that one. You're quick.

Xain: I couple my Advaita training now through my newly found experience - This perhaps makes things 'quick'

Xain: Well does the Liver experience? Does 'my lower intestine' feel? The Body is just a thought - There is only experience. LOL - There is even the thought to say 'nerve endings' but that's a thought too! I don't experience nerve endings. Saying 'nerve endings experience' is a thought. Dammit, everything I say is just a thought.

Lex: I don't know. In DX haven't got them, neither feel them.

Lex: About the other people: For example do you feel superior or inferior to them? Do you see an "I" in them?

Xain: Good question. There is conditioning still present which manifests as a thought of an opinion or mental commentary about others. Part of my Advaita practise has been to witness the thoughts as they come in and let them disperse and that is still going on. There does seem to be less of these thoughts. DX: There is just seeing. No particular experience of either. I do not see an 'I' in them, no. Nothing has really changed towards others, other than a more general open-ness and lack of judgement.

Lex: “a more general open-ness and lack of judgement.” - is that nothing?

Xain: Perhaps rather than 'nothing' I mean 'Nothing really major' - The lack of judgement is coupled with the lack of thoughts being witnessed.
Although it has eased off now, there was (and still is) the feeling that I wish to remain without thought. That if I started an activity which might cause a large amount of mental commentary, that that would be somehow unwanted.

Xain: Previous to this, I had been quite a non-judgmental person

Lex: Getting rid of thoughts is not LU's business, but focusing on DX does generally diminish thinking IMHX.

Xain: I understand. Yes, in the moment there are no thoughts. Thoughts are 'time based'

Lex: Well I'm happy with your answers and saw a clear shift (back and forth) Let's wait for questions or confirmation from the other guydes.

Lex: Got 3 confirmations, so you have your liberation certificate
This means absolutely nothing and it is your passport to guiding.

Xain: Thank you, Lex. Great! - Good to know I've passed and the certificate is coming in the post. From now on, call me Bond. 007. The yogi with the Golden Om. License to . . . er . .. show you that you don't exist, rather than kill you. (It's far less messy).
Clear seeing has taken place. Yes. I recognise it clearly. If something earth-shattering and new was expected there would be disappointment, but there isn't.

Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests