Hi

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
Andrei
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:34 am

Hi

Postby Andrei » Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:58 am

Hello

I was introduced to your forum by one of the guides here, Vivien and she already helped me a lot so far. I read from the book and some of the threads. The process to see has already started but I better do it properly and have a thread of my own just in case there`s something I missed.
I would like Vivien to be my guide as she already knows some bits about me, that in case she`s available and she would like to of course.

Some short info about me. I wear my "I" as a loose garment lately. There`s still identifying with it most of the time but it doesnt get as far as being lost into the character anymore. How far I reached down the rabbit hole I don`t know hence me being here.
Other than that, if you would like more info about my journey so far please ask.

Cheers

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4773
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Hi

Postby Vivien » Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:04 am

Dear Andrei,

I am happy to assist in exploring 'no-self', though I can only point the way. You have to 'see' it for yourself. That is why we are described as guides, not teachers.

You and I will simply have a conversation, the aim of which will be for you to make the realisation that there is no 'self'. That will be our focus. I will tend to ask various questions and set you some exercises, but nobody will be judging you. You can't get this wrong.

But before we start, let’s get through the formalities first:
If you haven't already seen it, there is introductory info here, the disclaimer and a short video too.
http://www.liberationunleashed.com/

A few ground rules:
1. Post at least once a day, if you cannot post, or need more time, let me know.
2. Be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.
3. Answer only from direct experience (felt senses and observed thoughts). Longwinded
analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress.
4. Put aside all other teachings, philosophies and such for the remainder of this investigation.
Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily and
essential meditation practice, it is fine to continue that.
5. Understand that I will be guiding you, rather than teaching you, and the more you put into this process the more you will get out of it.

A few technical support:

- You can reply to this thread by pushing the purple-orange coloured button 'Post Reply" at the left bottom of this page.
- You can learn to use the quote function, instructions are located in the link below this line:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660
- Please click the 'subscribe topic' link at the very bottom of the page to ensure you get an email whenever a reply comes in.


If you are happy to agree to the above and have me your guide, we can start the process.

What are your expectations for seeing through the illusion of the self?
How will Life change?
How will you change?
What will be different?


Please answer these questions in great detail. No expectation is too small to ignore.

Love, Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Andrei
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:34 am

Re: Hi

Postby Andrei » Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:19 am

What are your expectations for seeing through the illusion of the self?
Short answer: I expect to see (my identification with) the self fading away. Not identify with the character anymore.

Long answer:
I`m perfectly aware that you cannot exist in this plane as a no-self. You cant just walk around without a self. The self is like a costume you put on when you leave the house. Going to buy groceries butt naked and without your wallet wont get you far. The self is required in order to communicate and to relate to others.

My expectation is to see the self fading away. Until when will that process go on I dont know. You told me prior that there is no definite starting point, and there is no-end to this process and that makes sense.
I presume (to be read: expect, lucky guess) that there is an ocean of no self, a perpetual consciousness, a higher intelligence that rules over life. Maybe the end of line is dissipating into that ocean. I dont know. I dont have direct experience of that so it`s only an assumption.
How will Life change?
I see life as the basic substance of existence. From this point of view life won`t change. Life will go on in one form or another.
How will you change?
The character I play will be no more. Or it will be just clothing to wear when communicating/interacting with others.
That`s what I see happening now.
What will be different?
See above.

Let me know if that answers your questions or if there's something I misunderstood or if you`d like more details.


Thank again for your help and time! :)

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4773
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Hi

Postby Vivien » Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:24 pm

Dear Andrei,

Could you please confirm that you’ve read through the rules and can agree with them?

Thank you for your honesty and the detailed list about the expectations.
This list is important, because every expectation is in a way of seeing what is here, right now. Every expectation is a ‘hindrance’ in realizing what IS. Expectations are about the future. But liberation cannot be found in the future.

I go through all the expectations one-by-one. While you read them, please pay attention to what arises in the body. Is there any resistance to any of it?
Short answer: I expect to see (my identification with) the self fading away. Not identify with the character anymore.
Ohh, this is a HUGE expectation. Self-referencing thoughts and identification with the I-thought is the result of X years of conditionings. At LU we only go so far as no self; but seeing that the self is just an illusion is just the first step, however the most important one. X years of conditioning won’t go away in an instance, but without a centre, a ‘me’, there is nothing they could attach to or stick to, so gradually they fall away. This falling can last until the end of the organism. So expecting that seeing through the illusion of the self is the end is quite unrealistic.

Identification with the I-thought and self-referencing thoughts and stories still arise as a content of thoughts. However, upon investigation (or sometimes without any investigation) it can be seen that they are only thoughts and nothing more, nothing ‘real’. So expecting that the identification with the I-thought would stop completely is quite unrealistic.
I`m perfectly aware that you cannot exist in this plane as a no-self. You cant just walk around without a self.
There is no ‘you’ that could not exist as a no-self. There has never been a self, ever. The self is just an illusion. There is no ‘you’ that could walk around with or without a self. So nothing will change about this. Only the BELIEF in the self would evaporate.
The self is like a costume you put on when you leave the house. Going to buy groceries butt naked and without your wallet wont get you far. The self is required in order to communicate and to relate to others.
Self in not required to anything. There has never been a self in the first place.

I assume what you are referring here is not the self, but the personality. Have you read Jed McKenna? He has the similar analogy (costume). But the personality won’t go away, because the personality is nothing more than the sum of a lifelong conditioning. But this is not a thing that could be take off or put on.
I presume (to be read: expect, lucky guess) that there is an ocean of no self, a perpetual consciousness, a higher intelligence that rules over life. Maybe the end of line is dissipating into that ocean.
It seems that you’ve read a lot and borrowed different concepts and second-hand intellectual ‘knowledge’ along the way. But these are just stories. These have nothing to do with seeing no-self.

Many seekers believe that liberation is a completely different state that they are currently having, with some special qualities (happiness, bliss, constant peace or whatever). However, this is not the case.

Seeing through the illusion that there is a separate entity ‘self’ is not a state. When it is SEEN it, the knowledge becomes factual.

For example, did you ever once believe that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy was real? If you did at one point, and don't now, does the experience of discovery last? Or is it that the knowledge that there is no such thing as Santa or Tooth Fairy is just another ‘fact’?

Many seekers have the impression that seeing there is no self is a State to ‘abide in’. It's not.
I dont know. I dont have direct experience of that so it`s only an assumption.
Yes, these are all just unexamined assumptions.
I see life as the basic substance of existence. From this point of view life won`t change. Life will go on in one form or another.
Life or outer circumstances won’t change with seeing through the self. Life is always is as it is. Only the perception changes. So everything will be the same, although everything might look different.
The character I play will be no more.
There is no ‘you’ that could play any character. ‘You’ are the character.


What I propose to do is to set you some exercises, physical ones, in which I will ask you to describe the experience of the senses. We call this direct experience, or the uninterpreted moment. This refers to the data from the sensations themselves, before mind tries to make sense of it and begins to describe what is happening. Observing with the five senses — seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching/feeling. These exercises can help to see what is ‘real’ and what is not.

But before starting, please report what came up reading the comments about the expectations.
Was there any resistance to any of it?


Love, Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Andrei
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:34 am

Re: Hi

Postby Andrei » Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:29 pm

Could you please confirm that you’ve read through the rules and can agree with them?
I read them and I agree.
Short answer: I expect to see (my identification with) the self fading away. Not identify with the character anymore.
Ohh, this is a HUGE expectation. Self-referencing thoughts and identification with the I-thought is the result of X years of conditionings. At LU we only go so far as no self; but seeing that the self is just an illusion is just the first step, however the most important one. X years of conditioning won’t go away in an instance, but without a centre, a ‘me’, there is nothing they could attach to or stick to, so gradually they fall away. This falling can last until the end of the organism. So expecting that seeing through the illusion of the self is the end is quite unrealistic.
I understand it`s not a one time deal and that it`s a long term process. When I said I expect my identification to fade away I was fast forwarding to the end of the process. (Talking about things I haven`t experienced can only be regarded as guessing anyway.) I know I`m not there yet (if I ever will) and Im also not in a hurry either. One step at a time.
So expecting that the identification with the I-thought would stop completely is quite unrealistic.
That makes sense. I noticed that as soon a thought (regarding my self) arises in my awareness I automatically identify with it. The realization that it`s just an arising thought comes afterwards.
The self is like a costume you put on when you leave the house. Going to buy groceries butt naked and without your wallet wont get you far. The self is required in order to communicate and to relate to others.
Self in not required to anything. There has never been a self in the first place.
I assume what you are referring here is not the self, but the personality.
Maybe we need to talk about this first and make a distinction in order to avoid confusion. By self I mean everything that makes the I, that includes ego, personality, personalized thoughts, beliefs, role playing, character, everything.
So when I say you need a self to go buy groceries I mean you need to be able calculate change and find your way back home and all that. Ofc in order to calculate change you don`t necessarily create an I thought, unless you`re thinking is me the kind of person who leaves a tip or not? So to keep it simple I just put them all in the same category.
Do you mean something else by self and personality? I don`t mind calling them different if needed.
Have you read Jed McKenna? He has the similar analogy (costume).
I read his books several times. It was a pretty good kick up the arse in order for me to clear some of my old cherished beliefs and move further. Unfortunately Jed McKenna doesn`t deliver what he says he does and I have doubts he`s truly "truth-realized" or whatever he claims to be. I just took whatever was useful in his books and moved on.
I presume (to be read: expect, lucky guess) that there is an ocean of no self, a perpetual consciousness, a higher intelligence that rules over life. Maybe the end of line is dissipating into that ocean.
It seems that you’ve read a lot and borrowed different concepts and second-hand intellectual ‘knowledge’ along the way. But these are just stories. These have nothing to do with seeing no-self.
Then I have a question for you too. What exactly is life? The flow of seasons, the flow of blood through one`s veins. Who does that? I realize things happen, you get born, you die, etc.
I dont claim there`s an ocean of no-self or some master blaster intelligence out there. That does sound like some cheesy new age BS. But Im also not going to label it as stories and move on.
I was stuck and couldnt move beyond the I am, the observer. And then I met you or read your blog and somewhere found out that the observer is just another thought and was able to move further.
I didnt create this situation of being here. You didnt do it either. Then somebody/something else did.
Who?
What I propose to do is to set you some exercises, physical ones, in which I will ask you to describe the experience of the senses. We call this direct experience, or the uninterpreted moment.
Perfect. Lets do this.
But before starting, please report what came up reading the comments about the expectations.
Was there any resistance to any of it?
Resistance no. Im a bit confused as to the differences between self/personality/ego concept and I think we need to establish some meaning there.

Thanks again

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4773
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Hi

Postby Vivien » Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:34 am

Dear Andrei,
When I said I expect my identification to fade away I was fast forwarding to the end of the process.
The whole point is that there is NO END to this process. This is an endless process.
I know I`m not there yet (if I ever will)
There is no ending point, so there never will. If there is an expectation about an ending point then what is here right now, in this moment can be totally missed. Chasing a mirage in the desert that never can be reached.
I noticed that as soon a thought (regarding my self) arises in my awareness I automatically identify with it.
OK. Here is a lot of assumption that we will work on later. Now I just break them down into pieces:
  • Assumption #1: “I notice” – there is no ‘I’ that could notice. But actually, noticing happens, but without an owner (you).

    Assumption #2: “my awareness” – there are neither ‘you’ that could own awareness or anything nor an awareness

    Assumption #3: “thoughts arise in awareness” – this is just an unexamined assumption, a belief

    Assumption #4: “I automatically identify with it (thoughts)” – there is no ‘you’ that could identify with anything. Identification can happen but it is not done by ‘you’ or anything.
By self I mean everything that makes the I, that includes ego, personality, personalized thoughts, beliefs, role playing, character, everything.
Yes, these all can go under the category of self.
So when I say you need a self to go buy groceries I mean you need to be able calculate change and find your way back home and all that.
This is not so. The self ALREADY doesn’t exist. So with or without believing in a self, things happen in the groceries.

But let’s put aside all intellectual theories and assumption from now on. We won’t analyse things intellectually. Rather we will LOOK to SEE what is ACTUALLY ‘real’.
I just took whatever was useful in his books and moved on.
I’d like to ask you to put aside all previous knowledge what you’ve read, heard for the time of our investigation. This ‘knowledge’ can be the way of seeing what is here, right now. This cannot be understood by the intellect.
I was stuck and couldnt move beyond the I am, the observer. And then I met you or read your blog and somewhere found out that the observer is just another thought and was able to move further.
I didnt create this situation of being here. You didnt do it either. Then somebody/something else did.
Who?
Don’t rush… we will get there :) I cannot answer your questions, because it would be totally useless for you. You have to see it for yourself. So I can only guide you where to look, but ‘you’ have to LOOK.
Im a bit confused as to the differences between self/personality/ego concept and I think we need to establish some meaning there.
All of this doesn’t matter. All these words refer to the same illusion, the illusion of ‘me’. So we don’t even have to use the word ‘self’. But if we do, self = I. Whatever the word ‘I’ refer to is the self.

OK, let’s start it. We try to find the ‘I’.
We are LOOKing for a real ‘I’. Real is something that can be found.

What I want you to do for our examination together, is to try to separate out thoughts from what is ‘real’.

But at first, as an example, let’s try to find Darth Vader from Star Wars.
We’re looking for a real Darth Vader that can be found.
In order to prove that it exists, we have to experience it directly by seeing, hearing, touching/feeling, smelling.

The image projected to the cinema screen is not it.
The poster on the wall about Darth Vader is not it.
The memory in ‘my head’ about Darth Vader is not a proof of its existence.
A thought suggesting that “he may be exist somewhere in the galaxy” is just an idea, but not a proof of it.
A lego figure of Darth Vader is not a real Darth Vader.
A life size wax figure exhibited in a museum is not it.
A twelve-year old boy dressed in a Darth Vader costume is not it.

Now, try to find the ‘I’ that supposedly owns the body. Look everywhere. Search every corner of the body, memories, feelings, thoughts, or any other places. Don’t leave any stones unturned.

Let's take 'seeing' as a first example.

Right now, these words on the screen are being seen. Examine the actual experience right now.

Now, can it be found what is seeing them?
Can be located, found, tracked-down etc the 'thing' that is seeing these words on the screen right now?
What is found, what comes up?


Love, Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Andrei
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:34 am

Re: Hi

Postby Andrei » Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:22 am

Hi Vivien,
If there is an expectation about an ending point then what is here right now, in this moment can be totally missed. Chasing a mirage in the desert that never can be reached.
I have no expectation about an end result. Just because I said what I guessed it might happen, it doesnt mean it`s a belief that it will happen. I might as well hope after death to have fun in heaven with 40 virgins. It is not very likely ;)
I noticed that as soon a thought (regarding my self) arises in my awareness I automatically identify with it.
OK. Here is a lot of assumption that we will work on later. Now I just break them down into pieces:
Assumption #1: “I notice” – there is no ‘I’ that could notice. But actually, noticing happens, but without an owner (you).
Assumption #2: “my awareness” – there are neither ‘you’ that could own awareness or anything nor an awareness
Assumption #3: “thoughts arise in awareness” – this is just an unexamined assumption, a belief
Assumption #4: “I automatically identify with it (thoughts)” – there is no ‘you’ that could identify with anything. Identification can happen but it is not done by ‘you’ or anything.
There`s a lot of assumptions coming from you here as well. I use I because of habit. If I use I that dosnt mean I am identifying with the self while I`m doing it. It`s just 30 years of using it. I might as well talk in the 3rd person: "Andrei notices that as soon as...", or "The self notices..." or even better: "There is noticing that as soon as...".
I don`t blame you for making that connection.You can`t see the meaning behind the words I type (or which are being typed by my fingers lol). You can only see the words and assume I`m identifying with then.
So let`s just agree that when I use I that doesn`t mean I`m automatically identifying with a self that does (or think he does) those things that are being typed.
Or again, if it would be better, I could write in the third person or in no person at all. The more rules we can establish the simpler this process is. I`m good either way.
My gosh I start to hate the word I! :)
Assumption #2: “my awareness” – there are neither ‘you’ that could own awareness or anything nor an awareness
Assumption #3: “thoughts arise in awareness” – this is just an unexamined assumption, a belief
What is wrong here? Awareness? Guess I could just say "thoughts arise" and leave it at that.
Yes there is no awareness because that would imply the existence of a self. Thoughts arise.
Again, it was just me typing automatically without trying to make it sound less self... ing.
Identification can happen but it is not done by ‘you’ or anything.
That`s a very good point, to objectify identification in order to separate it from the context. It`s like when you unplug your laptop, sooner or later the battery will die. Instead "identification is happening"...
So when I say you need a self to go buy groceries I mean you need to be able calculate change and find your way back home and all that.
This is not so. The self ALREADY doesn’t exist. So with or without believing in a self, things happen in the groceries.
But let’s put aside all intellectual theories and assumption from now on. We won’t analyse things intellectually. Rather we will LOOK to SEE what is ACTUALLY ‘real’.
True. I see what you mean. After I took a step back from looking at this scenario, indeed there is no need for self to be present. Body moves to the shop, picks what it needs, stays at the queue (here the self appears and says some cuss words, "Those bastards making me wait. Dont they kow how important my time is!!!" hehe), pays the price, gets back home.
So yes I see what you mean.
I think I need to write all these discoveries down somewhere.
Don’t rush… we will get there :) I cannot answer your questions, because it would be totally useless for you. You have to see it for yourself. So I can only guide you where to look, but ‘you’ have to LOOK.
Agree.
All of this doesn’t matter. All these words refer to the same illusion, the illusion of ‘me’. So we don’t even have to use the word ‘self’. But if we do, self = I. Whatever the word ‘I’ refer to is the self.
Yes, self = me = I = personality = ego = and everything related
What I want you to do for our examination together, is to try to separate out thoughts from what is ‘real’.
But at first, as an example, let’s try to find Darth Vader from Star Wars...

Yes Darth Vader doesn`t exist. Im a Star Trek fan so that makes sense.
Dont you dare say something wrong about Captain Picard though!
Just kidding. He`s just a thought as well.
Now, try to find the ‘I’ that supposedly owns the body. Look everywhere. Search every corner of the body, memories, feelings, thoughts, or any other places. Don’t leave any stones unturned.
There is no I in the body. There are only sensations coming from the body to the brain who processes the information. End process.

There is no I in the memories. One can see the words and images of the past flowing on the screen of the brain. Memories are just thoughts. One does not have to identify with the images or release emotions associated with the respective images.
I have to add that at first I was going to say that not only there is an I in the memories but that memories are a part of I. As soon as I saw images from the past I automatically identified them with my self. I even released some emotions just to prove a point lol. But then I took a step back and realized memories are just thoughts

Onto feelings.
(For starters lets put feelings and emotions and (bodily) sensations in the same category so we dont get confused later. Yes love and hunger are not the same thing but that is irrelevant in the context of dis-identifying with the self.)
There is no I in the feelings. They are just chemical reactions inside the body. Substances react given certain stimuli. One might create happiness. Another fear, etc. If you see a playful kittycat the central nervous system will release endorphins that will create good vibes inside your body. However there`s no I involved.

There`s on I in thoughts either. Thoughts appear. That`s all. Of course one can identify with thoughts just as he can with feelings or memories or how his body looks. But that`s a choice.

There`s no I anywhere. I appears with identification.
Let's take 'seeing' as a first example.
Right now, these words on the screen are being seen. Examine the actual experience right now.
Now, can it be found what is seeing them?
Can be located, found, tracked-down etc the 'thing' that is seeing these words on the screen right now?
What is found, what comes up?
Im going to use a plant in front of me for an example instead.
The body sees through the eyes. The information travels through the nervous system to the brain where they are stored and processed - information about the shape, size, colour, type. Afterwards a thought arises: "This is a plant with green leaves and red petals."
So far no identification. So the body sees through one of its senses.
There is no "I" involved.
I guess the "I" appears as soon as a "This is MY plant" thought appears.
Let me know if I missed something and the identification appears sooner.

Lets take the words on the screen as well, and take mine for the emphasis.
Same, eyes see the characters, transfers the info to the brain. The brain creates the words and tries to make sense of the whole sentence. The sentence becomes an idea, a concept, a thought. Yes its a thought, the words flow on my mind screen. End process. Eyes see. Brain processes the info. The end product appears in a thought.
There`s no I involved.
If I start thinking that I`m the one who wrote those words down, or that the words are about me, then identification is created.

Let me know if that was what you were looking with those exercises or if you want me to revise them.
And again thank you for your help and let me know if I sound too assertive or too blunt at times. I can change, because I is a choice, hence not real. ;)

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4773
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Hi

Postby Vivien » Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:14 am

Dear Andrei,
I have no expectation about an end result.
Good :)
I use I because of habit. If I use I that dosnt mean I am identifying with the self while I`m doing it.
Are you REALLY sure about this?
What is the ‘I’ that could chose to identify or not?
Where is that ‘I’ exactly?

I might as well talk in the 3rd person: "Andrei notices that as soon as...", or "The self notices..." or even better: "There is noticing that as soon as...".
There is no difference:
Andrei = I = me = self

Look, this is not a grammar exercise.
Can we agree that you use the words that feel the TRUEST at the moment of typing?

So let`s just agree that when I use I that doesn`t mean I`m automatically identifying with a self that does (or think he does) those things that are being typed.
It seems that there is a hidden resistance here (as a defensiveness).
What needs to be defended?
Is there a ‘thing’, a ‘me’, an ‘I’ that needs defense?

What is the problem with identification?

Almost every human is identified with the word ‘I’, this is part of being human.
Again, it was just me typing automatically without trying to make it sound less self... ing.
Please don’t try sound less self-ing. This doesn’t work without 100% honesty.

Can you give 100% honesty?
I have to add that at first I was going to say that not only there is an I in the memories but that memories are a part of I. As soon as I saw images from the past I automatically identified them with my self. I even released some emotions just to prove a point lol. But then I took a step back and realized memories are just thoughts
This is a very good LOOKing! This is what we are looking at. Noticing PRIOR TO thoughts.
There is no I in the feelings. They are just chemical reactions inside the body. Substances react given certain stimuli. One might create happiness. Another fear, etc. If you see a playful kittycat the central nervous system will release endorphins that will create good vibes inside your body. However there`s no I involved.
But this is not a LOOKing, this is just a logical deduction. Content of thoughts. We are not interested in the content of thoughts here. We are interested what is the actual, immediate experience PRIOR TO THOUGHTS.
Of course one can identify with thoughts just as he can with feelings or memories or how his body looks. But that`s a choice.
Choice, really?
So you have choice to identify or not?

There`s no I anywhere. I appears with identification.
This is a trap. So if you don’t identify then there is no ‘I’.

But what is the ‘thing’ that supposedly could choose to identify or not?
Where is it exactly?


Don’t think about this, but LOOK.
The body sees through the eyes. The information travels through the nervous system to the brain where they are stored and processed - information about the shape, size, colour, type. Afterwards a thought arises: "This is a plant with green leaves and red petals."
So far no identification. So the body sees through one of its senses.
This is just a thought story. This is not LOOKing. LOOKing is prior to thought. This is just a scientific story. We are not interested in thought stories, but the actual, pure experience.
So far no identification. So the body sees through one of its senses.
There is no "I" involved.
Very tricky logic. So, intellectually you convinced yourself that there is no ‘I’ therefore ‘I am not the body’. And since according to the scientific story the body’s eyes doing the seeing, and since ‘I am not the body’, the logic says: “there is no identification, no ‘I’. Very tricky. Sounds almost convincing… but it is a self-deception.
Lets take the words on the screen as well, and take mine for the emphasis.
Same, eyes see the characters, transfers the info to the brain. The brain creates the words and tries to make sense of the whole sentence. The sentence becomes an idea, a concept, a thought. Yes its a thought, the words flow on my mind screen. End process. Eyes see. Brain processes the info. The end product appears in a thought.
There`s no I involved.
If I start thinking that I`m the one who wrote those words down, or that the words are about me, then identification is created.
Same story, NO looking. Only thoughts believed.

Let’s do this again. But this time IGNORE ALL THOUGHTS and pay attention ONLY to the actual immediate experience.

Right now, these words on the screen are being seen.

Now, can it be found what is seeing them?
Can be located, found, tracked-down etc the 'thing' that is seeing these words on the screen right now?


Love, Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Andrei
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:34 am

Re: Hi

Postby Andrei » Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:38 pm

I use I because of habit. If I use I that dosnt mean I am identifying with the self while I`m doing it.
Are you REALLY sure about this?
I use "I" in both cases, hence the confusion. When I`m here typing at the keyboard and words just appear, there is no "I". When I refer to the self I use "I" as well. In the last sentence I used "I" 3 times. It`s a word after all.
I know the difference and thats whats important.
What is the ‘I’ that could chose to identify or not?
This starts to look like mind scraping. I cant possibly give you an answer to that question without thinking about it. But then you`re telling me Im supposed to see and not to think.
Just going to answer that I cant find an I.
Look, this is not a grammar exercise.
Can we agree that you use the words that feel the TRUEST at the moment of typing?
Everything I write feels true for me and that`s how you should take them as well.
So let`s just agree that when I use I that doesn`t mean I`m automatically identifying with a self that does (or think he does) those things that are being typed.
It seems that there is a hidden resistance here (as a defensiveness).
What needs to be defended?
Is there a ‘thing’, a ‘me’, an ‘I’ that needs defense?
There is no defensiveness. There is a growing level of confusion though.
Or maybe you can tell me what exactly is the hidden resistance? What needs to be defended?
Because I cant find anything
What is the problem with identification?
Almost every human is identified with the word ‘I’, this is part of being human.
I`m not sure what you mean. Why would there be a problem with identification? I mean aside from the fact that you identify with a false self.
Again, it was just me typing automatically without trying to make it sound less self... ing.
Please don’t try sound less self-ing. This doesn’t work without 100% honesty.
Can you give 100% honesty?
It`s not about honesty, its about expressing my idea in such a way that you understand what I mean. And on the contrary, I do have to express myself as less self-ing as possible otherwise you will just pick on semantics.
I have to add that at first I was going to say that not only there is an I in the memories but that memories are a part of I. As soon as I saw images from the past I automatically identified them with my self. I even released some emotions just to prove a point lol. But then I took a step back and realized memories are just thoughts
This is a very good LOOKing! This is what we are looking at. Noticing PRIOR TO thoughts.
Im a bit mind numb right now so maybe you care to explain what you mean by noticing prior to thoughts and how is that relevant.
There is no I in the feelings. They are just chemical reactions inside the body. Substances react given certain stimuli. One might create happiness. Another fear, etc. If you see a playful kittycat the central nervous system will release endorphins that will create good vibes inside your body. However there`s no I involved.
But this is not a LOOKing, this is just a logical deduction.
Actually it is both. The first sentence in itself answered the question from a just-looking point of view: "There is no I in feelings". Afterwards came the logical thingie. Of course I can pass that in the future if it`s not required.
Of course one can identify with thoughts just as he can with feelings or memories or how his body looks. But that`s a choice.
Choice, really?
So you have choice to identify or not?
Let me give you an example. You like football and a team in particular. You "identify" with the colours, with the fans political doctrine and what that club stands for. It`s all bullshit right? You know that and you still go to the game and for 90 minutes on end you`re going to sing with the others.
After the game ends you`ll stop identifying, you`re realize its just a bunch of people running after a ball and a few thousands idiots (including you) yelling their lungs out. It was all pointless but so is everything else going on in life.
In conclusion, when you`re lost in the "self" then you metaphorically chose to identify. When you took a step back and realize there is no self you chose to interrupt identification.
There`s no I anywhere. I appears with identification.
This is a trap. So if you don’t identify then there is no ‘I’.

What is a trap? What are you talking about?
So far no identification. So the body sees through one of its senses.
There is no "I" involved.
Very tricky logic. So, intellectually you convinced yourself that there is no ‘I’ therefore ‘I am not the body’. And since according to the scientific story the body’s eyes doing the seeing, and since ‘I am not the body’, the logic says: “there is no identification, no ‘I’. Very tricky. Sounds almost convincing… but it is a self-deception.
You`re very quick into jumping to conclusions, and you dont tend to see the bigger picture. Yes theres logical deduction but theres also seeing. Thinking by itself cannot bring you to "seeing". The most it can bring you is in a place of emptiness, of no-mind. I use both and I dont see as a problem to bring logical factors into equation.
Again, I dont care to use logical deduction. I can do it your way. I only care about moving forward.

And here`s just looking:
But what is the ‘thing’ that supposedly could choose to identify or not?
Where is it exactly?
Don’t think about this, but LOOK.
I dont know where it is or where to look. I dont see it.
Let’s do this again. But this time IGNORE ALL THOUGHTS and pay attention ONLY to the actual immediate experience.
Right now, these words on the screen are being seen.
Now, can it be found what is seeing them?
The words are being seen. The sentence is understood. Cant find what is seeing them.
Can be located, found, tracked-down etc the 'thing' that is seeing these words on the screen right now?
No

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4773
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Hi

Postby Vivien » Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:38 am

Dear Andrei,
In the last sentence I used "I" 3 times. It`s a word after all. I know the difference and thats whats important.
Do you KNOW the difference or do you SEE the difference?
Vivien: What is the ‘I’ that could chose to identify or not?
Andrei: This starts to look like mind scraping. I cant possibly give you an answer to that question without thinking about it. But then you`re telling me Im supposed to see and not to think.
Just going to answer that I cant find an I.
You can ask the question “What is the ‘I’ that could chose to identify or not?” – then LOOK. No thinking is involved. AFTER, thoughts may come DESCRIBING the experience with ‘saying’ “there is no ‘I’”.

When I say don’t think, I mean that don’t try to figure it out by thinking, don’t try to analyse it, don’t try to figure out different theories about it. Just ask the question, wait, LOOK, then describe the experience with as simple words as possible.
It`s not about honesty, its about expressing my idea in such a way that you understand what I mean.
Dear Andrei, I’m NOT interested in your IDEAS. I’m interested ONLY in ‘your’ immediate, actual experience.
Im a bit mind numb right now so maybe you care to explain what you mean by noticing prior to thoughts and how is that relevant.
How to do it, see it above.

Why relevant? Because an arising thought ‘real’ ONLY as an arising thought, but NEVER its content.
Actually it is both. The first sentence in itself answered the question from a just-looking point of view: "There is no I in feelings". Afterwards came the logical thingie. Of course I can pass that in the future if it`s not required.
Yes, please. We can examine later why the story around the experience is not important. (It is just the content of an arising thought.)
I use both and I dont see as a problem to bring logical factors into equation.
There is nothing wrong with logic in our everyday life. However, when it comes to seeing through the ‘I’, logic is rather a hindrance than a help. Just words, just content of thoughts. Stories. So called ‘reality’ is behind or prior to thoughts. Thoughts are just mental layers over the actual experience, which are mistaken to be ‘real’.
I only care about moving forward.
Good :)

So, are you ready for putting aside intellectual reasoning, and reporting back only from the actual, immediate experience?
Are you ready for questioning your beliefs?

I dont know where it is or where to look. I dont see it.
Good.
The words are being seen. The sentence is understood. Cant find what is seeing them.
Good.

Let’s investigate on how a decision is made.
Choose one of your arms - It doesn't matter which.
When you have done that, rest for a moment and then when you want to, raise that arm into the air.
Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire…

What is controlling the arm?
Can a controlling ‘thing’ be located?

What moves the arm?

What is choosing which arm to raise?
Can you find the ‘thing’ that is doing the choosing?

How the decision is made which arm to raise?
How the decision is made when to raise the arm?


Love, Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Andrei
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:34 am

Re: Hi

Postby Andrei » Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:25 am

In the last sentence I used "I" 3 times. It`s a word after all. I know the difference and thats whats important.
Do you KNOW the difference or do you SEE the difference?
I see.
When I say don’t think, I mean that don’t try to figure it out by thinking, don’t try to analyse it, don’t try to figure out different theories about it. Just ask the question, wait, LOOK, then describe the experience with as simple words as possible.
Will do.
Because an arising thought ‘real’ ONLY as an arising thought, but NEVER its content.
I think its best you tell me your version of the difference between a thought and its content before starting to use that concept.
For instance if Im thinking about cars, the word car can be the arising thought and volvo, bmw, dodge can be its content. Or it might that the thought is simply that wave, that movement inside the head (or wherever thoughts appear) and everything else (cars, volvo, etc.) is the actual content. Or it might be that all above is the thought and a thought`s content is the words, emotions, everything that creates identification.
So what do you mean?
So, are you ready for putting aside intellectual reasoning, and reporting back only from the actual, immediate experience?
Are you ready for questioning your beliefs?
Yes
What is controlling the arm? Can a controlling ‘thing’ be located? What moves the arm?
I don`t know. I can`t see anything doing it. The arm simply moves. I "intend" it somehow. I`m "telling" it to move in a direction. I don`t know how I do that though. I don`t know how it gets there either. The arm just moves.
What is choosing which arm to raise? Can you find the ‘thing’ that is doing the choosing? How the decision is made which arm to raise? How the decision is made when to raise the arm?
The arm that moves is the one I was focusing on. If I focus on both same time, none of them moves. It feels stuck.
Somehow a choice has to be made, some sort of intention from my part. I don`t know/can`t see how that "intention" to chose which arm is made. It seems to appear somewhere from inside the brain (the lower side - the reptilian brain), I feel warmth there, but I don`t know how it`s done. Maybe the subconscious mind does it, but that is just a supposition. Its not "me" as in self/ego/personality/thinking process does it. The body simply moves like it has an intelligence of its own.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4773
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Hi

Postby Vivien » Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:51 am

Dear Andrei,
I think its best you tell me your version of the difference between a thought and its content before starting to use that concept….. So what do you mean?
I see you’re a real fan of definitions :) but definitions won’t help you here. ‘You’ have to SEE it for ‘yourself’. So rather giving definitions, I’ll give you exercises to help you to see the difference for 'yourself'.
The arm simply moves. I "intend" it somehow. I`m "telling" it to move in a direction.
Yes, the arm simply moves by itself. But there is no ‘you’ to intend it to move.

Don’t believe me, LOOK. Where is this ‘I’ exactly that being referred to?
LOOK similarly as you would searching for Darth Vader.

The arm that moves is the one I was focusing on.
Where is this ‘I’ exactly that is focusing on the arm?

While the arm moving trace back the ‘thing’ that is moving the arm. Where is it? Find it!
Don’t think, LOOK.

Is there REALLY a ‘thing’, an ‘I’ focusing, or ONLY focusing happening without an owner (you)?

It seems to appear somewhere from inside the brain (the lower side - the reptilian brain), I feel warmth there, but I don`t know how it`s done. Maybe the subconscious mind does it, but that is just a supposition.
This is just a story, an intellectual deduction. This is not LOOKing, this is trying to EXPLAIN what has been SEEN: “The body simply moves”.

For today, try to observe every movement the body makes. Observe how a decision is made how to walk, when to take the next step, with which foot. Observe washing teeth, typing, drinking coffee, dressing up. Observe the movements and try to find the ‘I’ that supposedly doing or initiating the actions. Don’t buy into intellectual explanations about the brain and things like that. Just simply observe. Ignore what thought suggest as an explanation.

Please report back what has been SEEN. Don’t give me explanations, rather descriptions of the actual experience.

Love, Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Andrei
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:34 am

Re: Hi

Postby Andrei » Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:44 pm

Hi Vivien
The arm simply moves. I "intend" it somehow. I`m "telling" it to move in a direction.
Yes, the arm simply moves by itself. But there is no ‘you’ to intend it to move.
Don’t believe me, LOOK. Where is this ‘I’ exactly that being referred to?
The arm simply moves. There seems to be an "urge" for it to move, like a wave of energy, from somewhere inside the body.
The arm that moves is the one I was focusing on.
Where is this ‘I’ exactly that is focusing on the arm?
There is no "I" focusing. There IS focusing.
In this case focusing was on the arm, in other cases it`s on a thought, or a landscape.

While the arm moving trace back the ‘thing’ that is moving the arm. Where is it? Find it!
Don’t think, LOOK.
Is there REALLY a ‘thing’, an ‘I’ focusing, or ONLY focusing happening without an owner (you)?
You`re right, it`s only focusing without a subject.
The focusing doesn`t seem to have an object either, or the object can move in the background.
For today, try to observe every movement the body makes. Observe how a decision is made how to walk, when to take the next step, with which foot. Observe washing teeth, typing, drinking coffee, dressing up. Observe the movements and try to find the ‘I’ that supposedly doing or initiating the actions. Don’t buy into intellectual explanations about the brain and things like that. Just simply observe. Ignore what thought suggest as an explanation.
Please report back what has been SEEN. Don’t give me explanations, rather descriptions of the actual experience.
Did that but nothing new to report. The body moves. Thoughts appear to label actions such as labeling a cup of tea for being too hot or not strong enough. Stuff like that.

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 4773
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: Hi

Postby Vivien » Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:31 am

Dear Andrei,
The arm simply moves. There seems to be an "urge" for it to move, like a wave of energy, from somewhere inside the body.
“SEEMS to be an urge for moving the arm” – ‘seems’ is not good enough. It is either there, or not.
So try to find this ‘urge’. But don’t think about it, don’t intellectually analyse it, LOOK.

Where is this urge exactly?
Or only there is an arising thought suggesting “there seems to be an urge coming from somewhere inside the body”?

You`re right, it`s only focusing without a subject.
The focusing doesn`t seem to have an object either, or the object can move in the background.
Yes, exactly. There is neither a subject, nor an object. There is ONLY focusing. Can you see this?

Thought is based in language and language can be very confusing as it presumes a subject at all times. Does the habit of referring back to thoughts about ‘me’ indicate an entity, or a ‘driver’ of any kind in ‘reality’? Or have you merely accepted the apparent implication that language produces that if there is an action then there must be a doer or a driver? Go to the actual experience and check it.

Let’s have a deeper look on thoughts. Sit for about 15 minutes and investigate these questions:

Where thoughts come from?
Where are they going?
Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?
Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?
Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?
What is the thinker of thoughts?
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

Do you think thoughts or you are just being thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?


Please go through these questions and answer ALL of them one-by-one. Don’t miss any. I’ve asked a lot of questions, so take your time.


Love, Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Andrei
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:34 am

Re: Hi

Postby Andrei » Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:27 am

Hiya
“SEEMS to be an urge for moving the arm” – ‘seems’ is not good enough. It is either there, or not.
So try to find this ‘urge’. But don’t think about it, don’t intellectually analyse it, LOOK.
Where is this urge exactly?
Or only there is an arising thought suggesting “there seems to be an urge coming from somewhere inside the body”?
Its a sensation inside the body. Not that of a big deal really.
Does the habit of referring back to thoughts about ‘me’ indicate an entity, or a ‘driver’ of any kind in ‘reality’?
Depends on the context, whether you see "me" as a thought or whether you believe "me" to be true.
Or have you merely accepted the apparent implication that language produces that if there is an action then there must be a doer or a driver?
Same answer as above. Depends whether you see "me" as thought or whether you`re lost in the content of the thought
(I`m going to use your "content of the thought" even though not sure it`s the best wording)

Where thoughts come from?
I can`t see. They simply appear independent of a subject. And even when I want to have a certain pattern of thoughts, as in what do I need to get from the shop, I can`t find who is the I that tries to do that. It`s like the question thought arises and after a moment so does the answer, "You need toilet paper" lol.
Where are they going?
All I see is that they appear. I can`t see for certain what happens next.
Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?
A thought can be stopped. I cant see who does it though or where the action of stopping the thought comes from.
Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?
Definitely not.
Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
Yes, thoughts can be changed, but it is not the "I" that does it. I can`t see who and how it does it.
And anyway, by simply being aware of thoughts any negativity is disperssed. Just like any possitivity. Thoughts are. Possitive or negative are just labels, sometimes "helped" by feelings.
Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
No
“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?
Thinking is. "I think" is just wording.
What is the thinker of thoughts?
This is a bit confusing. The thinker of thoughts is another thought, just like "the observer", or "the witness".
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
No.
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?
Yes
Do you think thoughts or you are just being thought?
You`re starting to write poetry :P
The "I" is being thought (in thoughts). I can see that.
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?
No.
At first I thought it is possible to pause the whole thinking process when one clears his head and remains in some sort of active expectation.
And even then you can`t prevent a particular thought to appear though because you can`t control thoughts. You can only pause the whole process.

However when no thoughts happen, I noticed another thought in the background, the one who is being "aware" of no other thoughts. That`s the "I am/Observer/Witness" thought.

So to prevent a thought to appear you have to "think" it from appearing. In conclusion you can`t stop the thinking process.

Thanks again for all your help. Have a great weekend!


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests