Step in when ready :)

[cyclops]

Thank you, I'm excited. I very much look forward to answering your questions. Right now I'm tired though, it's not the best time. I'll write tomorrow. Just letting you know.

With love.

[Ilona]

How is it going, friend?
:)

[cyclops]

OK, here goes. Agreed: only what feels true 100%.

1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever? 

There isn't. There never was. There never could be.

On purely logical grounds, for one: any 'me' that is sighted is another object witnessed by . . . by what? By something that is not 'me'.

And experientially: anytime I earnestly look, setting aside all doubt and belief, nothing like a 'me' can be found, except as momentary thoughts and feelings that get labeled as "me."

However:

Last night I was sitting with this question and had a remarkable experience. I felt an ache in the solar plexus. I listened and felt into what that was. It was en emotion. I asked it what it wanted. It said it didn't want to be denied. I asked it what it was. It said: "I" and "I am," and then "love." This gave me some difficulty. To deny it would be a lie. "Don't treat me like an "it," it said. And I didn't. I addressed it as "you." I met it and felt it as "I." This "I" isn't anything like the separate, personal "me" we are talking about. It's neither personal nor impersonal. It's deeply intimate, and it;s boundlessly universal. It's not separate from anything. It seems to hide in the solar plexus, and when it shows itself, it shines as "I am" and as love.

Before I go on to the other questions, please let me know if this makes any sense to you, or if it represents a barrier to you. It doesn't to me.

[Ilona]

Nice, keep going.

[cyclops]

OK.

Just a quick clarification of the "logical" bit:

On purely logical grounds, for one: any 'me' that is sighted is another object witnessed by . . . by what? By something that is not 'me'.

Whatever I see is an object and cannot be I or me.

---

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

The illusion is that I am in charge of what I think and do. That there is a 'me', a discrete and separate entity, looking out through these eyes at a separate world. That this entity really exists in and of itself.

Clearly it starts in early childhood. It has to be learned. In a thousand ways a child is told, "you are this and that, you have these and these qualities, and you are responsible for your actions." The original belief gets elaborated in the course of a lifetime.

On a more immediate level, the illusion starts all the time as the thought: "I did this," I heard that," "I shouldn't have done that," etc.

It works the way all beliefs work. There's an assertion, a statement, a description, containing the words "I" and "me", like: "I'm typing, I'm thinking, I'm looking for the right words, I'm in charge of this part of the dialogue," etc. It doesn't have to get spelled out. The "me" feeling already contains the label "me", it's a practiced, habitual operation of thought. It works so long as it's believed in.

3) How does it feel to see this?

This is not a new realization for me, so there isn't a big Aha! quality in it. I don't think I can recreate the state of mind that preceded the realization, nor do I want to! It's simply so much freer this way. There has been a great decrease in the frequency, intensity, and duration of afflictive emotions. There's less resistance to experiencing whatever comes up. Just an easier movement through situations most of the time. When habitual knots of resistance to the flow of experience show up, they're welcomed or at least countenanced with the knowledge that this contraction around an apparent self is not really based on anything true. So these knots dissolve relatively easily. There's more confidence in living, definitely more joy. Less defensiveness. More courage to meet new situations and challenges. More sensitivity too. More pleasure in sights, sounds.

4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is curious about it.  

I might say something like: Notice the sounds you're hearing, like the chirping of these birds right now. Notice the habitual thought: "I hear that." Now just pay attention to how sound happens. Take your time with it. Are you doing the hearing, or is it just happening?

I think most people would recognize that it's just happening.

Then maybe I'd say: So where does the "I" come in? Doesn't the thought "I heard that" come after the sound? In the moment of hearing, is there an "I"? And when the "I"-thought comes, isn;t it clearly a thought? Is it anything other than that?

It's an illusion that there's a "you" that is living your life. There's just life and the movement of life. WHat we just did with hearing can be seen through all the other senses, and through thoughts too. There isn't a "you" who thinks "your" thoughts. Don't take my word for it. Just look.

5) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

what was pushed over was a belief in "awakeness" as a steady state, and a perfectionistic demand to be free of the coming and going of identifications. I think reading over these words of yours several times pulled the string that unraveled that fantasy:

identification with the story is also part of story.
Attachment to pleasure, and fear of pain- is also a story.
there is nothing that attaches, only story about attachment.

The story I was believing was one in which "I" fell victim to attachments and fears.

There is only life and its movement from moment to moment. It is a delight to be free of "me"!

[Ilona]

Brilliant clear answers, great stuff.
This is the only thing that I ask to to clarify :

Whatever I see is an object and cannot be I or me.

See if there are objects and what does seeing have to do with a seer and the seen?

I can say congratulations :) I'm happy to hear that feeling inside has shifted.
Much love.

[cyclops]

This is the only thing that I ask to to clarify :

Whatever I see is an object and cannot be I or me.

Trying to get at it logically, I used the dualistic pair, subject and object. What I meant to say was that if we conceive of "I" as subject, it cannot possibly appear as an object of awareness -- it cannot be seen, known, felt.

In this formulation an unknowable witness takes the place of "me." This is still subtly dualistic.

See if there are objects and what does seeing have to do with a seer and the seen?

There are no objects, there is no subject, except by mental imputation. The seen and the seeing are indistinguishable. Everything is as it is and does what it does.

I can say congratulations :) I'm happy to hear that feeling inside has shifted.

,

Yes, the fog has lifted. I'm enjoying the clear view. My heart is glad.

Many thanks, Ilona.

Much love.

[Ilona]

Awesome!!
So glad that fog has lifted. It's a new beginning and all is fresh.

There are no objects, there is no subject, except by mental imputation. The seen and the seeing are indistinguishable. Everything is as it is and does what it does.

How about the subtle witness?
Witnessing, focusing, intending, inspiring, observing, watching- all processes that have no object, no doer.
Every identification is assumed and mostly thanks to the language.

I see that you are ready to join the unleashed people. Are you on Facebook? If so find me there and I'll invite you to the 'aftercare' group. Looking forward to meet you there.

Much appreciation and love to you!

[cyclops]

"Aftercare" - I love it! And I think I can use it.

I'll see you there!

Gassho