Page 3 of 3

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:29 am
by Life
So lex how are things looking today?

One question today, can you describe the experience of a new born baby when eyes open for the first time? Really imagine this, what would his experience be like?

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:29 pm
by lex
can you describe the experience of a new born baby when eyes open for the first time?
Only sensory impressions, I imagine, and a "sense of being" without a sense of self.
Absolute knowinglessness. Clueless.
Natural trust.
Total surrender (having no other possiblility)

I realise that all this is still the case, just a thin layer of "understanding" is superimposed on this basic nothingness.

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:20 am
by Life
can you describe the experience of a new born baby when eyes open for the first time?
Only sensory impressions, I imagine, and a "sense of being" without a sense of self.
Absolute knowinglessness. Clueless.
Natural trust.
Total surrender (having no other possiblility)

I realise that all this is still the case, just a thin layer of "understanding" is superimposed on this basic nothingness.
Right nothing is labeled yet, no thoughts labeling. Only direct experience. The last bit does not really make sense, spiritual blabla wont help. Now nothing is really different only there are thoughts labeling everything including the body and thoughts as me. All there for functioning and communication to happen. Does that mean there really is a self separate from life? Look now, what is actually happening right now? Just take a good look at your immediate experience right now and tell me what is happening...

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:32 pm
by lex
I see my language is too complicated. With “thin layer of "understanding"” I mean also: labeling by thinking." I see that real understanding is not possible. The whole event (life) is one big mystery. Too complicated for mind.

I find it hard to investigate during my daily life. To go around my daily business and look for self or no-self at the same time.
All there for functioning and communication to happen.
Yes, just for that. Maybe we overdo it. A lot more communication that necessary. To continuously keep the illusion of me and the other alive?
Does that mean there really is a self separate from life?
A self separate from life is absolutely impossible. Is there a self anyway? That is the question/quest.
Look now, what is actually happening right now?
Always is happening the same. Experiences. Sensory perceptions, feelings, thougths, movements.
Sometimes there is the feeling that it is just me that exists, like in a dream, and that is a scary and lonely feeling.
This could be the source of wanting to be someone with others around. Though while I am asleep, I never care.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

I cheated. I went to a satsang of Unmani and I don't regret it. It didn't interfere at all with the “work” we're doing here. In the contrary.
I went with a friend who borrowed my "Gateless Gatecrashers" and who saw immediately upon reading that there is no me.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is still this pending question.
Look for yourself what the implications would be if there were no self. Make a list of what this would be like, look into the world as if it were already true...
It is already clear that there is no such thing as a self, apart from as a mental construct or at its best a social tool.
The only difference until now is, that there seems to be somewhat less thoughts, a little more clarity, like the windows have just been cleaned. Maybe the full impact hasn't arrived yet, or maybe this is all. Who knows?

So to look what the implications would be if there were no self, I would first have to imagine one, pretend that it really exists, identify with it and from this identification imagine that it doesn't. I'm afraid I'm not capable of such a tour-de-force.

Anyway, if there is a change it is so subtle that it isn't noticed (yet?).

In the mean time I (?) keep looking. Looking. And looking. Just looking. Maybe not even for a self or no-self. Just looking.

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:09 pm
by lex
When I see the original subject: "Ego applying for destruction." - I remember that I found that a funny tltle. Now I find it kind of weird and empty, nietszeggend. So something must have changed.

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:11 pm
by lex
There is still some hope that suddenly there will be this insight that explains everything.
I start to assume that that hope is totally idle.

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:42 pm
by Life
Possibly, over the whole of this thread quite a lot of questions have been left unanswered/not looked at which leaves me unsure where exactly your at.
Always is happening the same. Experiences. Sensory perceptions, feelings, thougths, movements.
Sometimes there is the feeling that it is just me that exists, like in a dream, and that is a scary and lonely feeling.
This could be the source of wanting to be someone with others around. Though while I am asleep, I never care.
The first bit, about direct experience thats where its at, not about how it should be or you think it is.

So, Always is happening the same. Experience. Sensory perceptions, feelings, thougths, movements.
All real and happening, where is the self in all of that? Are you controling it? Where does self end and existence begin?

Look at a tree or a plant or any animal, is there a self in there? Are they trying to become better or get rid of anything? Does the tree try to become one with its root?
I see my language is too complicated. With “thin layer of "understanding"” I mean also: labeling by thinking." I see that real understanding is not possible. The whole event (life) is one big mystery. Too complicated for mind.

I find it hard to investigate during my daily life. To go around my daily business and look for self or no-self at the same time.
Thats a good observation, it cannot be done with mind/thoughts, so in fact dont believe a thing i say but see/check/find if what i say is true.

By investigate i dont mean look for self, it means check if it is indeed there, are you controling that thought, breath, step, fart, like that. I mean right now this instance words are read, thoughts are there about it and what to reply, seeing, hearing, touch, smelling but is there also a thinker, seeer, hearer, toucher and smeller? Is self selfing or life life-ing?
A self separate from life is absolutely impossible. Is there a self anyway? That is the question/quest.
Yeah but not a question or quest to be solved like a puzzle with a missing piece, just an investigation if there is indeed a missing piece missing in the first place... The difference between reading gateless gatecrashers like the next non-duality book which might do the trick or actualy investigating in the immediacy of right now if what is indicated is really true.
It is already clear that there is no such thing as a self, apart from as a mental construct or at its best a social tool.
The only difference until now is, that there seems to be somewhat less thoughts, a little more clarity, like the windows have just been cleaned. Maybe the full impact hasn't arrived yet, or maybe this is all. Who knows?

So to look what the implications would be if there were no self, I would first have to imagine one, pretend that it really exists, identify with it and from this identification imagine that it doesn't. I'm afraid I'm not capable of such a tour-de-force.

Anyway, if there is a change it is so subtle that it isn't noticed (yet?).

In the mean time I (?) keep looking. Looking. And looking. Just looking. Maybe not even for a self or no-self. Just looking.
Is it clear or is it seen?

No dont make it complicated, use your imagination, look trough the lense, what do you imagine it will be like? You cannot go wrong here, what do you think it will be like?

Are you doing the looking/awaring/observing/consciousnessing?
When I see the original subject: "Ego applying for destruction." - I remember that I found that a funny tltle. Now I find it kind of weird and empty, nietszeggend. So something must have changed.
Nothing changes, nothing to destroy, just a shift in perspective, its either true there is a self or there isn't a self!
There is still some hope that suddenly there will be this insight that explains everything.
I start to assume that that hope is totally idle.
First its seen then understood not the other way around, thats right.

So lex, your seeing the gate, now go into nature, look around, look closely how everything moves and grows and functions, how life happens, is there a self anywhere controling what happens'? Go.

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:34 pm
by lex
which leaves me unsure where exactly your at.
Here the same.

I've seen that life is far too complicated to be understood and that I, as a separate entity, am a mere concept. This organism labeled Lex is uninhabited. There is no entity living in it's head controlling it.
All real and happening, where is the self in all of that?
It pops up sometimes as a feeling, "sense of being", or as a thought with "I" in it.
Where does self end and existence begin?
Existence doesn't begin. It just is. The question "where does self end?" makes no sense to me at the moment.
A self can't be found. It's an abstract concept. An idea. In front of me is a computerscreen. It exists. I can see it. I don't see a self.
What exactly do you mean with self? What would be your definition of a self?
Are you controling it?
No.
Look at a tree or a plant or any animal, is there a self in there?
I have no idea. Probably not. Maybe a "sense of self" or a knowing that it exists. But I doubt that there is a feeling of being seperate from the rest of existence.
Are you controling that thought, breath, step, fart, like that. I mean right now this instance words are read, thoughts are there about it and what to reply, seeing, hearing, touch, smelling but is there also a thinker, seeer, hearer, toucher and smeller? Is self selfing or life life-ing?
Life is life-ing. If there is anything that could be a self it is life. One might say: I am life.
Yeah but not a question or quest to be solved like a puzzle with a missing piece, just an investigation if there is indeed a missing piece missing in the first place... The difference between reading gateless gatecrashers like the next non-duality book which might do the trick or actualy investigating in the immediacy of right now if what is indicated is really true.
I didn't read the Gatecrashers. I lend it to a friend. I wanted to go in the process as unbiased as possible.
No, there is no piece missing. A self is not needed to complete the puzzle of life. The puzzle of life is complete and unsolvable.
Is it clear or is it seen?
Actually I don't know. It is seen that there is no self, but if it is fully clear (as clear as it can get) I don't know.
what do you think it will be like?
Clear, thoughtless, effortless, lovingly, peaceful, indifferent, intimate, detached, without doubt about who/what I am. And free.
Or maybe no difference at all. There is more and more not-knowing, and I expect that to only increase.
Are you doing the looking/awaring/observing/consciousnessing?
I am not DOING it. But I am aware. If I look carefully, I see that awareness is coupled to the idea of "me" to construct the thought/sense "I am aware".
Nothing changes, nothing to destroy, just a shift in perspective
Yes. Nothing to destroy. No destroyer either. No ego, no destruction. The question is: If this shift has happened, if it is seen there is no me, who would know? Would I be informed: "Hello, Lex, the shift has happened!" ?
If it is seen there is no me, should always a shift happen? Should anything happen?
So lex, you're seeing the gate
Am I?
I just see that there is no self. What is the gate? Acknowledging that that's it and continue "my" life? (Don't know how to say that without using "I" or "me". If I say: "Allow life to continue" it sounds even worse.)
Allow this realisation to deepen?
Abiding in not-understanding?
No idea where to go from here.

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:05 am
by lex
Today I got a glimpse of ego. It is a bunch of conditionings, traumas, programs, defence mechanisms, fear/desire-based attitudes and behaviours. And when it was in focus it appeared very strong and undissolvable, unchangeable.

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:40 pm
by Life
I've seen that life is far too complicated to be understood and that I, as a separate entity, am a mere concept. This organism labeled Lex is uninhabited. There is no entity living in it's head controlling it.
So is there a self anywhere at all?
All real and happening, where is the self in all of that?
It pops up sometimes as a feeling, "sense of being", or as a thought with "I" in it.
Feeling, sense, thoughts yeah, does that mean a self pops up for real? Can a self be sometimes here and other times not?
Where does self end and existence begin?
Existence doesn't begin. It just is. The question "where does self end?" makes no sense to me at the moment.
A self can't be found. It's an abstract concept. An idea. In front of me is a computerscreen. It exists. I can see it. I don't see a self.
What exactly do you mean with self? What would be your definition of a self?
That's right it doesn't make sense, where could it be?

My definition is that it isn't, is that true?
Look at a tree or a plant or any animal, is there a self in there?
I have no idea. Probably not. Maybe a "sense of self" or a knowing that it exists. But I doubt that there is a feeling of being seperate from the rest of existence.
Do they need to do anything to be as they are?
Are you controling that thought, breath, step, fart, like that. I mean right now this instance words are read, thoughts are there about it and what to reply, seeing, hearing, touch, smelling but is there also a thinker, seeer, hearer, toucher and smeller? Is self selfing or life life-ing?
Life is life-ing. If there is anything that could be a self it is life. One might say: I am life.
How is this I separate from life?
Yeah but not a question or quest to be solved like a puzzle with a missing piece, just an investigation if there is indeed a missing piece missing in the first place... The difference between reading gateless gatecrashers like the next non-duality book which might do the trick or actualy investigating in the immediacy of right now if what is indicated is really true.
I didn't read the Gatecrashers. I lend it to a friend. I wanted to go in the process as unbiased as possible.
No, there is no piece missing. A self is not needed to complete the puzzle of life. The puzzle of life is complete and unsolvable.
Is there a piece called self? Investigate!
Is it clear or is it seen?
Actually I don't know. It is seen that there is no self, but if it is fully clear (as clear as it can get) I don't know.
Either it is seen or it isn't, it is there or it isn't, there are no stages of seeing!
what do you think it will be like?
Clear, thoughtless, effortless, lovingly, peaceful, indifferent, intimate, detached, without doubt about who/what I am. And free.
Or maybe no difference at all. There is more and more not-knowing, and I expect that to only increase.
Hmm only possitive things there, isn't that a bit weird? No man everything is there also anger, sadness and frustration, is anything there behind all of it? Is there an I to be who/what?
Are you doing the looking/awaring/observing/consciousnessing?
I am not DOING it. But I am aware. If I look carefully, I see that awareness is coupled to the idea of "me" to construct the thought/sense "I am aware".
So how can you be aware? Doesn't that mean there is awareness without an I?
Nothing changes, nothing to destroy, just a shift in perspective
Yes. Nothing to destroy. No destroyer either. No ego, no destruction. The question is: If this shift has happened, if it is seen there is no me, who would know? Would I be informed: "Hello, Lex, the shift has happened!" ?
If it is seen there is no me, should always a shift happen? Should anything happen?
Don't ask me, find out, is there a you who knows, or just a label ''you''?
So lex, you're seeing the gate
Am I?
I just see that there is no self. What is the gate? Acknowledging that that's it and continue "my" life? (Don't know how to say that without using "I" or "me". If I say: "Allow life to continue" it sounds even worse.)
Allow this realisation to deepen?
Abiding in not-understanding?
No idea where to go from here.
If you would've really seen there is no self the question where to go from here would not arise at all. You understand there can be no self, thats good, now it needs to be seen. Cannot make you see it. We can keep going back and forth forever but it needs to be seen, did you go into nature? Nothing needs to be changed or done to see this, if its true it can be seen right now! Stop thinking how it would or should be like and investigate like a scientist would do.

When just sitting, staring out of the window doesn't everything just go on inside(body) and outside without doing anything?
Today I got a glimpse of ego. It is a bunch of conditionings, traumas, programs, defence mechanisms, fear/desire-based attitudes and behaviours. And when it was in focus it appeared very strong and undissolvable, unchangeable.
Is it a bunch of these things? All of that is there, is there really something there behind which is a collection of all these things? Is there any such thing as an ego or just a thought labeling those things ego ''undissolvable and unchangeable''. Is there something there to dissolve or change? Really?! Find out!
Fear is a defence mechanism, what is it protecting?

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:44 pm
by lex
Some eagerness. I'm on the lookout for your mails. Starts to be an important part of my life, it seems. Investigating/looking throughout daily life comes more natural. Even while in contact with other people.
So is there a self anywhere at all?
I am. Yes. Sure. But WHAT I am, I have no idea. If you tell me what to look for, I will tell you if it's here.
A living being? Yes, present.
Awareness? Present.
A controller? Absent.
A soul? Don't know. Same thing: If I know what to look for I might find it.
Feeling, sense, thoughts yeah, does that mean a self pops up for real? Can a self be sometimes here and other times not?
I see that "sense of self", "awareness of existence" doesn't prove that there IS a self.
And it comes and goes.
My definition is that it isn't, is that true?
A tautology is always true.
Do they [trees] need to do anything to be as they are?
Silly question. No, of course not. Neither do people. I admit that the latter is less obvious to me.
How is this I separate from life?
Thinking separates. Creates the "I". When there is no thinking, there is no separation, no "I". Just experience. Life unfolding. Thinking separates the body from the rest of the world. Like it creates objects from sensory perceptions.
Real objects, like trees and flowers and bodies, and imaginary (not based on sensory input) objects like ideas, concepts, "me" and this very sentence itself.
Is there a piece called self? Investigate!
I don't know what I am looking for as well that I don't know WHAT is looking for it.
Either it is seen or it isn't, it is there or it isn't, there are no stages of seeing!
I see that. Weirdly enough, it feels like a choice. Like I can choose to acknowledge that I have seen that I don't exist as a separate being or not. And put an end to the search.
everything is there also anger, sadness and frustration, is anything there behind all of it? Is there an I to be who/what?
So nothing will change, except that the idea of a separate "me" is gone. No shift in perception either?

What is behind all of it is a living perception. It is alive, it is aware and it is ME.
So how can you be aware? Doesn't that mean there is awareness without an I?
I am not aware, rather awareness is what I am. In this awareness that I am the notion that I exist can arise.
is there a you who knows, or just a label ''you''?
I start to seriously doubt if I have seen that there is no "I". At first it seemed so simple. There are solid things and there are concepts. Solid things are real, concepts aren't. The idea of a person/ego/me is a concept, ergo: it doesn't exsist. Seen. The "me" is a phantom. Is that all what you wanted to point out to me? Because that is seen weeks ago. There is just the idea that there is more, that this can't be all, it can't be that simple, a shift has to happen, a gate has to appear and passed through. Also your relentless ongoing questioning and testing if I've really seen it, makes me doubt, but if this is all then we can stop the process here.

- Okay - Sorry for the outburst. I leave it in, won't delete it. It's part of the process.
If you would've really seen there is no self the question where to go from here would not arise at all.
Yes. So obvious.
did you go into nature?
Yes. Dunes, sea. On the sea.
Stop thinking how it would or should be like and investigate like a scientist would do.
I wouldn't know how that would be, how to do that.
When just sitting, staring out of the window doesn't everything just go on inside(body) and outside without doing anything?
Yes. As is with cleaning the dishes, typing on a keyboard. I will observe/investigate if there are situations in which there is an idea/notion of somebody doing something. Probably in stressful situations it might be the case.
Just for the "seeing", because it is already obvious that when I find somebody doing something it is just a way of labeling what is happening in a certain way.

I feel I have to double-check all the time what I've really seen and what comes from advaita-stuff in my head.
The problem is that although the advaita-stuff is true, as an untested belief it can actually obscure the truth.
Is it a bunch of these things?
These "things" appear one at the time, so "bunch" is a label, a thought. Doesn't need to reflect a truth.
All of that is there, is there really something there behind which is a collection of all these things?
No, all these things are there potentially. I don't know if they are connected or not. I don't know what they actually are. Ego is a label, a synonyme for "bunch" in this case. Same applies. Thought. Idea. Collection.
Is there something there to dissolve or change?
I believe so, but I don't know. As I said before, I am working with The Work to find hidden beliefs, that are obstructing sound/happy functioning. Maybe seeing through the basic belief in "me" is a shortcut.
I see that I start to stop believing many thoughts. BTW: The Work is interrupted during this process. I am not involved in the moment.
Fear is a defence mechanism, what is it protecting?
Is it? I don't know. The next time fear arises, I will have a look if it is protecting something and if so, what.
Normally fear comes up when an organism is threathened to get wounded or killed.

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:15 pm
by Life
Some eagerness. I'm on the lookout for your mails. Starts to be an important part of my life, it seems. Investigating/looking throughout daily life comes more natural. Even while in contact with other people.
So is there a self anywhere at all?
I am. Yes. Sure. But WHAT I am, I have no idea. If you tell me what to look for, I will tell you if it's here.
A living being? Yes, present.
Awareness? Present.
A controller? Absent.
A soul? Don't know. Same thing: If I know what to look for I might find it.
Some anger came and went here, does that mean I am in control of that? No need to look for anything, only need to see if it is there or not controling what happens...
Feeling, sense, thoughts yeah, does that mean a self pops up for real? Can a self be sometimes here and other times not?
I see that "sense of self", "awareness of existence" doesn't prove that there IS a self.
And it comes and goes.
What comes and goes?
My definition is that it isn't, is that true?
A tautology is always true.
Thats not the point, have you seen it to be so in everyday life without doing?
How is this I separate from life?
Thinking separates. Creates the "I". When there is no thinking, there is no separation, no "I". Just experience. Life unfolding. Thinking separates the body from the rest of the world. Like it creates objects from sensory perceptions.
Real objects, like trees and flowers and bodies, and imaginary (not based on sensory input) objects like ideas, concepts, "me" and this very sentence itself.
Does that mean thinking needs to be stopped?
Is there a piece called self? Investigate!
I don't know what I am looking for as well that I don't know WHAT is looking for it.
Is there a WHAT?
Either it is seen or it isn't, it is there or it isn't, there are no stages of seeing!
I see that. Weirdly enough, it feels like a choice. Like I can choose to acknowledge that I have seen that I don't exist as a separate being or not. And put an end to the search.
Is there something prior to it all making choices or does choice happen based on conditioning? Did you choose to dislike eating sprouts and like fries?
everything is there also anger, sadness and frustration, is anything there behind all of it? Is there an I to be who/what?
So nothing will change, except that the idea of a separate "me" is gone. No shift in perception either?

What is behind all of it is a living perception. It is alive, it is aware and it is ME.
Nothing needs to change to see what is true. There is perception, there is awareness, how is it you? How is there a ME and a me? Stop clinging to this concept of being Consciousness/Awareness, are you in control of when it comes and goes?
is there a you who knows, or just a label ''you''?
I start to seriously doubt if I have seen that there is no "I". At first it seemed so simple. There are solid things and there are concepts. Solid things are real, concepts aren't. The idea of a person/ego/me is a concept, ergo: it doesn't exsist. Seen. The "me" is a phantom. Is that all what you wanted to point out to me? Because that is seen weeks ago. There is just the idea that there is more, that this can't be all, it can't be that simple, a shift has to happen, a gate has to appear and passed through. Also your relentless ongoing questioning and testing if I've really seen it, makes me doubt, but if this is all then we can stop the process here.

- Okay - Sorry for the outburst. I leave it in, won't delete it. It's part of the process.
It is simpler than simple, nothing to understand, change or do to see whats really happens. Like holding an imaginary orange, close your eyes and imagine holding it, smell it, feel its size and form, peel it, taste it...




Open eyes, where did it go?

Or like sinterklaas once seen to be dad, grandpa or teacher never seen as real again...

So is self existing in any form shape or way?

Was there ever one, lex?
Stop thinking how it would or should be like and investigate like a scientist would do.
I wouldn't know how that would be, how to do that.
A scientist doesnt assume anything and only looks what really happens.
When just sitting, staring out of the window doesn't everything just go on inside(body) and outside without doing anything?
Yes. As is with cleaning the dishes, typing on a keyboard. I will observe/investigate if there are situations in which there is an idea/notion of somebody doing something. Probably in stressful situations it might be the case.
Just for the "seeing", because it is already obvious that when I find somebody doing something it is just a way of labeling what is happening in a certain way.

I feel I have to double-check all the time what I've really seen and what comes from advaita-stuff in my head.
The problem is that although the advaita-stuff is true, as an untested belief it can actually obscure the truth.
good
Is it a bunch of these things?
These "things" appear one at the time, so "bunch" is a label, a thought. Doesn't need to reflect a truth.
right there
All of that is there, is there really something there behind which is a collection of all these things?
No, all these things are there potentially. I don't know if they are connected or not. I don't know what they actually are. Ego is a label, a synonyme for "bunch" in this case. Same applies. Thought. Idea. Collection.
Right so never really there
Is there something there to dissolve or change?
I believe so, but I don't know. As I said before, I am working with The Work to find hidden beliefs, that are obstructing sound/happy functioning. Maybe seeing through the basic belief in "me" is a shortcut.
I see that I start to stop believing many thoughts. BTW: The Work is interrupted during this process. I am not involved in the moment.
Is any thought ever ultimately true? or only when seen as your thought?
Fear is a defence mechanism, what is it protecting?
Is it? I don't know. The next time fear arises, I will have a look if it is protecting something and if so, what.
Normally fear comes up when an organism is threathened to get wounded or killed.
Yes, but is there a separate self to protect though?

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:45 pm
by Life
Here is what came on facebook:

''Machiel van Dijk

lex do you exist?

Vind ik leuk · · Bericht niet meer volgen · 18 juni om 21:37



Lex Lissauer I exist. Lex doesn't. Just as a label for an appearance.
18 juni om 21:39 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk both are labels, anyway question on the forum: do you exist in any way or form?
18 juni om 21:43 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk did you ever, lex?
18 juni om 21:44 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer I exist. Can't doubt that.
18 juni om 21:46 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Not in a way or as a from, but I DO exist.
18 juni om 21:47 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk There is the whole existence, how are you separate from it?
18 juni om 21:51 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Let's go another path:
Today I realised that there is this weird and strong conditioning to see myself as some entity living in a head, controlling the body and looking out from it's eyes. I know it is absurd and incorrect, but this notion is pretty strong.
18 juni om 21:53 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk in what way do you exist?
18 juni om 21:53 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer To doubt my existence I have to exist, isn't it?
But that doesn't say anything about WHAT or WHO I am.
18 juni om 21:55 · Vind ik leuk · 1.

Machiel van Dijk there is an assumption there is a who or what if your not all other things, but how is it you? Do you control when your aware?
18 juni om 22:02 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk you said on the forum there was seen there is no self, how is ''what is left'' I?
18 juni om 22:06 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer There indeed doesn't need to be a who or what. There is a sense of existence, an "awareness of existence", which I attach the label "I" to, but it is nothing personal.
18 juni om 22:06 · Vind ik niet meer leuk · 1.

Lex Lissauer Hm. I answered before your question. :-)
18 juni om 22:09 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk yeah sounds great :) is this seen beyond the concept? without thinking about it?
18 juni om 22:11 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Yes, and a BIG resistance to admit it.
18 juni om 22:13 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Something doesn't want to end the process, it seems.
18 juni om 22:14 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk resistance is there, its there but is anything behind having it?
18 juni om 22:16 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk does it have to be admitted to make it so?
18 juni om 22:18 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk allow resistance to be there, honor it no matter how that sounds, then it will go like it came, was it your resistance?
18 juni om 22:23 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk is it?
18 juni om 22:23 · Vind ik leuk.
Lex Lissauer Seems a fight has to be fought. Like there are two concepts struggling with each other. The old concept of the watcher in the tower and the new vision that there is no-one in the tower. Confusion. Let's see what appears after a night's sleep.
19 juni om 0:30 · Vind ik leuk · 1.

Machiel van Dijk No fight necesarry, its not about one concept vs. another, look to see which one is true in experience! Is the I concept/label you? Can it struggle? It is not about what appears [after a night], always conciousness, senses, world and thoughts and a sense of self appear, but does that mean there is a self separate from existence?
19 juni om 12:10 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk another thing, i noticed your quite good at skipping answering questions here and on the forum, try not doing that its not helping. did you do the thing with orange on the forum?
19 juni om 12:22 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Huh? I am not aware that I am skipping answering questions. Funny. In the contrary: I have the feeling that I am almost too meticulously try to answer each question. So what questions did I leave unanswered? Apart from the ones directly here above which I will answer ASAP.
19 juni om 15:06 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk ok, not more backtracking needed
19 juni om 15:08 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer ?"Is the I concept/label you?" - The label "I" points to "awareness of existence". Sometimes in daily speech it refers to a body/organism to distinguish it from other bodies. (Synonymous with "Lex").
19 juni om 15:10 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk So, are you awareness?
19 juni om 15:13 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer ?"Can it struggle?" - Disharmony can occur. A fight between two apparent entities, perceived as internal (one idea against another) or external (Lex and another bodymind) can occur.
19 juni om 15:14 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer It is tricky to say: "I am awareness", because of the label "I" still in the expression. But otherwise I would say. Yes. Awareness is my true and deepest nature.
19 juni om 15:16 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk thats great, but we are not talking about ideas, what are ideas?
19 juni om 15:18 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Thoughtforms.
19 juni om 15:18 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Abstractions
19 juni om 15:19 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Templates/models of reality.
19 juni om 15:20 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer of observed reality.
19 juni om 15:20 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer And these above are ideas about ideas.
19 juni om 15:20 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk is awareness under your control? thoughts yes, look beyond thoughts, are you thoughts?
19 juni om 15:22 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer haha. awareness under my control sounds absolutely absurd
19 juni om 15:23 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk thoughts and ideas come and go, are you thm?
19 juni om 15:24 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer On a certain conditioned level I am thoughts. The idea of a person living in a head looking out from a skull and cotrolling a body is still present and convincing, even if I have seen it doesn't exists.
19 juni om 15:24 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer I see that there is a "clinging to mind".
19 juni om 15:25 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer At the same time I see nobody who clings.
19 juni om 15:26 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer I am not thoughts, but there is a love-affair going on with the mind.
Sounds weird, no?
19 juni om 15:29 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk it is not about what is the most convincing
19 juni om 15:29 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk neither about convincing yourself
19 juni om 15:30 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer right. the essence is that I see it is not true.
19 juni om 15:31 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk it is about what is true right now
19 juni om 15:32 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Not exactly not true, but a distorted view.
19 juni om 15:32 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer True right now:
Awareness + experiences.
19 juni om 15:34 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk view is fine but is it your view?
19 juni om 15:34 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk yes go on
19 juni om 15:35 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer If I say it is my view you say: there is no you.
If I say it isn't that's a lie too.
It is a viewpoint. I can zoom out from that.
19 juni om 15:37 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Your questions pull me back into thinking.
19 juni om 15:38 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer And when there is thinking it is still true, but not realised/realising.
19 juni om 15:38 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk no more huh? true now is it always like this?
19 juni om 15:39 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer I don't know. I only know about now.
19 juni om 15:41 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer For "always" I need to project, think.
19 juni om 15:41 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk are you pulled back into thinking or are thoughyts continuing on their own?
19 juni om 15:42 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Like in sleep probably no awareness / no experience.
19 juni om 15:42 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer ?"are you pulled back into thinking or are thoughyts continuing on their own?" "I am pulled back in thinking" - is the conventional way to say: "thoughts are triggered", which is more correct to say, but somewhat awkward.
19 juni om 15:44 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk isnt everything always happening now?
19 juni om 15:44 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk sure but thoughts dont need to be stopped to see your not thought
19 juni om 15:47 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer everything / always / now - all concepts.
I see there is only now. The rest is memory, projection, thinking.
I already saw that as a child and at a certain point it terrified me.
But of course that is a memory now.
19 juni om 15:47 · Vind ik niet meer leuk · 1.

Machiel van Dijk is there a thinker lex?
19 juni om 15:48 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer your = you are, I assume.
I see I am not thought.
19 juni om 15:48 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Thinking is a miracle.
19 juni om 15:49 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer All seems to be clear, and yet...
I don't know what keeps me (?) from being satisfied.
19 juni om 15:51 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk so is there a clinger of thought?
19 juni om 15:52 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer the clinger of thought is a thought.
19 juni om 15:53 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk is there a you needing to be satisfied?
19 juni om 15:53 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer apparently...
19 juni om 15:56 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk satisfaction, dissatisfaction, they begin and they end
19 juni om 15:57 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer the conviction:
this is not over until there is no more doubt.
19 juni om 15:57 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk what r doubts?
19 juni om 15:59 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk thoughts will never truly be satisfied or grasp or get this
19 juni om 16:01 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk sinterklaas ?
19 juni om 16:02 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk once seen never unseen despite doubts
19 juni om 16:05 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer So it's seen, but not realised it is seen, hence the doubts?
Could very well be....
19 juni om 16:06 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Then maybe it is a matter of just giving up. To stop struggling.
19 juni om 16:08 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer To Relex
19 juni om 16:08 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk are you trough?
19 juni om 16:08 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer ??
19 juni om 16:10 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer I really don't know.
19 juni om 16:10 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk is there a you to do the giving up?
19 juni om 16:14 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Even if there would be a me, it wouldn't have a say in the matter.
19 juni om 16:15 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer I answered too quick...
Let me look.
19 juni om 16:16 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk no rush :) take time, have a break, go away from computer
19 juni om 16:19 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk open a window,
19 juni om 16:20 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk what is really happening?
19 juni om 16:21 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer Many thoughts come up. A wall of thoughts appears. "Something" has problems admitting / really seeing there is no control.
19 juni om 16:21 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer what really happened was that a window opened.
19 juni om 16:23 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer fresh air streaming in.
19 juni om 16:23 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk something?
19 juni om 16:23 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk ok man keep that up
19 juni om 16:24 · Vind ik leuk.

Lex Lissauer is not clear what it is. some counterthought, resistance. I'll look.
19 juni om 16:25 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk got a moment?something came up here :)
19 juni om 16:26 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk be back in about ten minutes
19 juni om 16:28 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk very good, look for proof there, i cant prove it for you, whats really here what is only label, take a fresh look, like a your 5 years old again without all those concepts...
19 juni om 17:04 · Vind ik leuk · 1.

Machiel van Dijk What was found lex?
20 juni om 23:34 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk You said there might be a counterthought resistance, but you also said you see your not your thought, something does not add up here...
20 juni om 23:52 · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk ?''Lex Lissauer So it's seen, but not realised it is seen, hence the doubts?
Could very well be....'' Doubt arize Alex, that is normal, they are just thoughts, are the doubts you{rs}?
14 minuten geleden · Vind ik leuk.

Machiel van Dijk Whats up Lex Lissauer? Computer crashed? Silent retreat? Please respond...
Ok, here are some questions, dont think too much about if answers are right, just answer how you see things, allow words to flow out...

Lex Lissauer Silent retreat indeed, Machiel , sorry I didn't tell you. Preparations took all the time...
Let's continue?

Machiel van Dijk Just respond, dont wait for me... silence silence noise noise what is the difference?

Lex Lissauer Found a belief: “I am in control of where I direct my attention”
Seen to be untrue. How many more of these slumbering beliefs?
They are all beliefs about an "I". It as if something (me?) knows when this process is finished. It is finished then and only then when it is crystal clear without a speck of doubt that there is no "me".

Lex Lissauer I've been meditating 3 days in a row. Trying to investigate who is meditating. Found none. I see no other way then to keep looking who or what is looking through these eyes, who or what is hearing trough these ears. Who is feeling these sensations, who is thinking these thoughts. And I already know by simple reasoning there is no-one or nothing to be found, but I feel a need to get it 100% totally clear.

Lex Lissauer Any questions I left unanswered?

Elena Nezhinsky Lex, you are in a non-dual trap. We do very focused work here for the shift of seeing happened, not by reasoning in the head only. Look up here: http://?completehumanity.blogspot.c?om/2011/11/?direct-pointing-and-who-am-?i-inquiry.html

Lex Lissauer The difference between the two approaches is clear. Not only theoretical, but in practice/experience. I don't see how they "bite" each other. If I look "Who am I, who is seeing,hearing,feeling?" I see there is no one to be found, just looking, hearing, seeing. If I focus on being there no self, I realise there is no self, no personality, no center, no controller. There must linger some hidden expectation that there must be more, a shift has to happen, seeing has to become deeper, more clear. I don't know what is keeping me from acknowledging that this is all/this is it.

Lex Lissauer Time to take another honest look at my expectations.

Lex Lissauer Stories... Ideas...Concepts...
...
One has to go through the fear of dying, otherwise it is not genuine.
Once seen it is like coming home.
There is a gate, but once passed you will see there is no gate.

Machiel van Dijk Who am i easily taken as finding your real identity, but look if there is an identity which can be anything. There is the fear of not being, of being nothing so you keep looking for a new identity, to become this, to keep doing instead of looking if there is a self, without doing anything. Fear of death might certainly be, but is it your fear? If its there doesnt it come and go spontaniously? So allow fear to be, invite it to come closer, look, is anything behind? What is it protecting?

Lex Lissauer There is no fear at all. This is exactly what I find suspicious. There SHOULD be a fear of not-being, dying, losing control. There isn't.
I see no gate either.
There is no identity other than a memory, idea, conditioning or (an impersonal) sense of self.

Machiel van Dijk Is there no identity to your understanding or do you see this? There is a big difference. What should be is not that important, what is seen is. There is no gate just a metafor for seeing if there is a self or not. Nothing needs to be done or changed for seeing to occur, just one honest look...

Lex Lissauer I don't see the difference between understanding and seeing.
I understand there is no self, because it is a only concept.
Together with understanding comes a realisation that this is true.
I see no other way, then to keep this insight in mind and just live and look and see what unfolds.

Lex Lissauer Dishes need to be washed. I'm going to watch what happens. If someone washes the dishes or that the dishes are being washed. Or watched.

Lex Lissauer Doing the dishes:
1. Body doing the dishes fully automatic.
2. Mind running stories in the mean time.
3. Sense of self.
Attention shifting between the three mentioned above.
Also a sense of identification with the thought process, the feeling/idea: "I think", "This is me thinking here". Not in words, literally, but rather as a subtle feeling.
Some thoughts about ME coming up. Judgements, shoulds and shouldn'ts. Seeing how these thoughts are restricting and untrue as there is no identity to whom they apply.

Lex Lissauer My dissatisfaction might be that I want to get rid of these stories about me. Which is also one of these stories of course.

Machiel van Dijk Seeing if everything happens without a doer/controller is something else than the realisation that it has to be or should be so.

Machiel van Dijk all there1 2 3 are there perfectly so, that is not going to change, is this sense of self really pointing to a separate self, separate from the whole?

Lex Lissauer Seen. I realise there can't be a controller, but it is not (yet) seen directly. If I observe the apparent controller it seems to consist of a kind of tension, a subtle worrying that something has to be done, that something is not right or something should be different.

Machiel van Dijk Story continues but is seen to be a play, everything continues the way it did but seen your not doing any of it. Preferences stay, thoughts just going on, actions are taken, experiences happen is a you doing it?

Lex Lissauer This sense of self is kind of continuous "background hum" It is just there. The "sound of existence". If it is a pointer, it points to existence itself. It is awareness of existence. It is actual quite blissful to concentrate on it, I notice. :-)

Machiel van Dijk everything is the way it is, it has to be seen the way things are already. i wondered if youve seen this? http://www.youtube.com/?watch?feature=p ... Biv_8xjj8E

Lex Lissauer Seen it long time ago. Will rewatch later. Time for actions. Keeping the awareness of no self.

Machiel van Dijk Yes the sense of self is always herefor functioning to happen, for protection of the body. right awareness of existence is always there, but is it your existence? is it your awareness?

Machiel van Dijk Is there a you to keep the awareness of no self? There is a self or there isnt, not more or less depending on how aware you are. So nothing can obstruct, no matter what is happening there is a self or not, watching this clip happens or not, thoughts about it happen, is it true there is no you? look. look at the clip as if your the subject of investigation.

Lex Lissauer “And the ones that claim “I’m not there yet” are often still believing in the story of someone who can awaken, still seeking some ultimate, fictitious point in the future.” - Scott Kiloby.
Yes, that is an excellent description of what is happening here.

So, there is no self. Seen quite soon in the process, but the aard van het beestje is to doubt and doubt and doubt. As Alexander Smit said about "witnessing": “Where there is a witness there is bound to be a suspect”.
So lets state clear and without doubt:
THERE IS NO SELF.

The confusion was this idea that once seen, this was the ending point.
Well, it is not. It is not even the beginning of something new.
It is even a bit desillusioning. Life goes on. There is just no more taking serious of all self-referencing thoughts, like "O, I really fucked up this time", "She doesn't like me", "I am enlightened" , "I'm not really there yet", etc.
And maybe even once in a while in a certain mood, particularly if strong emotions kick in, these thoughts will be taken seriously again for a while.

Machiel van Dijk true, doubts do not say it is not seen. But who will take the thought seriously or not? What also seems to happen is holding on to a final identity as consciousness. No self = no identity at all, anyway, take some time, tomorrow some questions.

Machiel van Dijk true, doubts do not say it is not seen. But who will take the thought seriously or not? What also seems to happen is holding on to a final identity as consciousness. No self = no identity at all, anyway, take some time, tomorrow some questions.

Machiel van Dijk Ok, here are some questions, dont think too much about if answers are right, just answer how you see things, allow words to flow out...
- Is there a 'you', 'me', 'self' or 'I' at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
- Explain in detail what self is, when it began and how it works.
- How is it to see this?
- How would you describe this if someone who is not into spirituality asked you about this no self stuff?
- How is it to see this?

Lex Lissauer ?- Is there a 'you', 'me', 'self' or 'I' at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
Only as a concept, conditioning, pointer, social tool.

- Explain in detail what self is, when it began and how it works.
Pfffff.
I must have been about 1-2 years old: Some desire wanted to be fulfilled and didn't manage to control the part that normally fulfilled desires, so it was suddenly seen as split off. Later that part was labelled "mummie", as it referred to itself like that repeatedly. Mummie insisted to label the desiring part "Lex", and later this Lex was taught to refer to Lex as "I", to confuse matters even more.
In this way this sense of separation was coupled to the (natural and impersonal) sense of being.
Now this "I" had to be protected, especially against other "I"s, which were to be referred to as "you" or "he" or some name, as if it were special objects. Lex also started to gather a "personality", mainly copying traits from others that seemed to be succesful in being liked.

- How is it to see this.
I really can't describe. The difference is very subtle, yet profound. For sure it doesn't comply to all stories and ideas about enlightenment:
No fears, no fireworks, no "melting away of the ego". Well actually there is, but it goes slow and naturally and feels like it can take many years or will never be complete, but that is OK. It's impossible to unboil an egg. I-centered thoughts emerge, even identification, but are just seen and (mostly) not taken seriously.
There is an overall feeling of OK-ness, but that can very well be an after effect of the 3-day retreat I was in last weekend. This OK-ness is probably just the "sense of self", which is quite a nice feeling if it is not associated with separation.

- How would you describe this if someone who is not into spirituality asked you about this no self stuff?
Actually that happened yesterday with a good friend. :-)
I pointed to a beer bottle and asked him: "What is this?"
"A beer bottle"
“Now can you in the same way show me your "self"? ”
He saw he couldn't.
That simple.
(I have to admit that this guy is sensitive, honest and intelligent, at least at that moment)

Machiel van Dijk ok man, id say thats clear, let me ask some other ''guides'' to have a look, maybe others have some more questions, we'll see :) ?

Lex Lissauer Answering the questions did cause some deepening as well. I would like to add that there is now a kind of vulnerable not-knowing and less thoughts. On the one hand a desire for some after-care and at the same time the realisation that no "help" from the outside is possible nor desireable. The rest is an "inside job".
Until now the "free fall" is a gentle downhill sliding.

Machiel van Dijk any questions arize you know where to find me :) ''after care'' group unleashed is also awaiting.. See i forgot one question - can you point out what ''made you see''?

Lex Lissauer I have to go back a long time, can't really remember, because it was very early in the process. Realising that I already had seen it was the tough part. I'll see if I can find it and come back to you.

Lex Lissauer If there was a moment of revelation it was when I saw that all concepts are invalid and "I" is one of those. The post with the big question mark. What made me see, where this insight came from, what caused it or triggered it I really can't tell, neither the exact moment it dawned upon me. Attentive observation of body/mind might have helped to evoke it.

Machiel van Dijk alright, let it sink in a bit, talk to you soon ''

Re: Ego applying for destruction.

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:23 pm
by lex
Here is what came on facebook:
lex do you exist?

Lex: I exist. Lex doesn't. Just as a label for an appearance.

Machiel: both are labels, anyway question on the forum: do you exist in any way or form?
Machiel: did you ever, lex?

Lex: I exist. Can't doubt that.
Lex: Not in a way or as a from, but I DO exist.

Machiel: There is the whole existence, how are you separate from it?

Lex: Let's go another path:
Today I realised that there is this weird and strong conditioning to see myself as some entity living in a head, controlling the body and looking out from it's eyes. I know it is absurd and incorrect, but this notion is pretty strong.

Machiel: in what way do you exist?

Lex: To doubt my existence I have to exist, isn't it?
But that doesn't say anything about WHAT or WHO I am.

Machiel: there is an assumption there is a who or what if your not all other things, but how is it you? Do you control when your aware?
Machiel: you said on the forum there was seen there is no self, how is ''what is left'' I?

Lex: There indeed doesn't need to be a who or what. There is a sense of existence, an "awareness of existence", which I attach the label "I" to, but it is nothing personal.
Lex: Hm. I answered before your question. :-)

Machiel: yeah sounds great :) is this seen beyond the concept? without thinking about it?

Lex: Yes, and a BIG resistance to admit it.
Lex: Something doesn't want to end the process, it seems.

Machiel: resistance is there, its there but is anything behind having it?
Machiel: does it have to be admitted to make it so?
Machiel: allow resistance to be there, honor it no matter how that sounds, then it will go like it came, was it your resistance?

Machiel: is it?
Lex: Seems a fight has to be fought. Like there are two concepts struggling with each other. The old concept of the watcher in the tower and the new vision that there is no-one in the tower. Confusion. Let's see what appears after a night's sleep.

Machiel: No fight necesarry, its not about one concept vs. another, look to see which one is true in experience! Is the I concept/label you? Can it struggle? It is not about what appears [after a night], always conciousness, senses, world and thoughts and a sense of self appear, but does that mean there is a self separate from existence?

Machiel: another thing, i noticed your quite good at skipping answering questions here and on the forum, try not doing that its not helping. did you do the thing with orange on the forum?

Lex: Huh? I am not aware that I am skipping answering questions. Funny. In the contrary: I have the feeling that I am almost too meticulously try to answer each question. So what questions did I leave unanswered? Apart from the ones directly here above which I will answer ASAP.

Machiel: ok, not more backtracking needed

Lex: ?"Is the I concept/label you?" - The label "I" points to "awareness of existence". Sometimes in daily speech it refers to a body/organism to distinguish it from other bodies. (Synonymous with "Lex").

Machiel: So, are you awareness?

Lex: ?"Can it struggle?" - Disharmony can occur. A fight between two apparent entities, perceived as internal (one idea against another) or external (Lex and another bodymind) can occur.

Lex: It is tricky to say: "I am awareness", because of the label "I" still in the expression. But otherwise I would say. Yes. Awareness is my true and deepest nature.

Machiel: thats great, but we are not talking about ideas, what are ideas?

Lex: Thoughtforms.
Lex: Abstractions
Lex: Templates/models of reality.
Lex: of observed reality.
Lex: And these above are ideas about ideas.

Machiel: is awareness under your control? thoughts yes, look beyond thoughts, are you thoughts?

Lex: haha. awareness under my control sounds absolutely absurd

Machiel: thoughts and ideas come and go, are you thm?

Lex: On a certain conditioned level I am thoughts. The idea of a person living in a head looking out from a skull and cotrolling a body is still present and convincing, even if I have seen it doesn't exists.

Lex: I see that there is a "clinging to mind".
Lex: At the same time I see nobody who clings.
Lex: I am not thoughts, but there is a love-affair going on with the mind.
Sounds weird, no?

Machiel: it is not about what is the most convincing
Machiel: neither about convincing yourself

Lex: right. the essence is that I see it is not true.

Machiel: it is about what is true right now

Lex: Not exactly not true, but a distorted view.
Lex: True right now:
Awareness + experiences.

Machiel: view is fine but is it your view?
Machiel: yes go on

Lex: If I say it is my view you say: there is no you.
If I say it isn't that's a lie too.
It is a viewpoint. I can zoom out from that.
Lex: Your questions pull me back into thinking.
Lex: And when there is thinking it is still true, but not realised/realising.

Machiel: no more huh? true now is it always like this?

Lex: I don't know. I only know about now.
Lex: For "always" I need to project, think.

Machiel: are you pulled back into thinking or are thoughyts continuing on their own?

Lex: Like in sleep probably no awareness / no experience.
Lex: ?"are you pulled back into thinking or are thoughyts continuing on their own?" "I am pulled back in thinking" - is the conventional way to say: "thoughts are triggered", which is more correct to say, but somewhat awkward.

Machiel: isnt everything always happening now?
Machiel: sure but thoughts dont need to be stopped to see your not thought

Lex: everything / always / now - all concepts.
I see there is only now. The rest is memory, projection, thinking.
I already saw that as a child and at a certain point it terrified me.
But of course that is a memory now.

Machiel: is there a thinker lex?

Lex: your = you are, I assume.
I see I am not thought.

Lex: Thinking is a miracle.
Lex: All seems to be clear, and yet...
I don't know what keeps me (?) from being satisfied.

Machiel: so is there a clinger of thought?

Lex: the clinger of thought is a thought.

Machiel: is there a you needing to be satisfied?

Lex: apparently...

Machiel: satisfaction, dissatisfaction, they begin and they end

Lex: the conviction:
this is not over until there is no more doubt.

Machiel: what r doubts?
Machiel: thoughts will never truly be satisfied or grasp or get this
Machiel: sinterklaas ?
Machiel: once seen never unseen despite doubts

Lex: So it's seen, but not realised it is seen, hence the doubts?
Could very well be....
Lex: Then maybe it is a matter of just giving up. To stop struggling.
Lex: To Relex

Machiel: are you trough?

Lex: ??
Lex: I really don't know.

Machiel: is there a you to do the giving up?

Lex: Even if there would be a me, it wouldn't have a say in the matter.
Lex: I answered too quick...
Let me look.

Machiel: no rush :) take time, have a break, go away from computer
Machiel: open a window,
Machiel: what is really happening?

Lex: Many thoughts come up. A wall of thoughts appears. "Something" has problems admitting / really seeing there is no control.
Lex: what really happened was that a window opened.
Lex: fresh air streaming in.

Machiel: something?
Machiel: ok man keep that up

Lex: is not clear what it is. some counterthought, resistance. I'll look.

Machiel: got a moment?something came up here :)
Machiel: be back in about ten minutes
Machiel: very good, look for proof there, i cant prove it for you, whats really here what is only label, take a fresh look, like a your 5 years old again without all those concepts...
Machiel: What was found lex?
Machiel: You said there might be a counterthought resistance, but you also said you see your not your thought, something does not add up here...
Machiel: ?''Lex: So it's seen, but not realised it is seen, hence the doubts?
Could very well be....'' Doubt arize Alex, that is normal, they are just thoughts, are the doubts you{rs}?
Machiel: Whats up Lex:? Computer crashed? Silent retreat? Please respond...
Ok, here are some questions, dont think too much about if answers are right, just answer how you see things, allow words to flow out...

Lex: Silent retreat indeed, Machiel , sorry I didn't tell you. Preparations took all the time...
Let's continue?

Machiel: Just respond, dont wait for me... silence silence noise noise what is the difference?

Lex: Found a belief: “I am in control of where I direct my attention”
Seen to be untrue. How many more of these slumbering beliefs?
They are all beliefs about an "I". It as if something (me?) knows when this process is finished. It is finished then and only then when it is crystal clear without a speck of doubt that there is no "me".
Lex: I've been meditating 3 days in a row. Trying to investigate who is meditating. Found none. I see no other way then to keep looking who or what is looking through these eyes, who or what is hearing trough these ears. Who is feeling these sensations, who is thinking these thoughts. And I already know by simple reasoning there is no-one or nothing to be found, but I feel a need to get it 100% totally clear.
Lex: Any questions I left unanswered?

Elena Nezhinsky Lex, you are in a non-dual trap. We do very focused work here for the shift of seeing happened, not by reasoning in the head only. Look up here: http://completehumanity.blogspot.nl/201 ... quiry.html

Lex: The difference between the two approaches is clear. Not only theoretical, but in practice/experience. I don't see how they "bite" each other. If I look "Who am I, who is seeing,hearing,feeling?" I see there is no one to be found, just looking, hearing, seeing. If I focus on being there no self, I realise there is no self, no personality, no center, no controller. There must linger some hidden expectation that there must be more, a shift has to happen, seeing has to become deeper, more clear. I don't know what is keeping me from acknowledging that this is all/this is it.
Lex: Time to take another honest look at my expectations.
Lex: Stories... Ideas...Concepts...
...
One has to go through the fear of dying, otherwise it is not genuine.
Once seen it is like coming home.
There is a gate, but once passed you will see there is no gate.

Machiel: Who am i easily taken as finding your real identity, but look if there is an identity which can be anything. There is the fear of not being, of being nothing so you keep looking for a new identity, to become this, to keep doing instead of looking if there is a self, without doing anything. Fear of death might certainly be, but is it your fear? If its there doesnt it come and go spontaniously? So allow fear to be, invite it to come closer, look, is anything behind? What is it protecting?
Lex: There is no fear at all. This is exactly what I find suspicious. There SHOULD be a fear of not-being, dying, losing control. There isn't.
I see no gate either.
There is no identity other than a memory, idea, conditioning or (an impersonal) sense of self.

Machiel: Is there no identity to your understanding or do you see this? There is a big difference. What should be is not that important, what is seen is. There is no gate just a metafor for seeing if there is a self or not. Nothing needs to be done or changed for seeing to occur, just one honest look...

Lex: I don't see the difference between understanding and seeing.
I understand there is no self, because it is a only concept.
Together with understanding comes a realisation that this is true.
I see no other way, then to keep this insight in mind and just live and look and see what unfolds.
Lex: Dishes need to be washed. I'm going to watch what happens. If someone washes the dishes or that the dishes are being washed. Or watched.
Lex: Doing the dishes:
1. Body doing the dishes fully automatic.
2. Mind running stories in the mean time.
3. Sense of self.
Attention shifting between the three mentioned above.
Also a sense of identification with the thought process, the feeling/idea: "I think", "This is me thinking here". Not in words, literally, but rather as a subtle feeling.
Some thoughts about ME coming up. Judgements, shoulds and shouldn'ts. Seeing how these thoughts are restricting and untrue as there is no identity to whom they apply.

Lex: My dissatisfaction might be that I want to get rid of these stories about me. Which is also one of these stories of course.

Machiel: Seeing if everything happens without a doer/controller is something else than the realisation that it has to be or should be so.
Machiel: all there1 2 3 are there perfectly so, that is not going to change, is this sense of self really pointing to a separate self, separate from the whole?

Lex: Seen. I realise there can't be a controller, but it is not (yet) seen directly. If I observe the apparent controller it seems to consist of a kind of tension, a subtle worrying that something has to be done, that something is not right or something should be different.

Machiel: Story continues but is seen to be a play, everything continues the way it did but seen your not doing any of it. Preferences stay, thoughts just going on, actions are taken, experiences happen is a you doing it?

Lex: This sense of self is kind of continuous "background hum" It is just there. The "sound of existence". If it is a pointer, it points to existence itself. It is awareness of existence. It is actual quite blissful to concentrate on it, I notice. :-)

Machiel: everything is the way it is, it has to be seen the way things are already. i wondered if youve seen this?
http://youtu.be/8Biv_8xjj8E

Lex: Seen it long time ago. Will rewatch later. Time for actions. Keeping the awareness of no self.

Machiel: Yes the sense of self is always herefor functioning to happen, for protection of the body. right awareness of existence is always there, but is it your existence? is it your awareness?

Machiel: Is there a you to keep the awareness of no self? There is a self or there isnt, not more or less depending on how aware you are. So nothing can obstruct, no matter what is happening there is a self or not, watching this clip happens or not, thoughts about it happen, is it true there is no you? look. look at the clip as if your the subject of investigation.

Lex: “And the ones that claim “I’m not there yet” are often still believing in the story of someone who can awaken, still seeking some ultimate, fictitious point in the future.” - Scott Kiloby.
Yes, that is an excellent description of what is happening here.
So, there is no self. Seen quite soon in the process, but the aard van het beestje is to doubt and doubt and doubt. As Alexander Smit said about "witnessing": “Where there is a witness there is bound to be a suspect”.
So lets state clear and without doubt:
THERE IS NO SELF.

The confusion was this idea that once seen, this was the ending point.
Well, it is not. It is not even the beginning of something new.
It is even a bit desillusioning. Life goes on. There is just no more taking serious of all self-referencing thoughts, like "O, I really fucked up this time", "She doesn't like me", "I am enlightened" , "I'm not really there yet", etc.
And maybe even once in a while in a certain mood, particularly if strong emotions kick in, these thoughts will be taken seriously again for a while.

Machiel: true, doubts do not say it is not seen. But who will take the thought seriously or not? What also seems to happen is holding on to a final identity as consciousness. No self = no identity at all, anyway, take some time, tomorrow some questions.

Machiel: true, doubts do not say it is not seen. But who will take the thought seriously or not? What also seems to happen is holding on to a final identity as consciousness. No self = no identity at all, anyway, take some time, tomorrow some questions.

Machiel: Ok, here are some questions, dont think too much about if answers are right, just answer how you see things, allow words to flow out...
- Is there a 'you', 'me', 'self' or 'I' at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
- Explain in detail what self is, when it began and how it works.
- How is it to see this?
- How would you describe this if someone who is not into spirituality asked you about this no self stuff?
- How is it to see this?

Lex:
?- Is there a 'you', 'me', 'self' or 'I' at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
Only as a concept, conditioning, pointer, social tool.
  • - Explain in detail what self is, when it began and how it works.
    Pfffff.
    I must have been about 1-2 years old: Some desire wanted to be fulfilled and didn't manage to control the part that normally fulfilled desires, so it was suddenly seen as split off. Later that part was labelled "mummie", as it referred to itself like that repeatedly. Mummie insisted to label the desiring part "Lex", and later this Lex was taught to refer to Lex as "I", to confuse matters even more.
    In this way this sense of separation was coupled to the (natural and impersonal) sense of being.
    Now this "I" had to be protected, especially against other "I"s, which were to be referred to as "you" or "he" or some name, as if it were special objects. Lex also started to gather a "personality", mainly copying traits from others that seemed to be succesful in being liked.

    - How is it to see this.
    I really can't describe. The difference is very subtle, yet profound. For sure it doesn't comply to all stories and ideas about enlightenment:
    No fears, no fireworks, no "melting away of the ego". Well actually there is, but it goes slow and naturally and feels like it can take many years or will never be complete, but that is OK. It's impossible to unboil an egg. I-centered thoughts emerge, even identification, but are just seen and (mostly) not taken seriously.
    There is an overall feeling of OK-ness, but that can very well be an after effect of the 3-day retreat I was in last weekend. This OK-ness is probably just the "sense of self", which is quite a nice feeling if it is not associated with separation.

    - How would you describe this if someone who is not into spirituality asked you about this no self stuff?
    Actually that happened yesterday with a good friend. :-)
    I pointed to a beer bottle and asked him: "What is this?"
    "A beer bottle"
    “Now can you in the same way show me your "self"? ”
    He saw he couldn't.
    That simple.
    (I have to admit that this guy is sensitive, honest and intelligent, at least at that moment)
Machiel: ok man, id say thats clear, let me ask some other ''guides'' to have a look, maybe others have some more questions, we'll see :) ?

Lex: Answering the questions did cause some deepening as well. I would like to add that there is now a kind of vulnerable not-knowing and less thoughts. On the one hand a desire for some after-care and at the same time the realisation that no "help" from the outside is possible nor desireable. The rest is an "inside job".
Until now the "free fall" is a gentle downhill sliding.

Machiel: any questions arize you know where to find me :) ''after care'' group unleashed is also awaiting.. See i forgot one question - can you point out what 'made you see'?

Lex: I have to go back a long time, can't really remember, because it was very early in the process. Realising that I already had seen it was the tough part. I'll see if I can find it and come back to you.
Lex: If there was a moment of revelation it was when I saw that all concepts are invalid and "I" is one of those. The post with the big question mark. What made me see, where this insight came from, what caused it or triggered it I really can't tell, neither the exact moment it dawned upon me. Attentive observation of body/mind might have helped to evoke it.

Machiel: alright, let it sink in a bit, talk to you soon

Lex: Man, I'm so curious what life will bring. What is next now.

Machiel: it will bring what it will bring :) some more questioning: this seeing there is no self, how do you relate to it, where do you come into the picture? is no self witnessed?

Lex: I go completely blank on these questions.
My first reaction:
Huh?
Ok, I'll have another look and see what comes up.
Lex: No self is known, but not witnessed.
Lex:
- this seeing there is no self, howdo you relate to it -
I am that in which the "sense of self" appears. Or/and what it is made of. Or whatever.
hm, maybe doesn't answer the question. Is more a reaction to the question than an anwser.

Machiel: is that personal?

Lex: Are you kidding?

Machiel: haha, well haha :) question pops up answer too..

Lex: It's intimate, but not personal. An open intimacy.