Happy 2013! Would be deeply grateful for a guide!

[Critterfan]

Hi CosmiK

Please disregard the draft of a few moments ago. I was trying to preview and hit submit instead. Still working on this.

[cosmiK]

I didn't see this last message. Perfect. I'll wait for the next notification then

[Critterfan]

Hi Cos,

I want to finish answering your questions (and revising a few of the draft answers in the response which I sent prematurely yesterday -- (pushed the wrong damn button!). Most of that post can stay as is, but I would like the additions/revisions below to be considered in the final version. (I didn't bother to copy to here my responses from yesterday that I consider "ready for prime time".) This piece answers two questions I hadn't answered and revises/expands my responses to the second, third and fourth "clarifying questions". I hope you don't mind reading the two posts together.

... and bear in mind, despite my verbosity, I know I'm not being paid by the word. ;) What we have been discussing over the last few months is infinitely simple, but rolling out the implications, the nuances, the unique impacts upon the different journeys, different sensibilities that have converged upon this Great Matter -- that is marvelously complex.

I will deeply welcome your critique and am not confidently expecting to have thoroughly and properly answered these challenges. "I" still have "progress" to make (there is still progress to be made), so your continued oversight will always be welcome.
________________________________

is that story of a "you" any more self than the story of "others"? is any of it more personal?

Why pick and choose what is more or less personal or impersonal? My life story, as I remember it from yesterday or many decades ago, is neither of self nor others, in one sense, but nevertheless, the characters in the tale are unique and distinctive and true to life. But that doesn't imply genuine separation into isolated personalities. I can see it as a history of "personal" experiences, but just as easily the cause-and-effect unfolding of natural, social, psychological and spiritual influences that I am part of and that are part of me. In the final analysis, it's not about me, it's just what it is. In any case, I now feel more and more connection and intimacy with family and friends who have been/are being part of my life. And I feel closer and more connected with the random events and occurrences that converge upon every moment of this life.

is it clear that there is no one there doing it? even the experience of someone doing it is JUST simply experience, and that experience isn't self any more than the sun, moon and the stars.

Yes. Reflecting on my past, present and future life is an experience blending thought, memory, sensations, etc. There is still a lingering sense of personal embodiment/incarnation, but in a way that just means that I can clearly differentiate my arms and legs from inanimate objects or elements belonging to other persons (or to the beautiful sun, moon and stars). I certainly would not want that to be otherwise -- which would be symptomatic of a neurological disorder. ;) Everything is selfless but everything is selfless in its own way -- the differences between a planet and a flower and a person are to be admired... but they don't have to be taken too "seriously." All beings are like snowflakes.

Is there anything that "you" can do? Do you have control of Stan in any way? Yes/No/Somewhat? Explain with respect to dE.

As discussed in the paragraph above, there is in memory a multi-volume "story" of my situation, life, and circumstance that sometimes plays out and that creates the appearance of choice, volition, control, planning, deciding. (There is an experience that feels like "free will" if I can put it that way without asserting that free will is absolute or what many people believe it to be). I appear to be a major character, but in truth I am not the author or director. I look closely and see there is no way to manage this playful chaos. Even "looking closely" is spontaneous. The thoughts I think and then write down, such as I am doing now, seem to come out of the mysterious mist between an instant ago and an instant in the future. I don't carve and craft and choose them as they appear, though I may revise and edit after the fact -- but that too is a spontaneous, anonymous process. I can't help being an English major whose Mom is a retired teacher of English. :) As you put it one time, I can't help conceptualizing, but I can see it as a flow rather than a deliberate exercise of cognitive functions.

Are you the thinker of thoughts? Can you think and choose thoughts? Explain with r. to dE.

Thinking goes along on its own. As I write this, coming up with an idea, or the next phrase to speak, or write, or reflect upon, is no more voluntary than the experience of suddenly remembering a word or phrase that was at the tip of the tongue but obscured by a "senior moment." Sometimes thoughts come as a complete surprise, sometimes as an ordinary sequence, but are never fully expected and ordained by the apparent "thinker". There is no act of deliberately reaching into a container, feeling around, and pulling out the right memory, the right word. It's more a case of it's not there, it's out of reach, then >pop< it suddenly emerges. Every thought is sort of like suddenly remembering what you were about to say to someone but couldn't find the right word.

And then there is the classic illustration of mental helplessness: Do not think of a pizza!

Of all that arises and passes away in experience/awareness, is ANY of that "me" or "self"? Explain why it is or isn't.

There is nothing in my conscious reality that is not one or more of the three aspects/seven streams of experience or awareness, which are ultimately biochemical consequences of the Big Bang. Additionally, if I am not experiencing, sensing, remembering, thinking, etc., about something, then it's not part of my reality at the moment (even though it may be "real" in-itself or real to others or real to me at another time). But "real" in this case, really just means observable or observed in real time.

Awareness is without an owner, experience is unchosen, consciousness is involuntary. "I", "me," "myself" are just labels, thoughts, images, sensations, which cannot themselves be conscious. There is a geometric center to our experience, like the visual perspective of objects receding to the horizon as they are located farther and farther away from this flesh, but that center is nothing more than a location, an aid to hand-eye coordination, not a command and control leader.

Instead of recognizing and acknowledging the self's nonexistence, we naively excuse the elusive intangibility and invisibility of the "I" by pretending it is a viewer of the scene, but not in the scene itself, as if it were protected by the Romulan Cloaking Device. In fact, the scene presents itself through the impersonal chemistry of our sensory apparatus, and there is no little man sitting in the audience watching it. Our concept of the little man is another part of the story.

The fact is, the self is hidden from our direct view because it isn't there to begin with.

[cosmiK]

Hey,

Thanks for the responses!

There is no gate, no checkpoint, no passport verification, no long lines, no travel documents. Holding up a picture ID is a gesture for the sake of social functioning, but we are not what is referenced on a driver's license.

Right.

Why pick and choose what is more or less personal or impersonal? My life story, as I remember it from yesterday or many decades ago, is neither of self nor others, in one sense, but nevertheless, the characters in the tale are unique and distinctive and true to life. But that doesn't imply genuine separation into isolated personalities. I can see it as a history of "personal" experiences, but just as easily the cause-and-effect unfolding of natural, social, psychological and spiritual influences that I am part of and that are part of me. In the final analysis, it's not about me, it's just what it is. In any case, I now feel more and more connection and intimacy with family and friends who have been/are being part of my life. And I feel closer and more connected with the random events and occurrences that converge upon every moment of this life.[/quote
Apart from picking at the use of pronouns, it still seems like there is a distinct sense of a "you" that is coming in to contact with or being connected with everything else. Can you have a look and see if there is such a "you" besides conventional descriptors?

There is still a lingering sense of personal embodiment/incarnation, but in a way that just means that I can clearly differentiate my arms and legs from inanimate objects or elements belonging to other persons (or to the beautiful sun, moon and stars).

Right, so the person, Stan, does his thing... but it's really important to ask yourself, very directly, if "Stan" is "you" at all... is the appearance of "Stan" any more yours than the appearance of anyone else. Or is the story of Stan yours more than the story of your wife, or friend. Is the appearance of Stan's hand more personal than the appearance of a table? It's important to investigate any lingering sense of identification to thee arisings in experience.

I certainly would not want that to be otherwise -- which would be symptomatic of a neurological disorder. ;) Everything is selfless but everything is selfless in its own way -- the differences between a planet and a flower and a person are to be admired... but they don't have to be taken too "seriously." All beings are like snowflakes.

Right... the "sense of self" remains, but it's just another arising, and can be said to just be a function of life. And the person, the world, the story and all the wonderful differentiation continues, but what is clear after seeing no self is that none of that is taken literally. there is ONLY experience, and there is absolutely no self. selves might appear, but none of them are more "you" or less "you", none of it owned by you, not owned by you, none of it is controlled by you, not controlled by you. there is just the flow of life, just this vivid and alive experience.

Look in to any last vestiges of "I"dentification with any specific arisings, any sense of control/influence/choice, and any sense of there being a separate experiencer and stare directly at it and notice that those too are just more experiencing, just more of life's flavors.

As discussed in the paragraph above, there is in memory a multi-volume "story" of my situation, life, and circumstance that sometimes plays out and that creates the appearance of choice, volition, control, planning, deciding.

....

As you put it one time, I can't help conceptualizing, but I can see it as a flow rather than a deliberate exercise of cognitive functions.

Right... what is really important here is to recognize that no matter what happens, even Stan "deliberately exercising" is not done by "you" at all, because there is no substantial and independently existing entity there. This "control" thing is a REALLY important part of this no self thing, and overall the path in general.

It's VERY important to look in to whatever happens, even those things that are labelled as control, conscious, choice, deliberate, and see that they are not done by you.

Is this clear?

Thinking goes along on its own. As I write this, coming up with an idea, or the next phrase to speak, or write, or reflect upon, is no more voluntary than the experience of suddenly remembering a word or phrase that was at the tip of the tongue but obscured by a "senior moment."

Right... just like whatever else happens, thinking too happens on it's own! Like birds and clouds in the sky.

Instead of recognizing and acknowledging the self's nonexistence, we naively excuse the elusive intangibility and invisibility of the "I" by pretending it is a viewer of the scene, but not in the scene itself, as if it were protected by the Romulan Cloaking Device. In fact, the scene presents itself through the impersonal chemistry of our sensory apparatus, and there is no little man sitting in the audience watching it. Our concept of the little man is another part of the story.

Yes, whatever we refer to as "self" is simply just part of the scenery, just experience.

The fact is, the self is hidden from our direct view because it isn't there to begin with.[/quote
Yep.


~~


So, great. I appreciate your eloquent expression! It shows the clarity that has been gradually dawning. I'll give you a few similar questions but i'd just like you to answer it from present moment experience, referring to dE with as little elaboration as possible just to make sure I am clear on how moment to moment happening is for you.

1) here and now, is there a locateable substantial entity, self or "I" there?

2) in all that happens, can you influence what happens? can you make anything happen? describe using an in-the-moment example.... for instance... picking up a cup, or walking from A to B, etc.


~~

are there any sticking points that you'd like to look in to further?

how are you feeling about Seeing no self?

with Love.

[Critterfan]

Hey Bro!

I really appreciate your continued care and attention to the points and factors in my expression. I want very much to “graduate from the program” ready for the next phase of life/experience rather than too soon and missing essential realizations.

it still seems like there is a distinct sense of a "you" that is coming in to contact with or being connected with everything else. Can you have a look and see if there is such a "you" besides conventional descriptors?

To be honest, there is a discernable sense of me (e.g., social identity in the interaction with others, physical coordination in moving through environments, pragmatic or whimsical “conversations” with my various personae inside my mind). I am certainly aware that it is just another experience - bodily sensations within a situational orientation wrapped around a story. The story itself (whatever it happens to be at the moment) is not a determining factor but the sensations are there. Should that totally vanish? It is not distinct; it’s more wave than particle. Like an entity in quantum physics, there is a discrete formation, like a figure in the gestalt, which “materializes” when I interact with certain types of situations. Maybe it is like the so-called collapse of the waveform when an observation is made. However, when I “inhabit” that momentary incarnation of self, it’s very light and easy. The boundaries are pro forma, serving the protocols of convenience only.

I can see how this could still evolve to a more complete exposure to selfless reality, but without turning me into a ridiculous floating “maharishi” type. (No insult meant to benign gurus, and other “spiritual” characters (if they are of good will), but it’s clear that LU is totally not of that genre, and that is fine with me. It's what is so great about the LU enterprise. Ordinary reality is where so-called “ultimate” reality begins and ends. I really do want to work on that.

ask yourself, very directly, if "Stan" is "you" at all... is the appearance of "Stan" any more yours than the appearance of anyone else. Or is the story of Stan yours more than the story of your wife, or friend. Is the appearance of Stan's hand more personal than the appearance of a table? It's important to investigate any lingering sense of identification to thee arisings in experience.

Certainly I am not the label. I’m the “territory, not the map.” I am the breathing, and itching, and swallowing, and repositioning of my butt on the chair. I can also see how this appearance is no different in essence than anyone else; at the same time I still am aware of contrasts in accountability, responsibility, functionality, a "role" to "play" in solo or cooperative operations in the natural or social environment, etc. Everything is sensation but there are sensations that are accessible only to me and sensations private to "others" that I can only observe and infer from their statements, body language, and facial expression, using the theory of mind that developed in me as a child. Should this not be so at all? It’s not a radical or superdualistic contrast, but there is a differentiation that would seem, for strong evolutionary reasons, to be hard-wired, useful, and benign.

none of that is taken literally. there is ONLY experience, and there is absolutely no self. selves might appear, but none of them are more "you" or less "you", none of it owned by you, not owned by you, none of it is controlled by you, not controlled by you. there is just the flow of life, just this vivid and alive experience.

I can really feel the truth of your preceding quote. I can catch its realization throughout the day as ”identity” content shows itself as really being just more flowing experience, in all its flavors – tutti frutti! rainbow sherbet!

Look in to any last vestiges of "I"dentification with any specific arisings, any sense of control/influence/choice, and any sense of there being a separate experiencer and stare directly at it and notice that those too are just more experiencing, just more of life's flavors.

I’ll continue this investigation diligently, because when I do, I often get a "lifting of the veil" that shimmers the bounded reality I was conditioned into during a long life and presents a more open-ended (but also unified in a non-contradictory way) and ultimately more agreeable state of mind and body and surroundings.

what is really important here is to recognize that no matter what happens, even Stan "deliberately exercising" is not done by "you" at all, because there is no substantial and independently existing entity there. This "control" thing is a REALLY important part of this no self thing, and overall the path in general.
It's VERY important to look in to whatever happens, even those things that are labelled as control, conscious, choice, deliberate, and see that they are not done by you. Is this clear?

It’s very clear that I should and will continue this looking, particularly at choice and control. I can certainly feel the fact of non-doership, but I seem to still struggle to exert control – over thoughts, emotions, etc. And yes, it cannot be helped. It is out of control :). Everything is out of control. How wonderful.

1) here and now, is there a locateable substantial entity, self or "I" there?

The factors I will describe really do reside in dE or manifest as sensations, physical comforts and discomforts, themes and images that occupy my thoughts from time to time. The direct experience of the ongoing, interior life-path monologue will speak or whisper, conclude or speculate, though it’s not too hard to live in an experience of cognitive silence and peace on most occasions. Honestly, there is no “locateable substantial entity” but there is still a semi-locatable, insubstantial whisper of personhood, as it were an “echo” of the energetic personhoods and "survival" demands that formed and surround me. There is an urge, an aspiration, a sense of effort to relief my consciousness of the vestiges of selfhood, insofar as those vestiges seem aversive, counterproductive, deluded, hindrances, or “defilements.” Or just not fully developed. That means there is a sense of struggle. I can usually boil that sense of struggle down to the level of physical sensation. I know that my struggle is not of self against other (even in an abstract context), but sometimes it happens to feel that way.

2) in all that happens, can you influence what happens? can you make anything happen? describe using an in-the-moment example.... for instance... picking up a cup, or walking from A to B, etc.

Walking happens on its own, even when I notice it. Noticing happens on its own: intensely contemplating [the illusion of ] free will or self per se merely makes attention a jumpy, peek a boo fluctuation, now you see it now you don’t. It’s a circle game that is often bumbling along on its own and can’t really volitionally be halted or redirected. If I really could influence what happens, don’t you think I’d be richer, smarter, luckier, perfectly enlightened? ☺ I wouldn’t think about unpleasant subjects and could choose my thoughts as carefully and preferentially as I can (usually) choose my words as I move from a draft to a final version. (Yes, even systematic editing and revision are out of my control, but I'm just making a figure of speech.)

I can usually be patient and allow troublesome issues of "who's in charge here?" to subside by engaging the candid, ordinary, direct looking that you recommend. Then I can see that no one is in charge, and THAT IS OK!

are there any sticking points that you'd like to look in to further?

I still have a reaction to experiences that “I don’t want” – wanting them to go away, struggling against them by focusing on non-attachment or looking at them as no more than a different flavor of experience – like fatigue, boredom, physical discomfort like a headache, inconvenient hunger, so forth. “The thousand natural shocks the flesh is heir to.” Routine dukkha. I can explicitly recognise the inappropriateness of "wanting to feel great all the time" but my dopaminergic system presses me towards rewards just as it does everyone else. That creates tension, but I can often reframe that as "creative tension" and welcome it. (Like stagefright/butterflies can be transformed into a powerful and excellent performance. However, I am vastly less concered with the meaning of life, the fate of my own reality as I age and die. I can feel love and concern for the wellbeing of others, lovingkindness and compassion -- things that should grow with self-lessness.

how are you feeling about Seeing no self?

I like it a lot! I think this is working.

Yours with love and best wishes!
Critterfan Stan

PS - By the way, Critterfan is my XBox Live avatar. :) I notice you "Like" Call of Duty, which I have been enjoying too. I also see that you are a Game of Thrones fan. My wife and daughter cannot wait for Season 3 to begin next week. My wife and I got my houseguest friend hooked on it with a season 1 marathon while he was visiting. We have some neighbors who discovered it on DVD and will be watching it at our place every Sunday since they don't have HBO. If you visit my "Stan Chappell" facebook page you will see an awesome photo from Season 3 of one of my favorite characters: Dani, the Mother of Dragons. She is so ready to rock and roll!

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

I want very much to “graduate from the program” ready for the next phase of life/experience rather than too soon and missing essential realizations.

Even though I play the role of "guide", it's always you will know when you have graduated, or in this case, when no self is clear.

To be honest, there is a discernable sense of me (e.g., social identity in the interaction with others, physical coordination in moving through environments, pragmatic or whimsical “conversations” with my various personae inside my mind). I am certainly aware that it is just another experience - bodily sensations within a situational orientation wrapped around a story. ......However, when I “inhabit” that momentary incarnation of self, it’s very light and easy. The boundaries are pro forma, serving the protocols of convenience only.

Even the 'inhabiting' happens on it's own and it's good to look in to the sense of intention or choice in this as in 'your' control.

I can see how this could still evolve to a more complete exposure to selfless reality, but without turning me into a ridiculous floating “maharishi” type.

LU employs Direct Pointing which is not interested or involved in changing the person at all, although this may or may not happen to varying degrees. What is important in the recognition of the way things are without the overlay of thought constructs.

The "self" is an object that we believes has existence in reality, just like other objects. Clearly the self is the focus of the LU inquiry because it is the foundation stone, so to speak, on which illusion, suffering and confusion is built on.

Everything is sensation but there are sensations that are accessible only to me and sensations private to "others" that I can only observe and infer from their statements, body language, and facial expression, using the theory of mind that developed in me as a child. Should this not be so at all?

The belief that awareness is contained and filtered through an actually existing physical body that exists in some independently (from you/awareness) objective reality with similar 'others' is also another belief and an angle of inquiry that isn't tackled here at LU but is more akin to Advaita style paths. The more we investigate reality the more we cannot find any actual reality. This is the major part of the "freedom". This is not only true for the "self" but it is true for physical objects, "the world", and anything that is believed to exist independently from that which is aware of this sentence.

While conventionally, there is a sense of being the first person character in an inherently existing world with other beings, when this (or parts of it) are seen through, there is a lightness and freedom from this SEEing. The "story" or "dance of life" continues, but none of it is taken literally, at all.

It is clear from your reflections that the "self" is kept alive by belief in related objects such as the body, and others. All these assumptions give the rise to ideas of separation, which inevitably and simultaneously create the idea of a self. There is something "in here", and there is a limited portion of "what i see OUT THERE"... I am limited in the casing, this shell, and this body, and separate from objects, people, places, potential ideas/information, etc.

Reality when seen is a lot simpler than all of that. All of these ideas of separation, the world, containers of awareness, you, me, etc etc all just collapse leaving ... well ... no use giving it any label :) You will see this if you want it more than anything.

It’s very clear that I should and will continue this looking, particularly at choice and control. I can certainly feel the fact of non-doership, but I seem to still struggle to exert control – over thoughts, emotions, etc. And yes, it cannot be helped. It is out of control :). Everything is out of control. How wonderful.

Right... non-doership is not prescriptive, in that it is not asking one to not do things... because that would be more doing! LOL! It points to the realization that there is no doer in Life, there are just arisings coming out of nowhere, and going back in to nowhere, none of them are "you"... because "you" is just another arising that comes out of nowhere, and goes back in to nowhere!!

The factors I will describe really do reside in dE or manifest as sensations, physical comforts and discomforts, themes and images that occupy my thoughts from time to time.

in dE there are no "comforts of discomforts", that is simply thought content ABOUT sensations.
and "my" thoughts as you can see by now is also more thought content added on to moment to moment arisings. The idea of "my thoughts" is also an idea based on separation, which assumes there are separate containers of awareness/experience running around each with their own set of thoughts. When looked for this is never found. It's a shocking realization, but it's a key one in investigating the nature of self, and of reality.

The direct experience of the ongoing, interior life-path monologue will speak or whisper, conclude or speculate, though it’s not too hard to live in an experience of cognitive silence and peace on most occasions.

"interior..." is a construct based on the belief that there is an "in here" (body and mind, inner world of thoughts, feelings, emotions) and an "out there" that is inferred based on "sensory data". All based on the Cartesian model of perception/duality (useful for navigating the realms of science, and "everyday" conversation). None of these are founded in reality, and when looked for not only can we not find a self, but we can't find an actual body, or outside world either. This is also a shocking realization!

And don't worry about trying to "live in an experience of cognitive silence and peace". This is not what it's about Stan... and you're name is not Stan, that is just the name of the person that seems to show up :). I've said this before and I'll say it again this is NOT about states, or maintaining feelings, or even about achieving some "enlightenment"... this is about deeply looking in to the nature of everything we believe to be true, and everything we take to be ourselves. and nothing we believe is true. absolutely nothing. there is no ground to stand on (literally), and there is no one there to stand on anything (literally). this is also shocking!

Honestly, there is no “locateable substantial entity” but there is still a semi-locatable, insubstantial whisper of personhood, as it were an “echo” of the energetic personhoods and "survival" demands that formed and surround me.

I know exactly what you mean, but it's really important to look at this "semi-locatable, insubstantial whisper of personhood". Trace this back... and you'll find that there is still a belief in "something" that is there... and you will probably find some belief that that is "you". When you deeply investigate any of this you will find that it is completely empty... sensations point to nothing but themselves, they don't point or give evidence for a person or body experiencing or feeling sensations... thoughts, images and ideas are also empty, they do not point to their content, rather they just reference themselves endlessly, keeping up the facade of this self, this world, this "samsaric" reality... but all of it is merely smoke and mirrors. Seeing this deeply is ... yep, you guessed it, shocking... yet it is Liberating.

here is an urge, an aspiration, a sense of effort to relief my consciousness of the vestiges of selfhood, insofar as those vestiges seem aversive, counterproductive, deluded, hindrances, or “defilements.” Or just not fully developed. That means there is a sense of struggle. I can usually boil that sense of struggle down to the level of physical sensation. I know that my struggle is not of self against other (even in an abstract context), but sometimes it happens to feel that way.

That very struggle IS selfhood.

Be careful with these spiritual labels of "hindrances and defilements" as they become just a spiritualized version of judging the present moment. They are skilful when used in the right context, but become the cause of more clinging/aversion when they are not.

Whatever shows up, even the " aversive, counterproductive, deluded, hindrances, or defilements.” have no actual substance behind them. Most of their substance is given due to a belief in a self that is at the mercy of them, or at the center of a battle against them. When the "self" is believed to be real, so is all the gross physical, mental and "spiritual" objects that it "comes in to contact with"... but upon deeper investigation, the self cannot be found, and all these physical, mental and spiritual objects can be found either. This, again, is shocking, but this again is Liberation. Liberation comes from the realization in to the true nature of things, and of the self... there are no "things", physical, mental, spiritual.... that is the realization.... there is no self.... in any way shape or form... that is the realization.

Walking happens on its own, even when I notice it. Noticing happens on its own: intensely contemplating [the illusion of ] free will or self per se merely makes attention a jumpy, peek a boo fluctuation, now you see it now you don’t. It’s a circle game that is often bumbling along on its own and can’t really volitionally be halted or redirected. If I really could influence what happens, don’t you think I’d be richer, smarter, luckier, perfectly enlightened? ☺ I wouldn’t think about unpleasant subjects and could choose my thoughts as carefully and preferentially as I can (usually) choose my words as I move from a draft to a final version. (Yes, even systematic editing and revision are out of my control, but I'm just making a figure of speech.)

Right. This logic and investigation is sound. Look at it in to those sticky places where you still feel "you" have control, and investigate it further. This needs to be Seen deeply. Sometimes it can be glimpsed, but that isn't enough. Seeing deeply provides an "unbinding" from the belief in a self, in control, and even in the idea that there is something to be controlled. This unbinding, this Seeing, this realization, is Freedom.

I can usually be patient and allow troublesome issues of "who's in charge here?" to subside by engaging the candid, ordinary, direct looking that you recommend. Then I can see that no one is in charge, and THAT IS OK!

Yes, exactly... even the "being patient and allowing troublesome issues..." is all happening on it's own. The "I can ..." part is a tacked on assumption that has no foundation in reality... but this needs to be Seen. If accepted just intellectually, then it does not trigger the "unbinding" and it just becomes another belief. Pointless.

I still have a reaction to experiences that “I don’t want” – wanting them to go away, struggling against them by focusing on non-attachment or looking at them as no more than a different flavor of experience – like fatigue, boredom, physical discomfort like a headache, inconvenient hunger, so forth. “The thousand natural shocks the flesh is heir to.” Routine dukkha. I can explicitly recognise the inappropriateness of "wanting to feel great all the time" but my dopaminergic system presses me towards rewards just as it does everyone else. That creates tension, but I can often reframe that as "creative tension" and welcome it.

Right, from the perspective of there being a person, an organism, in a world... all of this stuff is perfectly normal.

Suffering, or Dukkha, comes from the deeply held and uninvestigated belief that this person, organism and world, have inherent substance, and are "actually there", and even worse that this "person" (that has actually ZERO foundation in reality) is really "you". Once these are seen to be completely empty, ephemeral and substanceless, then there is no more suffering, and no more sufferer... the appearance of the person, the world are all just like ripples on a vast Ocean... basically, no big deal. Even the appearance of the person in Dukkha, is seen in perfect clarity, just another ripple.

However, I am vastly less concered with the meaning of life, the fate of my own reality as I age and die. I can feel love and concern for the wellbeing of others, lovingkindness and compassion -- things that should grow with self-lessness.

Good to hear.

Concern about such things as the meaning of life, aging and death become less relevant when the apparent objects of these apparent events are seen through as well.

And yes, feelings of Live and kindness and compassion do grow, because the focus is no longer on managing life or this self (as there are/is no such thing/s). The world, the self, and other beings are seen through, yet there is so much more space, aliveness and presence that grows and flows.

There is no such thing as Samsara.... it only seems to exist because it is believed in as an actual place/thing/time, and at the root of this is the belief in a "self" that is caught in the wheel of Samsaric existence... seeing through this nonsense, is itself (the beginning) of Nirvana and the end of Suffering/Samsara (did you like how I weaved this in a Buddhist sense for you? hehe... laughing aside though, it was said in all honesty!)

PS - By the way, Critterfan is my XBox Live avatar. :) I notice you "Like" Call of Duty, which I have been enjoying too. I also see that you are a Game of Thrones fan. My wife and daughter cannot wait for Season 3 to begin next week. My wife and I got my houseguest friend hooked on it with a season 1 marathon while he was visiting. We have some neighbors who discovered it on DVD and will be watching it at our place every Sunday since they don't have HBO. If you visit my "Stan Chappell" facebook page you will see an awesome photo from Season 3 of one of my favorite characters: Dani, the Mother of Dragons. She is so ready to rock and roll!

Cool! I have an XBOX but am not on Xbox Live unfortunately. Me and my son play a lot of offline co-op games. I used to be heavily in to Call of Duty (not anymore) and played at a semi-pro (obsessive) level!

And I love GoT! Dani is absolutely lovely! Can't wait for the first episode of Season 3!!

~~

So, i've poked at a lot in this last message, but we should do our best to keep the focus here in this "self", on this "you", as this is what LU specifically targets (although I prefer targetting all apparent objects, not just the "person"!), and remains true to the focus of this investigation.

I've given you a few things to think about in this reply as well, and I believe they center around the issue of Identification, and with Control. The first being identified with certain arisings in experience, such as the "body" as distinct from everything else, and some arisings being more "me" or "personal", et etc. The second being the sense that some things are within "your" control or influence. These are key angles of exploration and inquiry when it comes to this no self thing so you should look deeper in to that. Write me when you've had a chance to look deeper at these.

Look forward to speaking to you soon and love to your family and friends. It seems like you are having lots of fun :) Yay!

with Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi cosmiK --

Wow. Your recent post is, dare I say the word? Shockingly illuminating. :)

I haven't gone missing but will be taking the time, as you suggested, to focus on what you have been explaining, both in your latest and in earlier posts as well. So I will get back to you after letting it all sink in.

And enjoy the season premiere of Game of Thrones!

Stan

[cosmiK]

:)

Great! Happy Easter my friend.

with Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi

I prefer targetting all apparent objects, not just the "person"!

I don't want to lose sight of the relevance of this no-self exploration/deconstruction to "all apparent objects" because I think that points to the widest and most comprehensive reality into which life can open itself. Each of the many points you made, while "shocking," really resonated positively with me. I will always be eager and willing to return to this aspect. Ultimately, it all returns to the One -- but to what does the One return? :)

However, you also wrote:

we should do our best to keep the focus here in this "self", on this "you", as this is what LU specifically targets

Your closing comments quoted below indicated two specific areas of "self/you" to focus upon, so I thought I should limit my response to those rather than write page after page of responses to each of the several more comprehensive directions. It's all too easy enough for me to write page after page on even the fewest items. :)

I've given you a few things to think about in this reply as well, and I believe they center around the issue of Identification, and with Control. The first being identified with certain arisings in experience, such as the "body" as distinct from everything else, and some arisings being more "me" or "personal", etc. The second being the sense that some things are within "your" control or influence. These are key angles of exploration and inquiry when it comes to this no self thing so you should look deeper in to that. Write me when you've had a chance to look deeper at these.

Below are my own explorations (and struggles) followed by classic Buddhist insights which align very deeply with the LU realization. Help me connect the dots. I can see the outline, but the heart of the matter mostly eludes me.

Identification: my sense of possession/being possessed by my body/mind varies from day to day and, if I am honest, moment to moment. Last week it was free and clear; today it seems heavier and murkier. I'm looking and looking to see that it's the same either way. It's hard to be impartial and not "prefer" the experience of lightness and freedom over and above the experience of lethargy and uneasiness, which brings to mind our fragile mortality. How do I dissolve what binds me to preference in the first place?

What is personal only seems to be. Experience and life itself is entirely molecular, electromagnetic, physics-driven and thus impersonal. But it's also hard not to take some things personally, such as the demanding experience of pain or uneasiness or the pathos of glimpsing the Truth but not really being able to fully grasp it. I'm continually reminding myself that this is just what happens to be showing up.

Control: My thoughts seem to own me, sometimes, often, always -- and not only seemingly. Certainly, it's hard to deny that I can hardly own them myself, can't own them at all. If the illusory "seeking" by the thought enterprise ends/diminishes when anatta is truly seen, do we really choose to follow the path of inquiry into reality? If I am helplessly seeking, am I also helpless in going beyond it?

Indulge the following quotations and considerations (paraphrased from The Discourse on Not-self) because they directly track your discussion of identification and control. Probably most LU liberators are familiar with them, directly or indirectly. (Instead of "wrote" the quote function ought to say "spoke" in this case.)

Brethren, consciousness/form/feeling/perception whatever is not self [... and is impermanent]. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

Here the great man is saying that affliction, identity, awareness and control are all linked in the dukkha/anicca/anatta interaction, with the "uncontrollability of consciousness" a key to the puzzle and a pointer toward "non-identification" and not-self. And then:

So, brethren, any kind of form/feeling/perception/consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.' When a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he dis-identifies from form, he dis-identifies from feeling, he dis-identifies from perception, he dis-identifies from determinations, he dis-identifies from consciousness. When he finds it thus, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'

So I am not quoting an ancient sutra as a substitute or a contrast for the LU approach (and certainly not as a straw man), but I included it to ask how does recognizing non-identity, non-control conceptually in periodic glimpses transition into deeply finding that place wherefrom there is no beyond?

How is dis-identification more than mere differentiation? Is it because we normally differentiate ourselves from others, from the external, from the non-personal, but not from our sense of ego? Does the answer lie in differentiating ourselves entirely from ourselves as well as from everything else, past, present or future?

And how do I dissolve what binds me to preference in the first place? Is it to see that "preference" is only a falsely modest way of labeling the "passion" that the sutra promises will eventually "fade?"

And how how does seeing that "this (and everything) is not myself and myself is not myself" return us to the One, and to whatever the One returns to?

With puzzlement but also lots of love....

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

Interesting stuff. I will do my best to relate to what you brought up, both from your personal reflection, as well as from the Buddhist sutta, and then tie it back to our investigation of no-self as a 'step in the Right direction'.

I don't want to lose sight of the relevance of this no-self exploration/deconstruction to "all apparent objects" because I think that points to the widest and most comprehensive reality into which life can open itself.

Yes, let's focus on this self. What I was pointing out was that this "path to Enlightenment" comes from seeing in to the true nature of things. Almost all traditions point to the fact that what we perceive to actually exist doesn't. We misperceive the true nature of things, and think there are actual things, gross and subtle, mental, physical and spiritual, and we take ourselves to be one of these 'things', and we call it 'me'.

Deconstructing the "self", which LU does is target, is tackling one object that we perceive to actually exist. We believe that there is some inherent actual entity, thinker, doer, liver. Just like we deconstruct this self, we can deconstruct everything, from objects like apples, trees, people, all the way to subtle objects such as causality, time, space, good, bad. None of these things actually exists independently, 'out there' / 'in here', inherently. Basically, it's a lot of smoke and mirrors. But, you've probably heard all of this before. Hearing it doesn't do the trick, it is Seeing it that does. In Buddhism they call this Insight, and it is arrived through Vipassana, or Mindfulness. The approach I have showed you is dE (Direct Experience) and is very much like Vipassana. It is a mindful and analytical deconstruction of present moment experience, gradually revealing that what we believe to be there actually isn't.

Buddha said that the "self" is composed of aggregates. This is indeed true. When you Look, in dE, you will see that the "self" is merely a composition of thought (in all its flavors), and sensation. THAT'S IT.
For instance, in Vision, the "self" is just colors, which we say "oh there is my hand, my foot, etc".
in Feeling, the majority of Feeling (tactile+kinesthetic) is taken to be the "body". Some of it is taken to be "outside objects" making contact with the "body". In dE we find no such things... we just find Feeling. In that sense we can not only refute the "body" as an object in space, but also refute it as the perceiver of other objects.
In this fashion the self can be deconstructed. Once it is deconstructed in such a way that the belief structures that maintained the illusion are seen through, then this triggers an "awakening" from self. This is the goal of LU and is what we have primarily been working on.

Ultimately, it all returns to the One -- but to what does the One return? :)

Not sure what you mean by this. Let's stay clear of this for now.

my sense of possession/being possessed by my body/mind varies from day to day and, if I am honest, moment to moment.

This sentence here is great for you to look at.

I know you are being honest about how you feel, and that is great, but this is what you have to dive in to and break down.

In Direct Experience where is the "me" that is being possessed/possessing the "body"? Can you find the dividing line between the two? You must keep looking to see if this is true. Is there REALLY this possession going on?

This is why deconstructing such objects as "mind" and "body" are important because they are major sticking points of identification.

In dE, explain to me what this body is?
and in dE, explain to me what this mind is?

Use ONLY direct experience. This is where it is important to avoid theories and even sutras and just look for yourself. This is where Looking, and deep contemplation are necessary.

Last week it was free and clear; today it seems heavier and murkier. I'm looking and looking to see that it's the same either way.

"Seeing that it is the same either" way moves one towards insights surrounding equanimity (Buddhism), or in the Advaita tradition, seeing that All is Awareness (One).

Instead of trying to see that it is all one, just notice if there is a separate someone there in direct experience that is experiencing free and clear, or heavier or murkier. There is a sense of free, clear, heavier, murkier... but is an "I" observing this? is there a self at the mercy of this? The immediate response may be "yes", but Look and see if you can locate this self. Use Direct Experience to do this. Don't rely on the "voice in the head/narrator" for answers.

It's hard to be impartial and not "prefer" the experience of lightness and freedom over and above the experience of lethargy and uneasiness

You don't have to be impartial or "not prefer" anything... instead focus on if there is a "self" there in direct experience that can do ay of this.

Notice... impartiality arises... preferences arise... lethargy may arise... uneasiness may arise...but is there an "I" there? and if there appears to be... isn't that just another arising that shows up?

In the same sense, even "lethargy" and "uneasiness" can be deconstructed. In Direct Experience you will see that these are just socially and psychologically constructed labels (thoughts) given to just sensations showing up.

~

It's not about making yourself some equanimous monk who doesn't have preferences... in this investigation it's about Seeing that in each moment, in whatever situation, no matter what is arising, there is NEVER an actual entity or person there. That is what you have to investigate.

Later on, when the insubstantiality of objects (subtle, gross, mental, physical and spiritual) are seen, then preferences fade away... preferences don't make sense anymore because there is no one to prefer anything and nothing to prefer ... literally. This is one of the pitfalls about misinterpreting the Buddhist sutras. It can seem like they are asking you to stop desiring, preferring and reacting when that is impossible. Instead, desiring, preferring and reacting seem to fall away and dissolve by seeing in to the true nature of things. When it is clearly seen that there is no self there, then much of this dissolves (maybe not immediately). And when it is seen that there is nothing substantial at all anywhere.... then even MORE dissolves... Do you see how preferences depend on there being substantial 'things' (subtle or gross) to prefer?

How do I dissolve what binds me to preference in the first place?

I would say focus on Seeing through this "self" first.

However, as I mentionned above, you dissolve what binds you to preferences by seeing that there is no substantial "things" to prefer in the first place. And you also see that there is no "you" to be bound. Notice all the assumptions inherent in the language you use. There is the idea that there is an inherent "you", actually "bound" to something (subtle object) called a preference <--- a gold mine for investigation!

So basically, it's not about getting rid of anything... attempting to do that is counterproductive because it is built on the assumption that there is something to get rid of (and someone that could engage in it!). INSTEAD, we investigate the nature of things. Do you see the subtle but very important difference there? that is Key.

What is personal only seems to be.

Yes... I know you know this. You cannot not know because it's your true nature.

I'm continually reminding myself that this is just what happens to be showing up.

Even more importantly that rote remind yourself, is to investigate. Take Buddhism for instance... the whole foundation of Buddhism is based on Insight... on Vipassana.... Why do you think that is? Because the Buddha wanted you to LOOK DEEPLY in to the nature of everything.... sensations, thoughts.... objects such as the self, world. It is this Seeing, this Insight, that provides unbinding, and freedom from suffering.

My thoughts seem to own me, sometimes, often, always -- and not only seemingly.

I think you are referring to the fact that thoughts are not controlled.. and you are right. But without seeing that there is no "you"... it feels as if thoughts own a "me"... but in Direct Experience... is there a "me" there that is owned by thoughts? No... there is only thoughts arising, sensations, just experience. Only thought says there is a "me" that is owned by thoughts. But again, you have to investigate this for yourself. What happens in direct experience? In the present moment? Is there really a "you" there? What is this "you"? Can sensations be owned by thoughts? Can thoughts be owned by thoughts? What else is there that can be owned by thoughts???

If the illusory "seeking" by the thought enterprise ends/diminishes when anatta is truly seen, do we really choose to follow the path of inquiry into reality? If I am helplessly seeking, am I also helpless in going beyond it?

Ultimately control is an illusion. Ultimately there is no one there to walk the path, no path, and no substantial reality to inquire in to. It all (gradually) collapses. The entire framework collapses.

But that is not a prescription to give up. That is not something to believe and feel hopeless about.

I would advise you to continue to Look in to the true nature of things! Until "no control" is realized, focus on seeing that. In direct experience is there someone there inquiring? Or just thoughts that say there is someone there inquiring? Pay attention to how thought weaves and stitches together Seeeing, Feeling, Hearing, Smelling and Tasting and make it in to a "self". More smoke and mirrors, all dependent upon unquestioned conditioned thought... uninvestigated experience.

Here the great man is saying that affliction, identity, awareness and control are all linked in the dukkha/anicca/anatta interaction, with the "uncontrollability of consciousness" a key to the puzzle and a pointer toward "non-identification" and not-self. And then:

Mr Buddha is saying that no matter what shows up, none of it is self. Suffering (dukkha) comes from identifying with some of the stuff that shows up. This is the "conditioned self"... what we take ourselves to be.

So I am not quoting an ancient sutra as a substitute or a contrast for the LU approach (and certainly not as a straw man), but I included it to ask how does recognizing non-identity, non-control conceptually in periodic glimpses transition into deeply finding that place wherefrom there is no beyond?

Understanding this conceptually can only take one so far. Conceptual understanding creates and provides a framework from which investigation and then insight can take place. Insight means seeing in to the true nature of things. What we are doing so far focuses on seeing in to the nature of "self". We see that what we took ourselves to be is nothing more than arising sensations and thought, here and now, and none of that points to anything substantial. When we See this, our false hypothesis and false identification collapses. In direct experience we not only see that there is no self, we also see that there isn't anything there that could control anything else, just arisings that have no power... who/what would control anything? do sensations control other sensations? do thoughts control other thoughts? how does that work? even if there is "control" or "effort" perceived, then that too is just another arising... it is not in actuality control or effort.

and the idea that there is a place wherefrom there is no beyond is also just an idea based on the misunderstanding of the "place" where you are now. In non-duality this insight is beautifully expressed as you already are perfectly enlightened. It is only the misunderstanding of the nature of things that prevents one from seeing this.

How is dis-identification more than mere differentiation? Is it because we normally differentiate ourselves from others, from the external, from the non-personal, but not from our sense of ego? Does the answer lie in differentiating ourselves entirely from ourselves as well as from everything else, past, present or future?

Disidentification, again, comes naturally by seeing the true nature of experience. Experience is very simple.

The model of dE (direct experience) helps reveal some of this simplicity by breaking down experience in to 6 streams - seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking.....

in dE... were is "ourselves" and "others"... where is "external".. where is "personal" and "non-personal"... where is "ego"? where is "past/present/future"?

None of these "things" that we think actually exist, actually exist... they are just conceptual overlays given to a deep simplicity. This is why what I said resonated so deeply with you because it got to the heart of this last set of questions you asked. It is the insight borne out of the recognition that there is NOTHING there to identify with in the first place. The very notion of disidentifying is born out of the subtle idea that there is some thing there to identify with (and someone to do the identifying)... and there are no such things... literally.

And how do I dissolve what binds me to preference in the first place? Is it to see that "preference" is only a falsely modest way of labeling the "passion" that the sutra promises will eventually "fade?"

I think I addressed this somewhere above, and many times in this post.

The best way to to dissolve what binds "you" is to see that there isn't actually a "you" there at all in the first place. That is why the LU process is so effective, and a great place to start on a genuine journey of Awakening.

And how how does seeing that "this (and everything) is not myself and myself is not myself" return us to the One, and to whatever the One returns to?

With puzzlement but also lots of love....

Hahahah... this puzzles me too :P Not sure what you mean.

"One" is often used in Advaita to point to Oneness / no separation. Most Buddhist paths follow a different "road" and do not deal with One per se - they take the middle way and do not assert an inherent "many" or "One". You may be mixing your metaphors/traditions in a way that may cause confusion here.

If you are speaking purely from an Advaita angle then those paths usually deconstruct everything down to "awareness" (One), and if those paths are comprehensive, they also deconstruct "One" leaving no ground to stand on. And even trying to describe what that points to is pointless!

~

So i've engaged you a lot on this level, because 1. it is fun, and 2. because I know you love thinking about this stuff! (and hey, i love chatting about it all too!) But as I have told you from day #1... the unbindind that you seek will only come from dedicated investigation. Within this process we use investigating present moment experience (Looking), and seeing what is actually there without any assumptions. We also use Direct Experience as a model for breaking down everything that shows up. Seeing is the only way. Or as Buddhists would say, Insight is the only way. The LU process offers a very simple and direct way of doing this, but for it to be effective you have to be willing to Look, be willing to investigate this self nakedly and directly, from present moment experience!

Here is a refresher for you if you require. It's the article I wrote on dE:

http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... ce-de.html

~

Wow that was a long reply!! :D

Hope all is well with you and that you enjoyed the Game of Thrones episode! I found i was a little lost as I had forgotten much of what had happened in the last one. I'm sure I'll start to get in to the flow of things soon enough.

Lots of Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi Cos,

I hope I'm not keeping you too busy, with all the writing we are doing. You have a son, your practice/day job, a doggie too I think, plus the "green people" you are helping on LU, such as yours truly. You are most generous. I am going to try to simplify.

But first, let me comment on the koan I dropped in last post about the One, etc., which has always fascinated me. A disciple of Chao-Chou once asked his master, "If the myriad dharmas return to one, to what does the one return?" Chao-Chou answered, "In Ch'ing-chou I had a robe made, weighing seven pounds." It's related to the "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" insight, and your response made a lot of sense:

If you are speaking purely from an Advaita angle then those paths usually deconstruct everything down to "awareness" (One), and if those paths are comprehensive, they also deconstruct "One" leaving no ground to stand on.

Chao-Chou answered, "In Ch'ing-chou I had a robe made, weighing seven pounds." Simple, concrete, grounded in direct experience and clearing transcending the Advaita presumption, as Buddhism generally does.

You answered:

And even trying to describe what that points to is pointless!

I like your answer as much as Chao-Chou's.

Altogether, your recent and detailed response was really helpful, particularly as it put the LU path into context with vipassana and the core Theravadin deconstructive analysis of self and other "objects" into the aggregates, etc.

Now to your two most important questions:

In direct experience is there someone there inquiring? Or just thoughts that say there is someone there inquiring? Pay attention to how thought weaves and stitches together Seeeing, Feeling, Hearing, Smelling and Tasting and make it in to a "self".

I'm going to be more mindful -- not of the content of thought, but of how it creates a virtual reality that only seems or feels real. And not the "how" in a technically or functionally descriptive sense, but to see it happen, see it weave its stories, viscerally experience the shape shifting.

In Direct Experience where is the "me" that is being possessed/possessing the "body"? Can you find the dividing line between the two? You must keep looking to see if this is true. Is there REALLY this possession going on? This is why deconstructing such objects as "mind" and "body" are important because they are major sticking points of identification.
In dE, explain to me what this body is?
and in dE, explain to me what this mind is?
Use ONLY direct experience. This is where it is important to avoid theories and even sutras and just look for yourself. This is where Looking, and deep contemplation are necessary.

During the last several months of this inquiry, although your instructions encouraged me to continue whatever practice I was engaged in (mostly samatha and mindfulness of breath), I have done much less meditating because it was becoming a pursuit of comfortable feelings and gratifying metaphysical vistas. I have indeed focused strongly and sincerely on our dialogue, but more in an ongoing, direct experience approach, as I go about my business and daily life. I'll continue that but I think I understand that I really need to take "looking" much deeper. I am trying a deconstructive vipassana focused not on breath or body but on the apparent (smoke and mirror) existence of what I have always considered, consciously or unconsciously, to be myself. It's an elusive target because it's not there in the first place, but there is still a lot of psychic inertia within me that keeps that self-myth alive.

My wife is spending the weekend in DC with our daughter and then next week with her mom in Pennsylvania so I have the house all to myself (and the golden retriever) and can spend more time meditating on this business of ours.

So let me get to it and I will give you a time-out until I have questions or, hopefully, more insights. I am loving the GoT season. We got the neighbors hooked. They watched season 1 and 2 on DVD but don't have HBO, so they are coming over to watch on Sunday nites. Did you ever watch Homeland, on Showtime? That's another major drama worth becoming addicted to.

Take care

[Critterfan]

Hi cosmiK

Hope all is well. This is just an update and a hello.

I'm still "here" but barely -- in good way. I think my development is incremental with basically steady progress characterized by deepening serenity/unity punctuated by significant moments of insight and seeing -- a combination of the sudden path and the gradual path. The old mind set continues to evanesce on its own as though the self position is being worn away by attrition. The house of cards is not collapsing all at once, but without a doubt, one or a few cards at a time. Woops, there goes the Jack of Diamonds!

I can continue in this mode, but I will respond if there is anything you wish to ask me or poke me with. Many of the concepts you have shared, both micro- and macro-, are emerging from the substrate, taking root, putting out buds and blossoms. The fruit or fruition can't be very far away.

Thanks for all your help and as the Brits say, I will "stay calm and carry on."

Lots of <3
Critterfan

[cosmiK]

Hey Stan,

sorry for the huge delay in responding.

I'm happy to hear of the progress, and I would say keep at it. It may be good to casually read through our conversations from the beginning, as it may offer some insight and pointers. We've covered quite a lot together and it may help to let this percolate. I'm not sure how active this inquiry still is, but I do recommend that it is kept active, and done so in the general direction that we have taken. As you know by now, the belief in a substantial and independently existing entity / self is one of the main "causes" of suffering and inquiry in to this is an essential part of the path.

Keep going my friend.

Take a few days and then get back to me when you've had a chance to review.

Instead of me asking and poking you, it is best if the quesitons and concerns come from you, so that I may appropriately poke and prod. We can also set up a Skype session sometime in the coming weeks for us to chat about this more in depth.

Hope all is well,

Lots of Love to you.

[Critterfan]

Hey Cos,

No Prob. I've also been busy. When I retired it was only from a paying job, not from all the good things that need to be done and that can be helpful.

Per your suggestion, I have been reviewing the conversations of the last several months -- lots of provocative material to reflect upon. I will post back some specific comments/questions very soon.

Stan

[cosmiK]

Hi Stan,

Great. I will look forward to a more detailed email from you in the next few days. It's good to keep the momentum going even though it may slow down or cool off.

With Love.