No-Self lost - Need to be guided

[thejumper]

Hi Nona,

Is sense-of-self an actual entity Self? Or is is just a sensation plus a thought?

It should be a sensation plus a thought, but I've been trying to check that and I couldn't figure it out today.

Why "should" sense-of-self be a sensation plus a thought? Because I asked? Maybe it's only a thought or a network of thoughts. Maybe it's a collection of self-referential thoughts. I'm glad you tried to Check it — keep trying! And remember the way to shift out of Thinking is to focus on sensation.

Absolutely, the encompassing way to define might be: Sense of self is NOT an entity, which means is not the essence of beingness, because they are thoughts.
As you suggest it can be a network of thoughts or memory of some collections of thought, self-referencing themselves. But thoughts still they are.

Yup, focus on sensation and look for self.

For me, sense-of-self is thought, and I have no control over which thoughts appear or don't. The language seems to imply a self, and thought is usually in language, so there seems to be reinforcement of the idea that there is a sense-of-self happening.

Indeed it seems so. That actually the idea behind the exercise I've tried to do, replacing the I with "brain", in order to see how it feels. EX: I go to the pub, versus Brain go to the pub. The difference can be easily felt.

Did you think that no self is a continuous awareness?

Probability I've expected no self to have some awareness continuity, or feeling of tranquility (remember my cotton hamlet).

Oh dear! The authors of treatises on awakening have much to answer for! A feeling of tranquility is often not even a sensation! It's often a Thinking, rather than a Feeling. Tranquilizers induce tranquillity; and as far as we know, they do not induce awakening/liberation.
Feelings are subject to change. They DO change, and without warning! One moment you feel this way; the next moment a different way. No feeling is Permanent, not excepting tranquility!
And would you genuinely prefer constant tranquility to the excitement of not knowing what's going to happen next? To the fresh aliveness of Life-as-it-Happens?

This tranquillity I found was so pleasant that it wouldn't be honest to say I wouldn't like to stay in that! Even if it wasn't related to liberation. It is as it is.
The question being more to have a picture of what we are talking about. Thus Nona, your feedback are precious. Is it, will it be the same for Jean? I understood it can be different for everyone.

Your explanations really help to understand. Thanks you.

Good! The idea that once liberated we will be constantly aware of our liberation is confusion.
At any given moment we can Check, by shifting to sensation, whether there is in fact a separate entity "self". That we can do this is very relaxing; the peace of moving out of Thinking and into sensation is always available! But this is not the same as constant tranquility.

When I d.e., I don't always find the same tranquillity. I can be there, but often is not.
Also, It still requires me some efforts to switch to d.e. I need to be in a calm place.
What I can more easily do, is check where is self/I NOT in d.e. This is not the way to go you've explained. So, I still need more training to switch quicker, better into the background, the d.e. Is not that difficult but some better mastering will help.

Sense of self is not a sense at all; it's a Thinking. That doesn't mean it does not appear to be real!

That where it can be confusing.
This is why, I don't know what I've seen. I see there is no-self. Sometime, I see there is a self... where I'm?

Close the eyes, and suppose I am handing you an imaginary watermelon. It is so big, you have to take it with both hands. Feel the weight of it! Feel its smooth skin and its cool temperature. Can you smell its fresh, slightly sweet scent? Imagine tapping on the watermelon, hearing the hollow sound a ripe melon has when tapped. Have you got it clearly in imagination?
Good.
Now what can you do to get rid of this melon? Is there any way to remove what doesn't exist?

Now open the eyes. What happened to the melon which seemed so real?

Yes it's very clear.

Kindness,
Jean

[nonaparry]

Dear Jean,

The question being more to have a picture of what we are talking about. Thus Nona, your feedback are precious. Is it, will it be the same for Jean? I understood it can be different for everyone.

Each liberation is unique. AND what's happening does not change at all. What changes is one's perspective.

When I d.e., I don't always find the same tranquillity. I can be there, but often is not.

Please describe what is happening when you are in d.e. What about d.e. is not tranquil?

Also, It still requires me some efforts to switch to d.e. I need to be in a calm place.

To switch to d.e., just shift focus from Thinking to sensations. That is all. This can be done no matter what appears to be happening! It's just a shift of focus.
Do this many times during the day. The more you do it, the easier it will become.

What I can more easily do, is check where is self/I NOT in d.e. This is not the way to go you've explained.

This is Thinking. I prefer that you spend less time Thinking and more time in d.e.
Why?
Because you will not SEE the illusion with the same thinking that creates it!
If you wished to see la tour Eiffel, I would direct you to Paris, not to a story about the tower. If you wish to SEE the illusion of a separate self, I am directing you to d.e. In d.e. is where the illusion can be seen. Thoughts about the illusion are merely a Story and will not reveal the illusion.

I see there is no-self.

No. There is no no-self. None, nada, zilch, zero. No-self is not an entity.

Sometime, I see there is a self...

WHERE do you see a self? Ever? SHOW me this self you sometimes SEE. With which sense do you observe this self?
Prepare yourself with a camera. The very next time you SEE a self, take a photo of it! I am very keen to see this self!

Close the eyes, and suppose I am handing you an imaginary watermelon. It is so big, you have to take it with both hands. Feel the weight of it! Feel its smooth skin and its cool temperature. Can you smell its fresh, slightly sweet scent? Imagine tapping on the watermelon, hearing the hollow sound a ripe melon has when tapped. Have you got it clearly in imagination?
Good.
Now what can you do to get rid of this melon? Is there any way to remove what doesn't exist?
Now open the eyes. What happened to the melon which seemed so real?

Yes it's very clear.

What is very clear? You did not answer my questions!

with love,
Nona

[thejumper]

Dear Nona,

When I d.e., I don't always find the same tranquillity. I can be there, but often is not.

Please describe what is happening when you are in d.e. What about d.e. is not tranquil?

Simply that when in deep d.e. it's very calm. When only oriented toward sensations, in a less concentrate manner, is not particularly calm.

To switch to d.e., just shift focus from Thinking to sensations. That is all. This can be done no matter what appears to be happening! It's just a shift of focus.
Do this many times during the day. The more you do it, the easier it will become.

Ok, good advice.

Sometime, I see there is a self...

WHERE do you see a self? Ever? SHOW me this self you sometimes SEE. With which sense do you observe this self?
Prepare yourself with a camera. The very next time you SEE a self, take a photo of it! I am very keen to see this self!

Here I was writing, reporting more about the general feeling of self, not the un existing entity. It can be confusing to make the difference between general feeling, senses and thaughts.

Close the eyes, and suppose I am handing you an imaginary watermelon. It is so big, you have to take it with both hands. Feel the weight of it! Feel its smooth skin and its cool temperature. Can you smell its fresh, slightly sweet scent? Imagine tapping on the watermelon, hearing the hollow sound a ripe melon has when tapped. Have you got it clearly in imagination?
Good.
Now what can you do to get rid of this melon? Is there any way to remove what doesn't exist?
Now open the eyes. What happened to the melon which seemed so real?

Yes it's very clear.

What is very clear? You did not answer my questions!

Well let's look, which is the same thing to look for the self.
Best way is to use my senses and check if it exist or if it's an illusion. Here, opening the eyes is the easiest way to see the illusion of the watermelon, and if I use the sight to find a self it should be the same thing.

Thank you.
Kindness,
Jean

[nonaparry]

Dear Jean,

Simply that when in deep d.e. it's very calm. When only oriented toward sensations, in a less concentrate manner, is not particularly calm.

Orientation only to sensation is deep d.e. If you find you are "less concentrated", then please shift focus to sensation.

WHERE do you see a self? Ever? SHOW me this self you sometimes SEE. With which sense do you observe this self?
Prepare yourself with a camera. The very next time you SEE a self, take a photo of it! I am very keen to see this self!

Here I was writing, reporting more about the general feeling of self, not the un existing entity. It can be confusing to make the difference between general feeling, senses and thaughts.

Again, I point out that your words "general feeling" do not actually point to a feeling — to sensation; they point to a thinking! If this is not clear, then perhaps I should have a colleague who is fluent in French to take over?
Feeling means what you feel; you do not feel what you think!

Best way is to use my senses and check if it exist or if it's an illusion. Here, opening the eyes is the easiest way to see the illusion of the watermelon, and if I use the sight to find a self it should be the same thing.

Yes, good!

Look around the room you are in. Do you see walls, furniture, ceiling, floor? A computer? Do you see a self? Anywhere?
Walls, furniture, ceiling, floor, and computer are physical entities.
If a self were a physical entity, wouldn't you see it?

Compare the sense-of-a-watermelon to sense-of-self. The sensation of a watermelon seemed so clear! But there was no watermelon in Reality.
The sensation of "self" seems so clear! But there is no self in Reality!

Go outside into Nature, if you are able. Watch the grass, bushes, trees, clouds, birds, animals, people. Is there anything that is happening that is not simply happening by itself? Is there any event at all that you can see which requires a controller, a do-er, a decider, a director?

love
Nona

[thejumper]

Dear Nona,

Orientation only to sensation is deep d.e. If you find you are "less concentrated", then please shift focus to sensation.

Ok.
By any chance do you know the technique of labelling (noting) sensations as they arise? It is used in meditation (like in Vipassana) in order to train the person meditating to keep focus on the sensations when taking place.
If you know it, any opinion about labelling? Can it be of any help?

Again, I point out that your words "general feeling" do not actually point to a feeling — to sensation; they point to a thinking! If this is not clear, then perhaps I should have a colleague who is fluent in French to take over?
Feeling means what you feel; you do not feel what you think!

I see your point. To clarify, I might be wrong but I believe I do understand. I was reporting the confusion that sometime occurs when looking for the self. Some lack of focus, lack of concentration, not an easy job. As you were mentioning:
"The language seems to imply a self, and thought is usually in language, so there seems to be reinforcement of the idea that there is a sense-of-self happening".

The process of identifying does not stop and it is where I can go into confusion. I can see stories as stories, but I can also get catch up with the sense-of-self.
I-thought is a rebel!

1. Look around the room you are in. Do you see walls, furniture, ceiling, floor? A computer? Do you see a self? Anywhere?
Walls, furniture, ceiling, floor, and computer are physical entities.
2. If a self were a physical entity, wouldn't you see it?

1. No. I see walls etc. and what is between my eyes and those objects. Nothing in the field of perception.
2. Yes I should see it. It could also be inside this body, but I can't precisely locate it. The sense-of-self can happen, but is a thought, a story.

Compare the sense-of-a-watermelon to sense-of-self. The sensation of a watermelon seemed so clear! But there was no watermelon in Reality.
The sensation of "self" seems so clear! But there is no self in Reality!

+1, nice one.

Go outside into Nature, if you are able. Watch the grass, bushes, trees, clouds, birds, animals, people. Is there anything that is happening that is not simply happening by itself? Is there any event at all that you can see which requires a controller, a do-er, a decider, a director?

Today I've had a chance to go to see the sea. A wonderful, explicit example of a no controller experience.


Thank you
Jean

[nonaparry]

Dear Jean,

If you know it, any opinion about labelling? Can it be of any help?

Labeling sensations as they arise is a good exercise for noticing sensation. But labels are still thoughts, not sensation, and the process of labeling takes us out of sensation and into thinking.
You do plenty of thinking already; I suggest you let go of labeling and simply notice sensations without labeling them. Sensation without labels, without thought about them, is as close as we get to experiencing a physical Reality.

I was reporting the confusion that sometime occurs when looking for the self.

Confusion comes from thinking about self or no self; there is no confusion in direct experience. If you find yourself confused, you are thinking, not sensing.

The process of identifying does not stop and it is where I can go into confusion.

I don't know what you mean by this. In direct experience, in sensation-prior-to-thought, is there any I-dentification at all? What, in DE, can I-dentify with anything?

If a self were a physical entity, wouldn't you see it?

Yes I should see it. It could also be inside this body, but I can't precisely locate it.

Two questions: if a self were contained within the body, why have anatomists not located one? Why when we see an anatomical representation of the body is there a heart, lungs, diaphragm, but never an entity "self"?
Does your view of a "self" change repeatedly? Do you identify with an ever-changing entity "self"? If not, why can it not be precisely located? Can there actually be a static entity "self" if it cannot be precisely located?

Today I've had a chance to go to see the sea. A wonderful, explicit example of a no controller experience.

Excellent! Can you give an example of a controller experience? Is there any event which requires a controller? At all?

Let's deconstruct a body in which there just may be an imprecisely locatable, moveable "self". Let's put the legs over here, the arms over there. The torso can go here, and the head can go there. If we take away some body parts, say the feet, is the body still identifiable as a "self"? Let's take away the liver next. And then the heart. Now the eyes. Is there still a "self"? How many body parts can we discard and still have an entity called "self"?

love
Nona

[thejumper]

Dear Nona,

Thank you for your labelling inputs.

The process of identifying does not stop and it is where I can go into confusion.
I don't know what you mean by this. In direct experience, in sensation-prior-to-thought, is there any I-dentification at all? What, in DE, can I-dentify with anything?

I mean that I can be identify with a self. I'm not always with no-self outside d.e. As you show me it is normal. I believe this is because I have all my brain wired in this way since I was little, it's a conditioning.

Yes I should see it. It could also be inside this body, but I can't precisely locate it.

Two questions:
1. if a self were contained within the body, why have anatomists not located one? Why when we see an anatomical representation of the body is there a heart, lungs, diaphragm, but never an entity "self"?
2. Does your view of a "self" change repeatedly? Do you identify with an ever-changing entity "self"?
3. If not, why can it not be precisely located?
4. Can there actually be a static entity "self" if it cannot be precisely located?

1. I as have written, this because, also the sense-of-self can happen, it is a thought, a story.
2. The view of "self" gives the impression to be continuous, but it's always changing and appearing only when a thought arise. When no thought (d.e.) --> no "I" --> no Jean. When a new thought = new and different "I"
3. Again it's a thought, a new story every time. Can't locate a thought.
I did an conclusive experiment: Closed the eyes and got concentrated on the belly for a while. Then started repeating "thought". This gave the impression of thoughts coming from the belly.
4. No it can't

Today I've had a chance to go to see the sea. A wonderful, explicit example of a no controller experience.

Excellent! Can you give an example of a controller experience? Is there any event which requires a controller? At all?

No I can't, not at all.

Let's deconstruct a body in which there just may be an imprecisely locatable, moveable "self". Let's put the legs over here, the arms over there. The torso can go here, and the head can go there.
If we take away some body parts, say the feet, is the body still identifiable as a "self"? Let's take away the liver next. And then the heart. Now the eyes. Is there still a "self"?
How many body parts can we discard and still have an entity called "self"?

If one lives with a self believes, I imagine he will find a self up to the end of its life. But we can deconstruct the body indefinitely, I still would not be able to find a self.

Kindness,
Jean

[nonaparry]

Dearest Jean,

I'm not always with no-self outside d.e. As you show me it is normal. I believe this is because I have all my brain wired in this way since I was little, it's a conditioning.

We ALL have our brain wired this way — it's conditioning, socialisation.
You are not always aware of or thinking there is no self, but if you stop to consider what you mean when you say or write "I", "me", "self", are you then aware there is no self? In Reality? Are you ever unable to reach an experience of no self at all?

I did an conclusive experiment: Closed the eyes and got concentrated on the belly for a while. Then started repeating "thought". This gave the impression of thoughts coming from the belly.

Hahaha!! Brilliant!

But we can deconstruct the body indefinitely, I still would not be able to find a self.

Do you think this? Or have you seen this beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Outside of a sense-of-self which is not even a sensation, is there any self at all in your experience?

love,
Nona

[thejumper]

Very Dear Nona,

1. You are not always aware of or thinking there is no self, but if you stop to consider what you mean when you say or write "I", "me", "self", are you then aware there is no self?
2. In Reality? Are you ever unable to reach an experience of no self at all?

1. Yes, I'm aware of the nonexistence of a self.
2. Yes in d.e. I don't see any self.
Nevertheless, outside d.e., it's still a surprise to see the ego hanging around. Since a few days, I've started to pay closer attention the way this ego is operating.

But we can deconstruct the body indefinitely, I still would not be able to find a self.

1. Do you think this? Or have you seen this beyond a shadow of a doubt?
2. Outside of a sense-of-self which is not even a sensation, is there any self at all in your experience?

1. I've seen in d.e. with no doubts, there is no self, so, I don't see how I could find any. It doesn't exist and never has.
2. In new experiences no. But when thinking at past tough experiences, I can see selves. My way to operate with, is to have a closer look at what is that self in the related experience. Most of the time I see it's just a constellation of believes. But it can also be more difficult to ferret it out and/or let it go. If I understood you correctly, this, possibility is the path to follow. I now have to learn, or improve, this new investigation.

Kindness,
Jean

[nonaparry]

Dearest Jean,

This may be a matter of the language rather than a matter of what you have actually SEEn.

outside d.e., it's still a surprise to see the ego hanging around.

Do you Observe the ego hanging around? With the eyes? With any of the senses?

when thinking at past tough experiences, I can see selves.

Really? You SEE selves? With the eyes? With any of the senses?

Most of the time I see it's just a constellation of believes.

Is there any time when "self" or "ego" has ever been something more than a constellation of beliefs? Ever?

What I want you to do is to separate thoughts from sensation.
Sensation-prior-to-thought is as close to reality as we ever get, while thoughts are happy to create wild fiction in an attempt to explain sensation.
The result of believing thoughts is suffering; the result of investigating sensation to determine if there is a separate entity "self" at all, may be liberation.

Have you ever discovered anything REAL-er than sensation? In the moment the foot strikes the table-leg, which is more Real, the sensation or the thoughts about the sensation?

love
Nona

[thejumper]

Dear Nona,

This may be a matter of the language rather than a matter of what you have actually SEEn.

outside d.e., it's still a surprise to see the ego hanging around.

Do you Observe the ego hanging around? With the eyes? With any of the senses?

Notice a sense of self might be a better expression. Those are thoughts, believes, not experienced with senses.
I've realized that I can react to something directed toward me/I.

when thinking at past tough experiences, I can see selves.

Really? You SEE selves? With the eyes? With any of the senses?

Not see with the sight. I notice suffering still present from some past experiences. There are stories, with Jean. When looking at them, with the mental, the thinking, they might still hurts. Now who is suffering? The imaginary self. Let it go can be easy or hard.

Most of the time I see it's just a constellation of believes.

Is there any time when "self" or "ego" has ever been something more than a constellation of beliefs? Ever?

No never. It happens that, believes, painful past stories pop out. Those need to be investigated, look for the self and find/feel if there is one. It might be too early considering the below instruction...

What I want you to do is to separate thoughts from sensation.
Sensation-prior-to-thought is as close to reality as we ever get, while thoughts are happy to create wild fiction in an attempt to explain sensation.
The result of believing thoughts is suffering; the result of investigating sensation to determine if there is a separate entity "self" at all, may be liberation.

Have you ever discovered anything REAL-er than sensation? In the moment the foot strikes the table-leg, which is more Real, the sensation or the thoughts about the sensation?

Ooops, powerful example :-) Yes sensations are by fare more real. Also what mostly makes one suffer, is then the story around those sensations.

Kindness,
Jean

[nonaparry]

Dear Jean,

Do you Observe the ego hanging around? With the eyes? With any of the senses?

Notice a sense of self might be a better expression. Those are thoughts, believes, not experienced with senses.

Yes, and I'm not interested in your thoughts. I'm interested in your experience of sensations.
In sensation, in direct experience, is there a such thing as an ego? At all?

Really? You SEE selves? With the eyes? With any of the senses?

Not see with the sight.

I am interested in what you see with the sight, hear with the hearing, taste with the tasting, smell with the smelling, and physically feel with touch.
The content of a thought is imaginary. Check it!
Think of a cup. See it clearly in the mind's eye — its shape, size, colour, its decoration, does it have a handle… Got a clear picture?
Now, can you actually drink from this cup? Can I pour real liquid into that cup?
You have the thought of a cup; you know there is a thought. But the content of the thought is an image — imaginary.

I notice suffering still present from some past experiences. There are stories, with Jean. When looking at them, with the mental, the thinking, they might still hurts. Now who is suffering? The imaginary self.

Does a story ever hurt? Or is it the belief in the story that creates any suffering?

Is there any time when "self" or "ego" has ever been something more than a constellation of beliefs? Ever?

No never. It happens that, believes, painful past stories pop out. Those need to be investigated, look for the self and find/feel if there is one.

What we do with painful stories is check whether they are true. Can you absolutely know that a story is true? What happens when you believe the story? Can you find evidence for the opposite of the story? We usually focus only on the evidence which supports the story we believe.

Have you ever discovered anything REAL-er than sensation? In the moment the foot strikes the table-leg, which is more Real, the sensation or the thoughts about the sensation?

Ooops, powerful example :-) Yes sensations are by fare more real. Also what mostly makes one suffer, is then the story around those sensations.

YES! What causes suffering is the story, the belief, the explanation we give for the sensations.
So if you can separate the sensations from the story, you can discover what is actually happening in any given moment.
When you believe you are suffering, you can shift focus to sensation and Observe that the story is not present in direct experience. This helps us detach from the story.

Over the next few days, I want you to notice the stories, the beliefs that arise as part of Life. Then shift focus to sensation and notice what is actually happening in direct experience. Tell me about the difference between the story and sensation.

love
Nona

[thejumper]

Dear Nona,

Thank you for your comments.
Is not easy to remember. I'm now wearing a colourful bracelet as a reminder to look! In the next days I will concentrated and increase my efforts only on those below. I will then hopefully get back to you with some more useful material:

1. What I want you to do is to separate thoughts from sensation.
Sensation-prior-to-thought is as close to reality as we ever get, while thoughts are happy to create wild fiction in an attempt to explain sensation.
The result of believing thoughts is suffering; the result of investigating sensation to determine if there is a separate entity "self" at all, may be liberation.

2. Over the next few days, I want you to notice the stories, the beliefs that arise as part of Life. Then shift focus to sensation and notice what is actually happening in direct experience. Tell me about the difference between the story and sensation.

3. I am interested in what you see with the sight, hear with the hearing, taste with the tasting, smell with the smelling, and physically feel with touch.
The content of a thought is imaginary. Check it!

Yes, and I'm not interested in your thoughts. I'm interested in your experience of sensations.
In sensation, in direct experience, is there a such thing as an ego? At all?

No but I will keep on checking again and again.

Does a story ever hurt? Or is it the belief in the story that creates any suffering?

Yes, believes, believes, believes, the appropriation of the story by the I-tought.

Is there any time when "self" or "ego" has ever been something more than a constellation of beliefs? Ever?

No never. It happens that, believes, painful past stories pop out. Those need to be investigated, look for the self and find/feel if there is one.

What we do with painful stories is check whether they are true. Can you absolutely know that a story is true? What happens when you believe the story? Can you find evidence for the opposite of the story? We usually focus only on the evidence which supports the story we believe.

Kind of Byron Katie work. I've found it great. One entry in my To Do List is getting better at that.

Thank you for patience.
Kindness,
Jean

[nonaparry]

Dearest Jean,

I'm now wearing a colourful bracelet as a reminder to look! In the next days I will concentrated and increase my efforts only on those below. I will then hopefully get back to you with some more useful material:

Good! I will await your response with anticipation!

In sensation, in direct experience, is there a such thing as an ego? At all?

No but I will keep on checking again and again.

Good! Leave no stone unturned! Be sure you have exhausted all the possibilities!

What we do with painful stories is check whether they are true. Can you absolutely know that a story is true? What happens when you believe the story? Can you find evidence for the opposite of the story? We usually focus only on the evidence which supports the story we believe.

Kind of Byron Katie work. I've found it great. One entry in my To Do List is getting better at that.

Haha! You've caught me out! The Work of Byron Katie is my favourite tool for dealing with stressful thoughts! If you know The Work, you have a fabulous tool available to you that will help you distinguish your truth at any time.

I look forward to hearing from you when you have had time to observe.

love
Nona

[thejumper]

Dear Nona,

Hope this email find you well.
Here some updates.
The mind still requires a lot of attentions to let me observe with d.e. What a paradox! The none I-thoughtness mind state, requires energy. I guess this is related to a lack of practice. So my observations don't appear to really help in this non-self quest. The shift still waiting. To leave no stone unturned appear is challenging.

Nevertheless I wrote down some observations I did this week:
- In d.e., in an action involving the senses --> I've noticed thoughts --> and clearly the label put on it after the actions as occurred. This is happening very fast, so fast that it's easy to be miss for a non-trained brain.

- In d.e., I've noticed the non stop appearance of thoughts and sensations. Apparently a continuous flow, close to a solidify stream. This make me better realize the impermanence of all phenomena.

- I've noticed, witnessing the happening of life, when tired it's very easy to fall asleep.

- A wasp coming around my head: very fast belly contraction without noticing any thoughts. This was followed by me running away. Is that a limbic reaction?

- Similar then above but I was in d.e. when suddenly a loud noise arise to the hear --> heart start beating fast. I couldn't see thoughts. I believe a limbic reaction.

- Not in d.e.: Feels the heat of the sun --> Jean jumped into the water, without being really aware.
- In d.e.: Feels the heat of the sun --> Jean jumped into the water being aware of the cause and effect.

- In d.e.: In a swimming pool with a wasp around --> slowly the body moves away --> I clearly notice the word "Move" in my head and then the sense of "I" taking ownership of it. Yessss!

I've also found interesting to understand the differences between self inquiry and d.e. -http://completehumanity.blogspot.ch/201 ... entry.html - I now catch why you told me 2 weeks ago when I questioned 'Who is I?' that it was an incorrect question:
"This is an incorrect question. It assumes there is a "who" for the I to be! But there is no who, and there is no I. Better to ask, 'WHAT is I?' "

I do what I can... and keep on.

Thank you,
Kindness,
Jean