Imyself

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Robert.

So now I have 2 things to grok:
There is no separate self,
And,
This Is IT

Yes, both are portals into SEEing that what you are looking for is already present.
It was the second, unequivocal acceptance of THIS, that triggered the 'shift' for Vince.
...but you don't need to do grokking. When one is grokked, the others will simply be also.
They are a discovery. A recognition.
Can these be done intentionally ?
When you recognise someone or something, does it take effort ?
Recognition can range from a nonchalant, familiar feeling to a great big Ahaa !
With your history of seeking it probably wont be the huge bliss bomb, but every awakening is unique, so you never know. For Vince there was hardly a murmur. Just a quiet 'knowing'. A certainty that oscillated with doubts (until i stumbled on Liberation Unleashed)
What do you think is missing still ?

love

vince

[Imyself]

Hi Vince,

I tried to post this last night before the last couple of exchanges.  Since it didn't show up, here it is now with some changes based on the more recent posts and including the questions in your last post.  
Thx

Do you grok that the Self is a story and how that came into existence and is maintained ?

- So far Direct Experience suggests it's true that self is a story, and when I look for the familiar Robert I can not find it. I still feel the desire to defend myself at times and other feelings related to my self but they seem less intense and long lasting. 
If you can think of groking on a 1 to 10 scale, 10 being fully grokked, I'm not sure where I'd be. Maybe somewhere between 6 and 9. 
I'm having a lot if fun using the word grok. Grok grok grok. 

As for how it came into existence, what I've read and what makes sense is that we're not born with a self. It is largely imposed on us from the outside by parents, siblings, and society in general. 
I'll leave out the details of how this all works here except to say that language plays a major role in the development of the self story. I, me, my, mine, you, yours, they,  them, theirs and a whole bunch of other words, including our name, define a world of separation, and me as a separate self. Ongoing use of language also helps maintain the self story. We use words to describe a world of separate things including separate selves. But we don't recognize that the words aren't the thing they label and we aren't our name. 
As we grow we learn and form concepts to represent and help us understand things and to help us relate to people and the world. But our concepts are not the truth of what they represent. They are a story we tell about ourselves and the world; but we believe our stories, and we defend them. 
The stories we tell help us make sense of a world that is otherwise confusing and frightening. So we defend the stories we tell ourselves, including the story of self, from the threat of discovery. 
It further seems that the brain has evolved to support the whole charade. It appears to neuroscience that the brain generates a sense of self, and an ongoing storyline for that self, through a generated sense of time. It is a complete fabrication emerging from many different areas of the brain to maintain the delusion of a separate self. It is completely convincing and it has served some evolutionary purpose. So now the questions are… is this purpose still valid and is this delusion still serving us well?

Other than the Robert organism noticing (experiencing) is there anything that is not concept ?

- no. 

Once experiencing is noticed, is it already (milliseconds) in the past ?

- yes

What presents to the Robert organism is IT. Can it be changed ?

- No, This Is IT!

Imyself wrote:
So now I have 2 things to grok:
There is no separate self,
And,
This Is IT

Yes, both are portals into SEEing that what you are looking for is already present.
It was the second, unequivocal acceptance of THIS, that triggered the 'shift' for Vince. 
...but you don't need to do grokking. When one is grokked, the others will simply be also. 
They are a discovery. A recognition.

Can these be done intentionally ?

- No. No freewill. No power of conscious choice. Therefore, no intentionality. But, damn, it sure feels/seems like we do!

When you recognise someone or something, does it take effort ?

- There can be struggling to place a face or remember something or some event, but the moment recognition or recall happens, it does so without effort. 

Recognition can range from a nonchalant, familiar feeling to a great big Ahaa !
With your history of seeking it probably wont be the huge bliss bomb, but every awakening is unique, so you never know. For Vince there was hardly a murmur. Just a quiet 'knowing'. A certainty that oscillated with doubts (until i stumbled on Liberation Unleashed)
What do you think is missing still ?

- first of all ccthere are still expectations lurking in the background. It's like they have a life of their own. Many of the expectations I had have turned into hopes. For example, instead of expecting more energy, drive and motivation, now I hope for those things still. Instead of expecting certainty about there being no real Robert or self, I hope for that certainty and absence of doubt. One of Ilona's  articles calls hope a glorified expectation. I suppose that I can not make them go away by force of will since there is no force of will. 

So what is still missing?
The certainty that a separate self, Robert, is just a story. Doubt lingers despite the fact that all I've learned about its illusory nature makes perfect sense. And despite the fact that with all the direct experience looking for  my "self", that self has not been found. 

Also what is missing to some extent is behaving, moment to moment, as though I grok that self is a story. 
So… I have an expectation, a preconceived notion, of what a grokked person would act like. 

Thank You

[vinceschubert]

Good morning Robert.

I still feel the desire to defend myself at times and other feelings related to my self

Of course. How many years of conditioning behind that. Maybe you'll never be completely free of that (or maybe you will), but you will be free of the belief that it's a real self, or rather you will recognize and remember that it's only a story. What does arise will be in the background and ignored, something like the sound of the refrigerator.

If you can think of groking on a 1 to 10 scale,

Hmm...

As for how it came into existence,

Brilliant. Yes, excellent description.

So now the questions are… is this purpose still valid and is this delusion still serving us well?

Well, how could you communicate and negotiate daily life without a story of self ?
The better question is do we need to believe that this story is literal ?

No. No freewill. No power of conscious choice. Therefore, no intentionality. But, damn, it sure feels/seems like we do!

Ha, yes. ..and that has usefulness. ..and without the belief that it is actual, we lose the suffering that accompanies it when it goes 'wrong'.

there are still expectations lurking in the background. It's like they have a life of their own.

..and they do have a life of their own. They are conditioned. We can't decide to change them, but we can observe them with amusement and wait for some arising condition to displace them. It's wonder-full how this all works.

So what is still missing?
The certainty that a separate self, Robert, is just a story. Doubt lingers

Are doubts just more thoughts ?
The organism is hard wired to seek familiarity. It's safe.
i oscillated between certainty and doubts for months. Now neither exist. Just THIS. Hmm, if i can't find doubts, does that mean certainty is there ? There is no intense belief about knowing, in fact there is more a lovely feeling of freedom in not knowing anything. i don't even believe that what is see is 'correct' any more. Everything is a discovery. WonderFull !

So… I have an expectation, a preconceived notion, of what a grokked person would act like.

i bet that is a good story. Mine was full of magic and control of the world. Hahaha...


love

vince

[Imyself]

Good morning Vince,

Considering what is missing still. Perhaps more expectations; I don't feel connected to others in a way that I expect I would if I was getting the no separate self thing. I'm afraid I may not be getting something right here. Also, I tend to like solitude most of the time, preferring the company of my dog.
I feel like saying I don't know what to expect here, can you help me out; but I'm told expectations are not helpful. Is there a problem here, other than expectations?
Thanks

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Robert. There is nothing missing. This is IT. (remember that) There is only the perception that there is something missing. That is because of story (expectations).
To feel a connection of a certain kind with others, is a story. It may be that the connection is there but story inhibits you feeling it. (or it may not be present - yet. ..or it may never happen)
Why do you think that you know how things should be ?
Everybody is unique.
Every awakening is unique.
Everybody arrives at the gate with unique history. Unique DNA. Unique stories.
Only one thing is for sure. What you are experiencing is what you are experiencing.
It says nothing about past or future experiencing
It simply IS !

I tend to like solitude most of the time, preferring the company of my dog.

This is part of your uniqueness.

I'm afraid I may not be getting something right here.

This is story. There is no right or wrong here. There is only THIS.
If you are happy, it is THIS.
If you are unhappy, it is THIS.
If you are afraid of not getting something right, it is still THIS.
If there are expectations, it is THIS.
If there is a perceived problem, it still can't be other than THIS.
If there is resistance to THIS, it is still THIS.
If there is a willing acceptance of whatever THIS is, it is THIS.
If there is story about THIS, and we simply observe it with humor, it is likely to evolve into a different THIS, than if we get lost in the story and take it to be real. ..but whatever, it is still THIS.

if I was getting the no separate self thing.

This one is easy. Everything, Everybody, is experienced through the filters of your uniqueness. It all happens in your brain. The whole world is an image in your brain. Trust it to be accurate or not, doesn't matter. It just IS. It's all an interpretation. Without you there would be no world (for Robert).
All seeking is about the future.
THIS - IS - NOW.

love

vince

[Imyself]

Good Morning Vince,

Today's post is mostly semi-random thoughts that are less an attempt to explain things than an effort to see where i am in the process and where to look next.
___________________________
It is not a me controlling actions, thoughts, feelings, memories that arise, beliefs, preferences; solves "problems", makes decisions, relates to others, loves, likes, dislikes, understands, is confused, learns… or awakens from self and separation.
All of that is related to a body which includes the brain. The body is not me; no part nor the whole. The brain was the best candidate for housing a "me".  
The brain thinks (nearly nonstop) and attention is riveted on those thoughts…obsessed with them. Sometimes attention takes a step back to notice those thoughts and how it was engrossed in them. Then attention soon becomes occupied with thoughts about how it was preoccupied with thoughts.  
A story that I have recently embraced, and which occupies my attention quite a lot lately, is that the sense of self is a construct that emerges from activity in many areas of the brain.
So now even science is showing that the brain does not really house a "me". That was the last realistic holdout for a possible self that "I" had left.
Strange thing how this brain can explain the whole "no separate self" story, and embrace the ideas, but yet still have uncontrolled doubt and still behave in a way that is inconsistent with that story.
Clearly habit and conditioning trumps understanding and belief. And conditioning cannot directly be reconditioned.
Would it be correct to say habit relates to actions/behavior, while conditioning relates to beliefs/story?

How does what exists, experiences the world, and witnesses the bodies experience of the world, relate to it all?
Maybe "i" just answered the question; it relates as a Witness?  
Is it wrong to say that what I am (we are) is awareness, or maybe even the witness? Would this be creating a new identity?
Or is it all nothing more than the brain experiencing what it does, and generating a functional sense of self in time and space?
Can it be known if there is something beyond the brains experience; something that experiences the world including the experiences of the brain?

What am "I", really?
What is this witness/awareness thing and how do "I" relate to it?
If there is no separate me then there is no "I" relating to it.
Then how does this brain relate to it?
Or maybe the question is, "if This Is IT, how to relate to This?"
Should I just stop and notice what is "right here, right now"? Do nothing more than be aware of what "Is" with the awareness that "this is what is"?
And if there is no direct control over thought and action, does the brain unconsciously make changes happen…so therefore just relax, knowing that if the brain is going to make any changes, then it will do so according to its own wisdom and/or conditioning? And notice that if there is any change already trending in the desired direction then that may mean the brain is already working it out in the desired way?
And if it's not, then what?
Just notice and accept that "This Is IT" whenever possible?

But who notices, who accepts?
Is it the unconscious brain working all this stuff out, asking all these questions, learning from whatever it experiences and reconditioning itself as it goes along. While at the same time generating the illusion that there is a conscious self, Robert, that is more than a just a  thought, and is directly effecting action and change?
___________________________
Where should i look next?

Thank You

[vinceschubert]

'morning Robert.

Would it be correct to say habit relates to actions/behavior, while conditioning relates to beliefs/story?

i would say that they are the same thing. Habits are conditioned responses. Are the arising of thoughts of a particular nature habit ? ..and have they been conditioned to be that way ?

And conditioning cannot directly be reconditioned.

This is an interesting one. Some people seem to have an instant dropping of some habits (and for some of those they old conditioning creeps back in after a while) while others just go through a steady, progressive dropping of the old ways.

How does what exists, experiences the world, and witnesses the bodies experience of the world, relate to it all?

Ok, this is a big one. When you say "..what exists,.." Tell me from direct experiencing, what does exist ?
Is there anything outside of your current experiencing that is not a concept ? Anything at all ?
Certainly it is useful to behave 'as if' there is a world outside of THIS that is current experiencing.
Certainly language implies the actual existence of a subject/object relationship, and this is useful too.
...but when we zoom right in to the actual, what do you find ?
There is nothing but the noticing of the noticing of experiencing.
After that comes thoughts about it. Interpretation of it. ..and so story begins.
Of course, then comes responses to that story, which is current experiencing. ...and so on.

Maybe "i" just answered the question; it relates as a Witness?

Close, but you fell into the same trap. Is there a Witness ? or is there only witnessing ?
Is there a see-er and a seen ? or is there only seeing ?
Is there an experiencer and an experienced. Is it possible to have one without the other ?
Where is the dividing line between them ?
Just because language implies a separation, does this mean that there is actually a subject and an object ?
Isn't the subject actually the object when experiencing is happening ?

Is it wrong to say that what I am (we are) is awareness, or maybe even the witness? Would this be creating a new identity?

Yes. Yes. Well spotted.

Or is it all nothing more than the brain experiencing what it does, and generating a functional sense of self in time and space?

Yes again. But zoom in a bit. Isn't the brain just part of the process. Not only do the other sense organs have an involvement but doesn't all of the other conditions that make up this experiencing also have involvement. We could go as far as to say that if anyone thing in the total history of every condition that this experiencing is dependent on, was to be different, then the experiencing would be different.
Can you grok this ?

love

vince

[Imyself]

Hi Vince,

A couple days ago my daughter and i had a conversation that ended with me saying "I hope you make the right choice."
I hesitated and rewrote the text a few times using the word "choice", before finally just going with it.
She and I have talked a number of times about the nature of self and mind etc. and the topics of choice and free will have come up before.
I was trying to influence her actions by saying "I hope you make the right choice". At the time I was conflicted over the wanting to influence her and wanting to be honest with myself and her about the nature of choice and conscious free will.
At the time I thought what I might be able to do was influence her unconscious brain's decision making apparatus.


It's interesting to note that "my" self-less brain was attempting to influence "her" brain. My brain struggled with the decision to use the word/concept "choice". There is no conscious self to be aware of, and make, decisions like whether to use the word choice. The self-less brain considered the likely status of her thinking, then considered the decision to influence her actions by suggesting she had a conscious choice she could make.

The choice to use the word choice was not really a choice. It was decided by all of my history and genetic predisposition. And her decision was made the same way.

So this brings up the idea of problem solving. It seems to require conscious input and often involves effort and struggle. If the brain is solving problems without a self involved then is effort and struggle necessary? Is effort and struggle something the self-less brain does when solving problems? Is it necessary?
What happens if one says "there is no me; therefore, there is no reason for me to effort and struggle. Let the brain figure things out". Then will problems get solved?
Isn't this really just the brain thinking there is a self that can stop efforting and struggling?
If effort and struggle was stopped and no problems got attended to, and it looked like it was the fault of the person (self) for deciding to "let the brain do it", wouldn't it have been the brains erroneous decision that caused nothing to get done?

The brain can deceive itself, and it us shocking to notice the depth and pervasiveness of this self deception.

Thanks

[vinceschubert]

'Morning Robert,

"I hope you make the right choice."

communication with those 'still asleep', will mean that you will often say what you know to be misinformation. For the sake of smooth navigation, this is fine. 'You' know the reality behind those words.
With your daughter and the desire to 'educate' her, you might have said "i hope a good choice happens". This alone would be enough variation from the cult(ural) norm to throw her brain into a bit of a 'huh' mode. (and possibly start a subconscious process of reevaluation)
To go further and attend to the "I hope" part by saying "There is noticing that a desire has arisen here, a hope that conditions for an appropriate choice will align.", although more accurate, would sabotage the conversation. (and possibly alienate her somewhat)

So this brings up the idea of problem solving.

Ha yes. Notice how the use of language, when saying something as innocuous as "problem solving", has built in meaning that there is something to be fixed. Is there any such thing as a problem ? Show me one. Send me a picture of a problem and i will show you a situation with an attached story, that has a label of "problem". It is the response to this story that contributes a large proportion of the difficulty to a resolution.
Try this; next time you are faced with a need to choose, don't.
If it's choosing which shirt to put on or which socks or whether to get up now or soon, etc. Simply don't choose. Just wait. A choice will be exercised. It will simply happen and the need for mind to be involved will be seen as superfluous. (this can sometimes elicit a fear response, so notice if that happens)
The mental shenanigans that go on are an attempt to evoke a feeling of being in control. Thoughts saying "I did this."
Take the hands off the tiller and watch the boat going where it needs to go anyway.

It seems to require conscious input

Haha. this is a good one. Where does that conscious input come from to get into the conscious ?

What happens if one says "there is no me; therefore, there is no reason for me to effort and struggle. Let the brain figure things out". Then will problems get solved?

Yes, of course. Now listen to this.. That is how it always happened anyway. The mental contortions were always just an extra trip around the block so the meter would register a higher price.
The mental stuff never contributed to a resolution, but often added to the complexity of the problem. The more difficult the problem the higher the self esteem when solved.

If effort and struggle was stopped and no problems got attended to,...

This is bad logic. Can you see why ?

it us shocking to notice the depth and pervasiveness of this self deception.

Check the story that arises with seeing this...
Here it is amusing to hilarious when it it seen to be happening. A wonder full recognition to be celebrated.

Robert, would you go back to my last post and consider (answer) the questions asked please.

love

vince

[Imyself]

Yep, still working on replies from last post. I just got sidetracked.

[Imyself]

Hi Vince,

i would say that they are the same thing. Habits are conditioned responses. Are the arising of thoughts of a particular nature habit ? ..and have they been conditioned to be that way ?

- yes, I see that.

Imyself wrote:
How does what exists, experiences the world, and witnesses the bodies experience of the world, relate to it all?

Ok, this is a big one. When you say "..what exists,.." Tell me from direct experiencing, what does exist ?

- from DE i see parts of the room around me, the phone these notes are being taken in, parts of this body, the cloths felt and seen, a ringing sound in the ears and other noises, the smell of food, the dog resting nearby, internal sensations of the body, thoughts (but of course not their content), the feel of the chair…

Is the experience of any of that really DE? Or is my experience of the experience of those things DE?
Would that mean everything I experience, other than my mental experience, is only concept?

Is there anything outside of your current experiencing that is not a concept ? Anything at all?

- no, nothing at all.

Certainly it is useful to behave 'as if' there is a world outside of THIS that is current experiencing.
Certainly language implies the actual existence of a subject/object relationship, and this is useful too.
...but when we zoom right in to the actual, what do you find ?
There is nothing but the noticing of the noticing of experiencing.

- does that mean there is:
•Experiencing without noticing?
•Noticing what is experienced but not attending to it?
•Attending to what is noticed?

Wouldn't that make direct experience 2 steps removed from the object of experience?
Thinking this way at this moment leaves "me" feeling less connected to the phenomenal (real?) world.

Imyself wrote:
Maybe "i" just answered the question; it relates as a Witness?

Close, but you fell into the same trap. Is there a Witness ? or is there only witnessing ?
Is there a see-er and a seen ? or is there only seeing ?
Is there an experiencer and an experienced. Is it possible to have one without the other ?
Where is the dividing line between them?
Just because language implies a separation, does this mean that there is actually a subject and an object?
Isn't the subject actually the object when experiencing is happening?

- yes, whatever is experienced is being experienced inside the nervous system of the experiencer.
No, wait…there is no "experiencer", just the body/brain experiencing sensory information.
During experiencing, the subject changes into the subject plus the experience of the object.

Imyself wrote:
Or is it all nothing more than the brain experiencing what it does, and generating a functional sense of self in time and space?

Yes again. But zoom in a bit. Isn't the brain just part of the process. Not only do the other sense organs have an involvement but doesn't all of the other conditions that make up this experiencing also have involvement. We could go as far as to say that if anyone thing in the total history of every condition that this experiencing is dependent on, was to be different, then the experiencing would be different.
Can you grok this ?

- Is it that the complete history and prehistory of "Robert", including the body and it's resultant processes, making up experience?
Would you say the experiencing is what i am? Or the awareness of the experiencing?
Am I grokking this, or is there something I'm missing?


Thank You

[vinceschubert]

'Morning Robert.

- from DE i see parts of the room around me, the phone these notes are being taken in, parts of this body, the cloths felt and seen, a ringing sound in the ears and other noises, the smell of food, the dog resting nearby, internal sensations of the body, thoughts (but of course not their content), the feel of the chair…

Is the experience of any of that really DE? Or is my experience of the experience of those things DE?

No. Direct Experience is direct. That is, it is what is experienced before thought arrives to label it. To explain it. To categorize it.
So when you say that you see parts of the room, the mind has already categorized what was seen and called it "parts of the room."
The problem with this is that often it is not noticed what is actually seen. It is the mental image that is seen and responded to. Like, "oh, I don't need to actually look at this because I know what it is. It's part of the room."
What is actually and directly SEEn is *colorcolor*, and the mind says that color stops there and a different color starts there that means that there is shape. Now that shape from memory means it it a chair and that is a rug and the chair is on top of the rug. etc.

- does that mean there is:
•Experiencing without noticing?
•Noticing what is experienced but not attending to it?
•Attending to what is noticed?

Wouldn't that make direct experience 2 steps removed from the object of experience?

Have you ever injured yourself but not discovered it until later when blood was seen ?
Remembering the last period of time, you can't remember doing it, but it is obvious that you did because there is the evidence.
Was this an experience that was not noticed ?
Logic would say "yes", but isn't experiencing something that is being noticed as it happens ?
Experience here has revealed that there are different 'levels' of noticing. Something can happen and there is a vague noticing that happens in the background. i lost my phone once, and when i went to use it i discovered this. The moment i discovered it missing, i had a memory of it slipping down between the seat of the car when i braked suddenly.
Then i forgot the whole incident. ..until i discovered it missing.
Now, what was actually experienced ?
What was noticed ?
There was the whole braking thing, but on top of that was a sound. This was accompanied by a glance towards where the phone had been sitting and a discovery that it was no longer there (a memory) Then mind reasoned that the sound was that of the phone falling.
So DE was of a sound only. The rest happened at a conceptual level.

Wouldn't that make direct experience 2 steps removed from the object of experience?

As soon as you say "object of experience", you are in the conceptual realm. We presume (logically conclude) that the object is 'out there', but isn't that an illusion created for practical purposes ?
There is light which shines in the eyes that result in a color experience, and that is interpreted by the brain as an object and this includes an interpretation of position relative to the eyes. ..but it all happens in the brain. Doesn't it ?
Only logic (brain interpretation) turns it into an object. Actually it is experiencing, and this experiencing is what the organism consists of. You (the Robert organism) consist of the phenomenal world (Definition of PHENOMENAL : relating to or being a phenomenon: as known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition )
Grok that ?
The world as we normally think of it is just concept. A (useful) story.

Am I grokking this, or is there something I'm missing?

Grokking is much more than getting a mental 'handle' on it. It is felt to the core.
Look at the back of your left hand. Really LOOK. See the hairs and the wrinkles and marks.
Do you get a feeling that you are seeing it for the first time ? Had you noticed some of those details before ?
Does it even seem like it is not 'your' hand ?
This is an example of how we relate to a mental image of things rather than the actual. (which has practical implications)
Enlightenment is simply relating to the mental stuff more appropriately. Not being sucked in to believing that it is 'real'.
When i sign off with "love", it is a reporting of a noticing of sensation. A connection with (a story of) Robert. An outflowing. A recognition that 'out there' is actually 'in here' and heartfelt.

love

vince

[Imyself]

Good morning Vince,

This post is the combined responses to 2 posts. Sorry about the length. I. Put them together because I didn't want to try keeping track of 2 separate threads.
____________________

… isn't experiencing something that is being noticed as it happens ?

- yes

Imyself wrote:
Wouldn't that make direct experience 2 steps removed from the object of experience?

As soon as you say "object of experience", you are in the conceptual realm. We presume (logically conclude) that the object is 'out there', but isn't that an illusion created for practical purposes ?

-yes

There is light which shines in the eyes that result in a color experience, and that is interpreted by the brain as an object and this includes an interpretation of position relative to the eyes. ..but it all happens in the brain. Doesn't it ?

- yes

Only logic (brain interpretation) turns it into an object. Actually it is experiencing, and this experiencing is what the organism consists of.

You (the Robert organism) consist of the phenomenal world.
Grok that ?

- Everything exists as experience here. This body exists as experience. There is the logical assumption that this body exists as a solid object in the world. But that is a concept…a story. It is all an experience happening in this brain.

"I" am an experience experiencing; Experiencing sensation coming through this body's senses. And experiencing the interpretations of those sensations from the brain.  And experiencing the thoughts that occur in the brain including memories when they arise. And including the sense of presence, aliveness, being here-ness.
There isn't really an "I" but there is an experience called I.
There is a body, organism, called Robert that seems to exist in the phenomenal world as part of that world.

When you say, "You (the Robert organism) consist of the phenomenal world", do you mean this body is made up of the phenomenal world?
Or are you saying that the phenomenal world is experienced "through" the body, therefore, the body is experientially
the phenomenal world?
Or do you mean something else?
I don't think I'm getting this. I'm experiencing confusion and frustration.

Are you just saying the body is part of the phenomenal world that the brain is experiencing?

The world as we normally think of it is just concept. A (useful) story.

- so that begs the question: What is the world really, not just the concept as we normally think of it? How does this relate to the world of direct experience?

Grokking is much more than getting a mental 'handle' on it. It is felt to the core.

-  ha! seems I wasn't grokking the true meaning of grokking.
______________________
______________________

Imyself wrote:
It seems to require conscious input

Haha. this is a good one. Where does that conscious input come from to get into the conscious ?

- ah yes, I get it!
Curious…what is conscious? What is our definition of the word and, perhaps of more interest, what is IT that is conscious?

Imyself wrote:
What happens if one says "there is no me; therefore, there is no reason for me to effort and struggle. Let the brain figure things out". Then will problems get solved?

Yes, of course. Now listen to this. That is how it always happened anyway.

- Ok, it's the function of the self-less brain to resolve situations (problems). The mind…the self…cannot resolve anything because it is a story line and hasn't the power to act.

So now I'm wondering just how long it will take this brain to learn to trust itself  to do what it does anyway; without the belief that "I must figure things out…I have to solve these problems"?

The mental contortions were always just an extra trip around the block so the meter would register a higher price.
The mental stuff never contributed to a resolution, but often added to the complexity of the problem.

- Funny how the Natural Selection chose a brain that would do this.

The more difficult the problem the higher the self esteem when solved.

- no self = no self-esteem?

Imyself wrote:
If effort and struggle was stopped and no problems got attended to,...

This is bad logic. Can you see why ?

- yes, stopping effort and struggle does not automatically imply "problems" would not be attended to.

But does "not efforting and struggling" mean that  imaginary problems go away?  
Does the self-less brain sometimes (or often)  try to resolve imagined or unreal problems?
Isn't it just the brains habit of creating/imagining unreal problems to solve?
And for what purpose?
Are we just conditioned to do this?
Could it be we do it for social reasons - to get sympathy or admiration from others? Or the feeling and appearance of competence (very attractive to others)?

It looks like this non existent separate self will likely continue to appear to need to keep efforting and struggling…until it doesn't.

Imyself wrote:
it us shocking to notice the depth and pervasiveness of this self deception.

Check the story that arises with seeing this...
Here it is amusing to hilarious when it is seen to be happening. A wonder full recognition to be celebrated.

- yes, shocking was an exaggerated and incomplete description of the experience of seeing how far the deception goes.
There seems to be a range of feelings that I recall related this: surprise, humor, worry, mild disgust, curiosity, irritation, fascination, dumbfoundedness…and, right now, wonder (and more humor).

Thank You

[vinceschubert]

Good morning Robert.

When you say, "You (the Robert organism) consist of the phenomenal world", do you mean this body is made up of the phenomenal world?
Or are you saying that the phenomenal world is experienced "through" the body, therefore, the body is experientially
the phenomenal world?
Or do you mean something else?
I don't think I'm getting this. I'm experiencing confusion and frustration.

Ok, When you say "getting it" you are trying to understand it. Trying to get your mind around it. Trying to get satisfaction through thoughts. i don't want to substitute one belief for another. i want you to see past the story that limits you, that binds you to the conventional view of reality which is where all suffering originates.
To do this we have to LOOK with fresh eyes. That is not through the prism of the old story of reality. This is really quite simple once you have done it once. It is like this; i can put a plank that is a meter wide and ten meters long on the ground and ask you to walk along it. Of course you will have no trouble doing that, but if i suspend that plank between two buildings high up and ask you to do it, there is a good chance that you will have problems doing it.
SEEing things without the mental overlay that reassures us is like the suspended plank. How did you go with the looking at the back of your hand exercise ?
Did you see what you hadn't seen before ?
Did it look different to the hand that you had always seen before ?
Can you see that what you had always seen as hand before, was really a mental image of the hand and not the actual hand ?
Now the big step. Can you see that the hand is not an object but experiencing ?
Another big step. Can you see that experiencing is actually the noticing of experiencing ?
Another even bigger step. Can you see that the noticing of the experiencing, it noticed ?
One more step. Can you see that there is no one noticing the noticing ? That there is only noticing ?
There is no 'object' being noticed. There is no 'subject' doing the noticing. There is only noticing.
Don't believe me. Experience it. Do the exercise again, but this time keep looking until the mind stops labeling what is seen. Wait until the mind starts to get bored. This is where the really exciting stuff happens. Between thoughts. There is only SEEing. Noticing. No Robert. No hand. Just noticing the noticing.

What is the world really

There is no world really. There is only experiencing.
Now don't get me wrong here. There is an old zen saying that goes something like this;
Before enlightenment, mountains are mountains.
When stream entry happens, Then mountains are not mountains.
After some deepening, Then mountains are mountains again.
So what i am saying it that once we recognize what is real (reality) we can relax and use conventional language and story to communicate and navigate the 'normal' world. The we aren't sucked into the suffering that is 'normal'.

Are you just saying the body is part of the phenomenal world that the brain is experiencing?

yes. ..but drop the "brain is" part. That is only story. The body is also a story. Can you experience the whole body at once ? ..or can you notice only parts of it at any one time ?

that is conscious?

There is no IT to be conscious. There is only consciousness, ...and careful of the trap here. Consciousness is not an IT. Not a thing. It is just noticing. Only mind, thought says that there must be something that is doing the noticing. (i bet you can't find anything doing the noticing)

So now I'm wondering just how long it will take this brain to learn to trust itself to do what it does anyway; without the belief that "I must figure things out…I have to solve these problems"?

How long is a piece of string ?
Old ways will diminish as new ways are established. Laughing when you recognize that an old way (story) is being expressed will accelerate the new ways establishing.
Have a look at this video; https://www.dropbox.com/s/mskv8uxmnmf2f ... _Being.mp4

But does "not efforting and struggling" mean that imaginary problems go away?

If they are imaginary problems, then they are not actually there. "not efforting and struggling" make it easy to see their imaginary nature. Efforting and struggling actually creates problems.
This brings me to another point. Wisdom.
Being wise is really a matter of recognizing when story is obscuring what is real. It is a natural state of the organism that gets buried by the stories of our cult(ure).
You will start to notice that simplicity becomes more prominent in Roberts life-ing. That de-cluttering of unnecessary complexity reveals a wise perspective. It just happens.

- ha! seems I wasn't grokking the true meaning of grokking.

Grok /ˈɡrɒk/ is a word coined by Robert A. Heinlein for his 1961 science-fiction novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, where it is defined as follows:
Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in..

love

vince

[Imyself]

Good morning Vince,

How did you go with the looking at the back of your hand exercise ?

- I hadn't noticed many of the fine details before. The longer and deeper I looked, the more the hand looked foreign, and oddly shaped. I have done this kind of looking, usually at my hand and fingers, several times in life even as far back as my pre-teen years. What always stands out is how strange, how different the hand, fingers and especially the thumb looked. This time I noted the difference between what was being seen and what had always been a mental image of the hand. 

Now the big step. Can you see that the hand is not an object but experiencing? 

- yes the hand is experienced here as an experiencing, not an object. 

Another big step. Can you see that experiencing is actually the noticing of experiencing ?

- yes, if you mean that there is an awareness of experiencing; the experience of experiencing. 

Another even bigger step. Can you see that the noticing of the experiencing, it noticed ?

- yes, there is awareness of the noticing of experiencing. 

One more step. Can you see that there is no one noticing the noticing ? That there is only noticing? 
There is no 'object' being noticed. There is no 'subject' doing the noticing. There is only noticing.
Don't believe me. Experience it. Do the exercise again, but this time keep looking until the mind stops labeling what is seen. Wait until the mind starts to get bored. This is where the really exciting stuff happens. Between thoughts. There is only SEEing. Noticing. No Robert. No hand. Just noticing the noticing.

- I'm looking at the hand.  The light from the hand is experienced and the thoughts about the hand are experienced. An awful lot if mind wandering and daydreaming are experienced. There is so much thinking. Much of the time thoughts of self seem to have been absent.  There was awareness of the experiencing of hand; and then thoughts about the awareness. And there was noticing the awareness; then quickly thoughts emerge about noticing, awareness, thoughts about thoughts and feelings of frustration and then random thoughts rush in. 
So then I did something different: 
I closed my eyes and noticed the experiencing of thoughts. There were thoughts ... the experiencing of thoughts ... noticing the experiencing ... noticing the noticing.  Then lots more thoughts again.
I spent A LOT of time on this experiment and I'm not sure the result is what you meant. 
I just tried the experiment with the hand again. While noticing the noticing, the hand was still in view but awareness of it was limited to just the sight of it and in retrospect there didn't seem to be an experiencing of self.  Noticing of noticing was very brief before a flood of thoughts about it emerged. 
Still not sure if this is what you meant. I had been expecting something more remarkable. 

Imyself wrote:
What is the world really

There is no world really. There is only experiencing.
Now don't get me wrong here. There is an old zen saying that goes something like this;
Before enlightenment, mountains are mountains.
When stream entry happens, Then mountains are not mountains.
After some deepening, Then mountains are mountains again.
So what i am saying is that once we recognize what is real (reality) we can relax and use conventional language and story to communicate and navigate the 'normal' world. Then we aren't sucked into the suffering that is 'normal'.

- so there is some utility to using what I think I've heard referred to as Advaita-speak, at least for now at this stage of the looking?

There is no IT to be conscious. There is only consciousness, ...and careful of the trap here. Consciousness is not an IT. Not a thing. It is just noticing. Only mind, thought says that there must be something that is doing the noticing. (i bet you can't find anything doing the noticing)

- true. Haven't found a noticer.  But is there a noticed?

How long is a piece of string ?
Old ways will diminish as new ways are established. Laughing when you recognize that an old way (story) is being expressed will accelerate the new ways establishing.

- thanks for the reminder about laughing; I'm practicing that whenever I remember to do it. 

Have a look at this video; https://www.dropbox.com/s/mskv8uxmnmf2f ... _Being.mp4

- at 9:00 min. in the talk he says "your body is your unconscious mind"; referring to how the body doesn't know the difference between an actual event and a thought or memory about that event. This challenges the notion the mind (at least the unconscious mind) is located in or somehow married to to brain alone. He also says that mind is what the brain does. So if the body is the unconscious mind, and mind is an activity (of the brain) then, logically speaking, the body is an action. 
This is probably not what he had in mind but it is fun to consider.  I'm visualizing (experiencing a concept of) the body as an action, an ongoing event. Not an object, but rather, an experience. An experience in a world of experience. 
Much of what I called my body is really an experience of a concept; a thought about body that is not currently being directly experienced through the senses. 


Thank You