At the front door, waiting for you

[Xain]

It cannot be validated from current experience; in fact, it seems now that the nature of current experience is indescribable in the sense of: "an unknown something is doing we don't know what" (quoted from some ZEN book).

You get a one-handed clap from me for that quote ;-)

So . . .

Did you choose to begin this conversation on here?

Are you going to choose what to reply?

Is there a 'you' seeing this text, and making sense of the writing?

Is it clear that any reference to what might be doing it, is just an idea - a thought?

Even speaking generally (and from your Zen quote) could a thought appearing ever truly reveal or contain what you are? A thought might say that 'you are this body' or 'you control this body' or 'you have free-will'.
Absolute Truth? Or just a lot of thoughts?

At this stage, do you have any further questions.
Are there any areas that are unclear?

Xain ♥

[1llusion]

Did you choose to begin this conversation on here?

No.

Are you going to choose what to reply?

No.

Is there a 'you' seeing this text, and making sense of the writing?

No.

Is it clear that any reference to what might be doing it, is just an idea - a thought?

Yes.

Could a thought appearing ever truly reveal or contain what you are?

No, these are all abstractions.

Or just a lot of thoughts?

It is a lot of thoughts.

Are there any areas that are unclear?

So it is just "nothing does everything" or variations thereof? It all boils down to the fact that language can never really represent what is real and therefore nothing can be said about reality? I must say I still feel a bit uncomfortable with this, but apperently it cannot be any other way. Then again, it seems so trivial. Maybe I still have expectations about how "it" should be.

[Xain]

So it is just "nothing does everything" or variations thereof?

When you looked, did you find 'nothing' doing 'everything'?

The mind can only encompass 'objects' and seperate items (or indeed, the lack of them).
So you are (quite naturally) suggesting that if there isn't a 'something' found, then it must be 'nothing'.

Perhaps we can break the word down - Rather than 'nothing', how about 'No Thing'.
A 'thing' was not found that was doing it.
A SEPARATE object was not found.

So . . . ? :-)

It all boils down to the fact that language can never really represent what is real and therefore nothing can be said about reality

Well, how about language ITSELF is the reality :-)
Language represents everything we know and can know.
Nothing wrong with that whatsoever . . . but if it is really recognised - The limits of language and thought . . .

I must say I still feel a bit uncomfortable with this, but apperently it cannot be any other way.

I could push and ask you who or what is the 'I' that is uncomfortable with it.
But in terms of conventional language, yes of course, this can be a little strange. We are faced with two potentionally opposing views and we can experience congnitive dissonace as a result.

Then again, it seems so trivial. Maybe I still have expectations about how "it" should be.

It is that simple. 'I' is just a thought. It's always been 'just a thought' and always will be.
Do you clearly see this now?

What is expected? How is it expected to be?
And far more importantly to ask . . . who or what is it expected to be different to?

Xain ♥

[1llusion]

When you looked, did you find 'nothing' doing 'everything'?

No, when I look there is just nothing. It is just another attempt at explaining, i.e. coating into language what is without considering separate actors and objects.

A SEPARATE object was not found.

Ok, let's put it like that.

Well, how about language ITSELF is the reality :-)

If we define reality as what is, how can language be it? I'd argue it is NOT reality and can never be.

Do you clearly see this now?

Yes.

What is expected? How is it expected to be?

I mentioned that before: I was hoping for a certainty in a kind of a-ha effect but all I got is cognitive dissonance. ;)

[Xain]

Well, how about language ITSELF is the reality :-)
If we define reality as what is, how can language be it? I'd argue it is NOT reality and can never be.

Well I agree
'The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao'
'The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon'.

What I was pointing to is that language and thought is the only 'reality' that you will ever know :-)
Indeed 'reality' itself is just a thought - A label. Part of language.
I love discussing this sort of stuff but it is beyond the realm of the guiding here really, although it's great that you are pushing even further 'beyond' :-)

I mentioned that before: I was hoping for a certainty in a kind of a-ha effect but all I got is cognitive dissonance. ;)

That's cool - I hope you realise the cause of this also from our discussion.

Are things clear for you now?
There are a further six questions to anwer (I believe you may have already had a stab at them) - Would you like to have another try?

Xain ♥

[1llusion]

Are things clear for you now?

I think so. However, it really seems like "not much", more like some philosophical truth rather than something fundamentally changing my life experience. But as I understand it, that is just how it is.

Lets try the questions again. ;)

[Xain]

". . . something fundamentally changing my life experience."

Can you tell me exactly what you mean here?
Maybe give an example?

Xain ♥

[1llusion]

I don't have a specific example. It was just paraphrasing the total of all I have read so far about expectations. Your point probably is that I expect something to change from the perspective of a self, which I don't.

[Xain]

I will have to press you here.
What exactly is 'my life experience'?

Xain ♥

[1llusion]

It is an attempt to objectify what cannot be divided for the purpose of expressing the sum of common expectations.

[Xain]

Ok, but could you answer from a more general sense.

more like some philosophical truth rather than something fundamentally changing my life experience

How would a 'different' realisation change your life experience?
I really need to know exactly what you mean here, with an example.

Xain ♥

[1llusion]

Ok, it seems to be just a realisation that needs to be integrated over time by amending pre-existing thought patterns, rather than a one time explosion that changes everything at once. Also, it is mental instead of emotional, but that makes sense since the root of the problem was in thought.

[Xain]

Ok, it seems to be just a realisation that needs to be integrated over time by amending pre-existing thought patterns

Is that something you're going to try to do now?

Rather than a one time explosion that changes everything at once.

What are you referring to that could change?

Also, it is mental instead of emotional, but that makes sense since the root of the problem was in thought.

So you've learnt some new philosophical knowledge . . . and that's all it is?

Xain ♥

[1llusion]

Is that something you're going to try to do now?

There is no "me" doing or trying anything, but what I described (the gradual re-structuring of thought) is what seems to be happening.

What are you referring to that could change?

I was referring to stories about "enlightenment" in which it is always described as a sudden, one-time experience causing an immediate "feeling of unity", so there was an expectation of an emotional component,

So you've learnt some new philosophical knowledge . . . and that's all it is?

Maybe it could be more accurately described as a realization of the limits of philosophical knowledge and abstract thought. Is that all? At least that is all that can be said about it, I suppose.

[Xain]

That's cool, Benedikt.
Conventionally speaking, this realisation affects different people in different ways.
Some . . . it's just 'oh, yeah' - Is that it? Maybe that is what you are describing.

I was referring to stories about "enlightenment" in which it is always described as a sudden, one-time experience causing an immediate "feeling of unity", so there was an expectation of an emotional component,

I understand.
That is something that may or may not appear 'in time'. The goal here was to realise that all references to 'I' are just ideas - Thoughts appearing. Not appearing to 'anyone' - Just 'appearing'.

I have a friend who has these 'feelings of unity' on a regular basis. I have not had such a feeling ever - but then it is not something I desire particularly, other than out of curiosity.

Have a go at the questions once more, but let me know if any areas are not clear.

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

2) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference (if anything) between 'now' and from before I continued with you? Please report from the past few days.

3) Was there a specific 'thing' that pushed you over and made you realise. Perhaps something I mentioned, or something that you looked into yourself.

Xain ♥