Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

Sit down, relax, and simply look, listen, feel... Let it all simply happen. Can you please describe this experience in the most basic level possible, with as little story and belief attached as language allows it.
Now compare it to thought story

From what I tried, it seems that the "I" is missing in the short duration I can simply let things happen. The story becomes a description of what the senses report without a context or opinion about it. "I feel a breeze, my nose itches" becomes "there is a breeze, there is an itch" and upon more concentration even that can become "some senation is occuring, another sensation is occuring". As I mentioned before, it takes more from me than just sitting down and relaxing as I have to keep reminding myself not to get attached to thoughts that pop up, and concentrate on what is being sensed. Also, the "I" quickly returns to rule as soon as the thoughts get back in control. The question that I wonder about is whether there's anything else to do or do I just keep noticing until there's either a sudden shift or a gradual elimination of the belief in an "I" ?

Do you see how this I wants to see what happens and then own and discuss and analyse its own absence?

I see this clearly and it only intensifies the feeling of being stuck and not knowing what it is that should be let go off.

Do you see how it keeps you from simply noticing what is already the case?

Yes, I see that it keeps me from noticing what is. It's a solution to this situation that I don't see. Whatever I'll notice will just be conceptualized, guaranteeing I stay in the "I" box. Even if it will be noticed that a conceptualization is happening, that in it itself will just be another conceptualization. This "I" is like a maximum security prison...

I was not suggesting that awareness exists IN deep sleep... I was just suggesting that there is no thing that can be separated from other things...

Sorry - not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand: You mentioned that if I were asleep and there was a loud noise then I wouldn't wake up if there would be no awareness left at all. I took this to mean that the reason I do wake up is that there is awareness there (even though no thoughts exist). I gather from your reply that I misunderstood. I'm perplexed as to what the essence of awareness is its connection to the "I" story.

if there would be awareness existing as an object in something, this something would again have to be aware of awareness to know that it exists, right?

I don't understand awareness as an object in something but as an event in which a so called "subject" recognises a so called "object". It is my understanding that this event can't occur in deep sleep or any situation where no recognition can take place, so what I meant was that unlike the in the waking state, it wouldn't be possible for an "I" to reflect upon the deep sleep state or talk about noticing some fixed unchanging awareness that remains the same.

[Alexw]

I am travelling for two days - will answer when back home.
Alex

[placebo8]

Ok, thank you. Have a good trip :)
Amnon

[Alexw]

Also, the "I" quickly returns to rule as soon as the thoughts get back in control. The question that I wonder about is whether there's anything else to do or do I just keep noticing until there's either a sudden shift or a gradual elimination of the belief in an "I" ?

No, there is nothing else to do. Simply notice. The more you remain actively aware of how thought operates the shorter the "I episodes" will get. If it leaves the stage with one big bang or gradually can not be controlled - mostly it is a gradual shift and the expectation of a major event taking place somewhen in the future is just another story/idea that will only keep you from what is already the case...

I see this clearly and it only intensifies the feeling of being stuck and not knowing what it is that should be let go off.

Don't let go of anything, just notice and the "letting go" will happen automatically :-)
The more "you do" the more the "I" will flourish - simply see it and it will lose its power as it really has no power on its own - there is only the idea that it has some sort of power to control/decide...

Whatever I'll notice will just be conceptualized, guaranteeing I stay in the "I" box. Even if it will be noticed that a conceptualization is happening, that in it itself will just be another conceptualization. This "I" is like a maximum security prison...

You have to make a distinction between "useful concepts" like "This is a car approaching. Don't cross the road" and the concepts that keep you from living life fully like "I am afraid to cross the road. What if I get hit by a car? I might be severely injured.. or even die.."
We are not aiming at destroying all concepts - just to see that they are concepts and that you are free to use them or not.

it wouldn't be possible for an "I" to reflect upon the deep sleep state or talk about noticing some fixed unchanging awareness that remains the same.

Is this "I" ever reflecting about anything? Or is this process just a chain of thoughts happening to no one?

[placebo8]

No, there is nothing else to do. Simply notice. The more you remain actively aware of how thought operates the shorter the "I episodes" will get.

In that case I'll remain focused on that. My initial thought is to try harder to keep noticing, while at the same time realising that this paradoxically just means more "doing"...

We are not aiming at destroying all concepts - just to see that they are concepts and that you are free to use them or not.

Ok, that's an important distinction - thanks.

Is this "I" ever reflecting about anything? Or is this process just a chain of thoughts happening to no one?

When a collection of many dots is observed, and all appear along an imaginary straight line, the entity of a line is assumed and is considered more fundamental than the collection of dots that compose it. The analogy of course is that thoughts are the collection of dots while the "self" is the common denominator, the imaginary line they create. I suspect there's more than just an analogy here, i.e that it's the same mechanism at work: It's the ability to generate meaning, seek out consistency and create order out of chaos that as a by-product, creates the appearance of an "I". Taking this analogy further, am I to understand that I should look at the dots without seeing the line, or that I should see the line but not "be" the line? This might be just philosophising and taking me off track, but to borrow the "using a thorn to take out a thorn" saying, perhaps its possible to use logic to dislodge my logic...

[Alexw]

My initial thought is to try harder to keep noticing, while at the same time realising that this paradoxically just means more "doing"...

It only means more doing if you believe that it does... You can work has hard as an ox and not be doing anything...
Its not about the action but about the one performing it - things happen, the body moves, thoughts appear, but is there a "you" involved anywhere? It requires a separate "you" to be doing anything, doesn't it..?

When a collection of many dots is observed, and all appear along an imaginary straight line, the entity of a line is assumed and is considered more fundamental than the collection of dots that compose it

Nice analogy - I might have to borrow this one occasionally ;-)
Yes, you are perfectly right - this I/self is like the outcome of a pattern matching algorithm in a computer system... Me, not me, me, not me... Just like in a computer system, the hardware needs a program to perform certain tasks and the program needs raw data as its input and some algorithms that will be applied to achieve a "conceptual" output. The algorithms are what you have been learning since childhood and the I/self is an essential pattern that is recognised by these algorithms...

Taking this analogy further, am I to understand that I should look at the dots without seeing the line, or that I should see the line but not "be" the line? This might be just philosophising and taking me off track, but to borrow the "using a thorn to take out a thorn" saying, perhaps its possible to use logic to dislodge my logic...

How do you change the behaviour of this computer system described above?
You could completely delete the pattern matching program, but this would result in a huge loss of functionality. You could try to fix it by removing some potential bugs, but before you can fix them you have to know that they exist and once you know you will have to find a way of doing just that.
So far we have been looking for bugs and it seems we have found one... the "I/self" bug... Right?
So how do you fix this bug? As with computer programming there are many ways to fixing a problem, your solution will depend on what works for you (with "you" I mean these algorithms that seem to recognise and identify with this "you"). One way of fixing it is simply being alert, noticing how thoughts arise and what they add to pure experience. Or maybe you find your own way of doing this... there is no "one size fits all" :-)

Anyway, what we are doing in this LU forum is only finding the bug - the bug-fixing is something that might take some time and would be a topic we can discuss in another section of this forum or in one of the many LU Facebook groups...

Do you see that this "I/self" is really not a fixed, separate entity at all? Do you see that it only lives in/as thought?
Do you see that it really has no power? No power to decide or control anything? What do you see? Where are your doubts?

[placebo8]

Hi Alex,

Sorry for the delayed reply, got lost doing "I" things...

So far we have been looking for bugs and it seems we have found one... the "I/self" bug... Right?

I don't know if it's a bug. The mind is programmed to identify patterns, and the "I" pattern is the collection of thoughts based on memories that can only be accessed by this specific body/mind. The reason there's an "I" that smells a rose is that the experience is matched with a previous smell of a rose that stored in this body/mind's memory. If there's a bug, I'd say it is more the emotional attachment and identification with this recognised "I" pattern rather than just the recognition itself.

What do you see? Where are your doubts?

The doubts are due to not really seeing and being stuck with the same questions, but I've received some important pointers to contemplate and work on for which I'm grateful. Perhaps I'm just not ready yet. I guess it's a matter of time/luck/grace whether the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place at some point. I don't know whether it should be in the context of this correspondence or another section/group as you mentioned. I'll respect and appreciate whatever recommendation you have regarding how to continue from here.

Thanks,
Amnon

[Alexw]

If there's a bug, I'd say it is more the emotional attachment and identification with this recognised "I" pattern rather than just the recognition itself.

Yes, true, the issue is not the pattern recognition itself but the identification with an entity that seems to be in charge of this process, of life itself... but when you look for it you can't find it, can you?

The doubts are due to not really seeing and being stuck with the same questions

Aren't the questions only there because you have formed a belief or expectation of what has to happen when "seeing" occurs?
When you look at an object, lets say a flower or a tree, what do you see? Thought says "I see a tree!". We have found out by now that this I can not be found in the direct experience of looking, its always only a thought that includes this I into the equation, right? Do you see that?
Still there seems to be separation - there seems to be a body looking at the tree - both are separate, right?
On the other hand, when neglecting thought about this process there is no separation to be found, is there?
Pure seeing does not provide any information about separation, does it?
Now you expect something magical to happen so this experience of no-separation becomes knowable to "you"... knowable to thought... but the issue is that thought is the only "thing" that introduces separation. It is a tool that works only in duality - or maybe better: It IS duality. It is always relative.
Pure seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling is not relative, it is not dual. Your direct experience is one of no separation, it is always the "Absolute/Self" that you are "looking at"...
What do you see when simply looking without entertaining all these concepts about subject and object etc...?

[placebo8]

the issue is not the pattern recognition itself but the identification with an entity that seems to be in charge of this process, of life itself... but when you look for it you can't find it, can you?

True, I can't find it, and that remains convincing at a theoretical level, but if I were for instance to hold my hand above a flame, all arguments, no matter how convincing would be worthless against the overwhelming sense of a sufferer. Maybe the depth of realisation can be hinted at by the depth of dis-identification with an awareness (and thus of a sense of suffering) of some specific body/mind. For instance, while I might be able to remain emotionally (though not functionally) detached when someone on the road drives in a way that endangers me and others, I can't remain emotionally detached in case of perceiving some extreme physical or emotional discomfort. Maybe it's just a matter of practice - of just continuing to notice. By the way, I have a feeling all this is coming from the wrong place - it's the I that want's to be immune to suffering and at the same time I understand that as long as this is the agenda behind it, it ain''t gonna work...

Aren't the questions only there because you have formed a belief or expectation of what has to happen when "seeing" occurs?

I don't know. My expectation is for expectations to cease. That puts me in a bit of a bind doesn't it? :-) As for the questions - I assume I won't be bothered by them once the "I" is really seen for what it is and things will start falling into place. I guess looking forward to that is also an expectation.

We have found out by now that this I can not be found in the direct experience of looking, its always only a thought that includes this I into the equation, right? Do you see that?

I thought I did, but something doesn't add up: There is no experience I can speak of where there isn't an experiencer, and as such, an "I". Of course, this happens only after thought about the experience comes into the picture, but how can one know of the experience without referring to it via thought and memory? No one can know of it if there is no one there. Even if one was to say "a few minutes ago, there was an experience with no me in it" I don't see how it is different than the non-I of being in deep sleep or of being dead - all of these also have no "I" in them, so what's the advantage or difference of no "I" while awake?
I seem to be regressing, or to put it more accurately - the "I" illusion seems to be getting stronger instead of weaker. It's a cycle I'm aware of. There can be months when it seems so close (which is why I was drawn to LU as it felt at the time I just needed a little push) and then periods when it seems hopelessly far.

What do you see when simply looking without entertaining all these concepts about subject and object etc...?

Guess I need more practice at just looking without automatically thinking about it as it is not something that I'm used to doing. I feel there's not much more that can be done at the moment.

[Alexw]

if I were for instance to hold my hand above a flame, all arguments, no matter how convincing would be worthless against the overwhelming sense of a sufferer

Can there be a sense of a sufferer or only a sense of pain?
When you burn your hand you experience certain sensations labelled "pain", right, but where does "suffering" come from? Is it inherent in the pain or only in thought about the pain?

For instance, while I might be able to remain emotionally (though not functionally) detached when someone on the road drives in a way that endangers me and others, I can't remain emotionally detached in case of perceiving some extreme physical or emotional discomfort.

Its not about thought control. You are trying to measure your success of "no-I" by counting thoughts that arise covering certain topics. "If I suffer then there must be something wrong!"... "I might not have realised no-self yet..."
Get emotionally involved, be human, be angry and sad! But see at the same time that all these thoughts don't define you. They simply arise based on conditioning and momentary triggers, thats all. Does that mean that there is an I/self in control? If there would be one in control wouldn't you have reached the state that you are looking for a long time ago? Would you still be seeking if there would be any such thing as a controlling entity?

Guess I need more practice at just looking without automatically thinking about it as it is not something that I'm used to doing.

As long as you are practicing to "not think" you will lose the game. Let thought happen.
Would you try to fight sound or smell arising? When you sit near the ocean are you trying to avoid the sound of the waves? No, you simply accept it for what it is, right?
This does not mean that you have to accept that you have a separate self, because this would be accepting a belief that can not stand up to inquiry into direct experience, can it?
So when you know without doubt that this separate self is just a story, a belief, a thought story, do you still have to worry about it? Do you still have to get rid of it? If thoughts arise that include this conceptual entity, do you have to worry that you didn't get it? Isn't this thought process of worrying again more story about a separate self that seems to "not be there yet"...
Look at this mess and laugh about it! The more complicated you make it the more the separate self will thrive!
Leave it alone and it will die like a plant without water.

[placebo8]

Can there be a sense of a sufferer or only a sense of pain?

Ok, I stand corrected - there can be no sense of a sufferer, but what I meant was the illusion of a sufferer triggered by a sense of pain is too strong to ignore by just telling myself to only notice the pain and not judge or identify with it. This might work up to a point, but beyond a certain point (in my experience anyway), the "I" will not idly stand by while the pain signals are amplified. It will loudly announce it's presence and demand to take control to try and change the situation - the fact that I intellectually know it controls nothing and that what will happen is not up to any "me", and that after the event a "me" will quickly take credit for it - all this knowledge falls like a house of cards in the first wind of real discomfort.

"If I suffer then there must be something wrong!"... "I might not have realised no-self yet..."

Admittedly, one of my expectations of no-self realisation is a realisation of no real suffering (as opposed to no pain or no emotions), therefore if there's a belief in a sufferer then there's still a belief/investment in an "I" and as such, there is no realisation of "no self" yet.

Get emotionally involved, be human, be angry and sad! But see at the same time that all these thoughts don't define you.

I understand the concept, but in the heat of the moment, it's not easy to "see the thought" without "being the thought".
There's also something I don't understand about all this - if realisation of no-self does not exclude the entire range of human emotions (including anger), it will also not exclude the range of actions that could stem from these emotions, some of which have nothing to do with generosity, compassion, integrity, humility and various other traits that resonate with me and which I've always considered a natural state of one who is "in truth" (for lack of a better definition).

Would you try to fight sound or smell arising? When you sit near the ocean are you trying to avoid the sound of the waves? No, you simply accept it for what it is, right?

I don't try to fight sound or smell as long as they're pleasant. It's when they become unpleasant that the challenge begins. It's at that point where accepting it for what it is does not make sense to a increasingly displeased "I". I realise I'm just rehashing things I've already stated before, but I'm stuck on this point. Is it simply a case of practice? Learn to see "no I" in the shallow end and then it will be easier to see it in the deep end?

Look at this mess and laugh about it!

This is exactly my idea of "getting it". Unfortunately, I still don't really see the humour of it :-) There are times when I can sort of get in touch with my personal insignificance which feels good but like other insights, its like a small taste of what I'd like to be an all encompassing, unshakeable, irrefutable and permanent knowing which will finally lay down to rest all doubts and questions via a connection with a stillness that can't be disturbed. I guess I've just set up yet another expectation haven't I? :-)

[Alexw]

It's when they become unpleasant that the challenge begins. It's at that point where accepting it for what it is does not make sense to a increasingly displeased "I". I realise I'm just rehashing things I've already stated before, but I'm stuck on this point.

You are stuck because of the way you look at "acceptance".
Is this getting close to how you think acceptance should to be working:
When everything is fine I am happy to accept this moment as is, but when things happen that displease me then acceptance is an effort that runs counter to what "I" would like to do...

But... maybe its never an "I" that does anything in the first place... maybe its just a thought that says "I have moved away from this stinky place because I don't like the smell even I should be accepting enough and not worry about the smell... I have not realised no-self yet because I can not accept every situation as it arises!"

BUT: Accepting something is not an effort. If something is wrong or painful you move out of the way, thats it. No reason to prolong the situation only because you want to be accepting or impartial. When a bird smells fire it flies away. No need to stand your ground and be burnt. There is no thought about acceptance, it simply happens. This is what I meant with "you simply accept it for what it is".

When something is unpleasant then the next action will be to avoid this situation - not to sit and endure only because "you" deem that necessary to achieve a certain state of realisation... When you are in severe pain there will be thoughts about how to avoid the pain. These thoughts might result in you getting up and taking a few painkillers... No problem with any of that, right?
There will also be thoughts about how poor you are because you have to suffer so much... so are these thoughts any more problematic? Do they mean that there really is an I that is suffering? Is there an entity that suffers or are there only thoughts about this entity, an entity that can not be found outside of these thoughts about it?
So, yes, by getting lost in these kind of thoughts you add psychological suffering on top of the physical pain - the pain is real, the suffering is just a story... Can a thought suffer? Or can there be only thoughts ABOUT suffering?

if realisation of no-self does not exclude the entire range of human emotions (including anger), it will also not exclude the range of actions that could stem from these emotions, some of which have nothing to do with generosity, compassion, integrity, humility and various other traits that resonate with me and which I've always considered a natural state of one who is "in truth"

Realisation of no-self is simply the clear seeing that there is no such thing as a separate I/self. It has nothing to do with favouring certain emotions or actions over other ones. This is the natural outcome of knowing who/what you are, not of the realisation of what you are not.

Maybe what you are after is not the realisation of no-self... you might be on the quest of "What am I?" (if not this separate self).
At first glance they seem to be identical, but if you look closer then no-self seems to imply that you have to drop something, something called I/self... When looking at "What am I?" you might have already seen that I is just thought, so you are not this separate entity - you have realised no (separate) self... but does this solve your question of "What am I?'?
So... Who is the one "having" all these emotions? Who is doing these "actions"? If its not this separate I, then who???

Look at this experience - look, hear, smell, feel, think. What are you? Is there something like a "you"? Or is "you" just a certain perspective, a (thought based) point of view? An imaginary onlooker... looking at what?
What are you looking at when you see your body, others, the world out there?

[placebo8]

Maybe what you are after is not the realisation of no-self... you might be on the quest of "What am I?" (if not this separate self).

Wow, now that was unexpected... I had always assumed they are one and the same. It never even occured to me that realising "no-self" does not automatically lead to an understanding of "What am I?".

If they are not the same, am I correct in assuming that the path to "What am I?" still has to first go through a the "milestone" realisation of "no-self"? If that is the case, then I feel it really doesn't make much of a difference in terms of what I should pursue.

So... Who is the one "having" all these emotions? Who is doing these "actions"? If its not this separate I, then who???

Look at this experience - look, hear, smell, feel, think. What are you? Is there something like a "you"? Or is "you" just a certain perspective, a (thought based) point of view? An imaginary onlooker... looking at what?
What are you looking at when you see your body, others, the world out there?

I probably could give a more or less accurate answer but it won't be from first hand experience, in the same way that I could answer many "no-self" questions while seeming somewhat knowledgable on the subject. However as I have no interest in trying to impress you or anyone else with my non-dual "knowledge" and in fact find it quite useless as far as it pertains to being able to "walk the talk", the honest answer to all of the above is at best "I don't know" and in most cases, just the same answer anyone stuck in duality would give. If this puts me in the "hopeless case" category then I promise it won't come as a shock :-)


to get back to "no-self" realisation:

Is this getting close to how you think acceptance should to be working:
When everything is fine I am happy to accept this moment as is, but when things happen that displease me then acceptance is an effort that runs counter to what "I" would like to do...

Maybe its just a thought that says "I have moved away from this stinky place because I don't like the smell even I should be accepting enough and not worry about the smell...

Yes, I think that summarizes the thought well

BUT: Accepting something is not an effort. If something is wrong or painful you move out of the way, thats it.

What if you can't move out of the way?

When you are in severe pain there will be thoughts about how to avoid the pain. These thoughts might result in you getting up and taking a few painkillers... No problem with any of that, right?

Again, no problem until you run out of painkillers, and you can't get your hands on any, and the pain is getting so bad that you think you'll lose your mind if you'll have to bear it much longer. Yes, all these are thoughts about the pain and not the pain, but I will be extremely surprised if any duality dwelling individual would be calmed by explaining to them that it's just thought and therefore the suffering isn't real...

Can a thought suffer? Or can there be only thoughts ABOUT suffering?

My current (and I might add apologetically - dualistic) take on it is that a thought on it's own can't suffer but a collection of consistent thoughts that form a complex pattern and is aimed at self preservation appears to create a separate entity that seems to be more than the sum of its parts. At some level of complexity, this process can become self-aware and then identify itself as separate from that which it perceives. Combine that with an instinct for self preservation and suffering immediately enters the picture. To answer the question - there can only be thoughts about suffering, but these thoughts are the same thoughts that create the "I" which seems to follow consciousness like a shadow following light. To take the analogy further, I'd say it is the thoughts that cast this shadow, but how can any idea of existence be known otherwise? and once existence is known to a "knower" via thought, how can a self (and thus, suffering) not automatically enter the picture? It seems like an inseparable package.

I have to laugh at my continuous regression. The more I think about it, the less I understand. Someone once told me that the way things work is that there's a long line of people behind me waiting to be liberated and they can't be liberated until I am - if that is the case I owe a very big apology to all those behind me - they found the wrong person to stand behind... :-)

[Alexw]

probably could give a more or less accurate answer but it won't be from first hand experience

How can it not be from first hand experience???
Are you not experiencing right now? Does it require a special experience so you experience your self?
Or are you ALWAYS ONLY you? The question is now, what is this "you"? Is it a separate entity that lives and suffers..?

To find out what "you" are you can look at direct experience and simply be 100% honest.
How is seeing really experienced? Sit down and look at any object "out there".
There is no separate entity doing the looking, is there? There are thoughts about what is seen, but lets not worry about them for now. There is only seeing happening... What do you see? Do you see something that is separate from a "me"?
Are you looking at something that is not you? If there is no separate "you" to be found and no border anywhere to be found, no separate looker and no separate object being looked at... then are you really looking at any-Thing? Can there be a separate thing if there is no separate entity looking at anything to start with?
Or is there only this process we call "seeing" happening? Is there any personal identification with this process? Thought might find a new identification, something like "I am That!" or "I am awareness" or... but this is again only necessary if you want to communicate about THAT... otherwise just look...

Does "looking" require a special, mystical experience to happen so it becomes convincing in a spiritual way?
What would it be that merges into one-ness, and what would be the One thing it merges with? What if there has never been any separation at all and this is your every day experience, all the time? Only thought saying there are all these separate things...?

Imagine you are looking at a dot-painting with thousands of colourful dots - when someone points out to you that there is a special order in these dots, maybe the shape of a face, you will, from now on, always recognise this face, but what is there in reality is just dots of colour, right? What you have done is to introduce a conceptual separation that states that some dots are a face and others are the sky behind the face... But are they not all dots?
Do you need to remove the recognition of the face to see the dots or can you see both at the same time?

I have to laugh at my continuous regression. The more I think about it, the less I understand. Someone once told me that the way things work is that there's a long line of people behind me waiting to be liberated and they can't be liberated until I am - if that is the case I owe a very big apology to all those behind me - they found the wrong person to stand behind... :-)

Thats funny :-)
Don't worry, there is no-one waiting in any line ;-)

[placebo8]

How can it not be from first hand experience???

What I meant by not being able to answer from first hand experience is that I can answer the questions In the same way I can answer what it feels like to walk on the moon or to be at total peace - I receive information from other people who have experienced it, see that all the evidence is consistent and then am able to understand theoretically what it's about and by extrapolating, explain and even expand on it, without ever really knowing it. I'm not the least bit interested in theory though. In practice what happens is that I identify with the biological workings of this body/mind. When something does not go according to this body/mind's survival programming, the "i" which identify's with this organism experiences suffering. The identification exists as long as I'm conscious, and therefore the suffering continues to the extent and degree that the biological signal does. When discomfort (or pleasure) is experienced, It seems that it's not up to me to experience a "me". It is in conscious discomfort though that a "no I" becomes something that seems completely unattainable. It somehow forges an "I" regardless of any knowledge of that "I"'s illusory nature.

Does "looking" require a special, mystical experience to happen so it becomes convincing in a spiritual way?

I'll be convinced I know when I'll be able to look without being attached to wanting things to be different, and that this knowing would apply to every situation I encounter (or at least to an increasing number of situations).

Do you need to remove the recognition of the face to see the dots or can you see both at the same time?

I really can't see both at the same time. At most I might be able to alternate between one point of view and another, and even then, it will usually be stuck in the point of view of a body/mind.

I guess things are as they are and they can't be otherwise. and at this point, they include a frustrated "me" illusion thinking there is an impenetrable wall that separates me from true happiness. I realise there are many such "me"s in existence and that none of them can make a difference in the way things are (simply because whatever they do will just be an expression of the way things actually are). Whether they'll realise they are not separate but just what in fact IS - that is also ultimately not up to "them". So I guess it remains to be seen whether this "me"''s realisation is part of the plan. In my dualistic point of view, I'll just keep kidding myself that I have a say in this in order to have motivation to continue trying...