Would be grateful for a guide

[Alexw]

Hope you have recovered from your cold - but yes, sickness can be a great opportunity as well.

this suggests a complete symmetry between the "worth" of opposite sides of feelings and conduct

Yes, true. How could you define good if there would be no evil. They both are not worth anything, its just what happens and how you interpret it. If someone steals some money of you, then offer him the same again... that kind of story is already quoted in the Bible and there is a reason for it... It will teach you not to be attached to things that can (and will be) lost.
If you strive only for one side of the spectrum - only good deeds are acceptable - then you reject the opposite end and are attached to the positive end. This is attachment that leads to suffering as you won't be able to accept that also bad things happen... This doesn't mean that you should perform these bad deeds. Yes, once some attachments are relinquished you will seem to act loving and positive - but maybe also cruel and selfish as you don't really pity people as they would like to be pitied etc etc...

How can anger be fine when any anger could be said to be due to ignorance

This is not true. Anger can be a very natural reaction to save your (or others) life. Anger is a form of energy that should not be suppressed, its only anger due to wrong attachment that is based on ignorance.

while at the same time an experience of local emotional turmoil is raging

When this happens look at it and see. There will be no end to it if you don't drag into the light and let it run its course. Is this raging turmoil more than a barrage of thoughts happening?

[placebo8]

Hi again - making up for lost time...

Hope you have recovered from your cold - but yes, sickness can be a great opportunity as well.

I am better thank you, and I did try and make the most of it by looking at the less pleasant sensations the last few days without judgement or attachment. I could give an assessment of the degree of my success but that would be judging :-)

Yes, once some attachments are relinquished you will seem to act loving and positive - but maybe also cruel and selfish as you don't really pity people as they would like to be pitied etc etc...

but the point is that there is never an intention to be cruel, even if it might be perceived as such by someone immersed in self pity, and I find it interesting that while liberation means seeing beyond the duality of "good" and "bad" and not having an attachment to either, it always ends up doing "good" when seen from within a dualistic mind set.

How can anger be fine when any anger could be said to be due to ignorance

This is not true. Anger can be a very natural reaction to save your (or others) life. Anger is a form of energy that should not be suppressed, its only anger due to wrong attachment that is based on ignorance.

I stand corrected. I think I automatically equated anger with the belief that "I am angry" which is something very different...

Is this raging turmoil more than a barrage of thoughts happening?

I know this is not what you meant, but "barrage of thoughts" sounds to me more like what goes through your mind on an Algebra exam, not like the storm of feelings during any emotional turmoil. The former are easier to see as thoughts while the latter are much more strongly related to the fictitious "I" entity which seemingly connects them all, and therefore seem more difficult to dissect. This is especially so when this "I" has more incentive to try and "resolve" things the only way it knows how. Yet, with time, I hope the more I notice the thoughts/emotions the more it will eat away at any notion they are somehow "mine"

[Alexw]

it always ends up doing "good" when seen from within a dualistic mind set.

I would say it ends up as a natural activity - no matter if its classified as good or bad. One person might see it as a good deed and another as a really bad one, simply depends on your conditioned beliefs.
The liberated one does not care - he simply does what needs doing and doesn't worry so much about the outcome.

the storm of feelings during any emotional turmoil. The former are easier to see as thoughts while the latter are much more strongly related to the fictitious "I" entity which seemingly connects them all, and therefore seem more difficult to dissect

All you need to do is being aware that this is happening. No matter how complex the storm of thoughts/feelings might get, it is no match to clear awareness. Just see it clearly and it will immediately lose its power. Its only about seeing that it is happening - the dissolving will happen automatically.

We have been talking about many different topics over the last weeks, but somehow we seem to have deviated quite a bit from the initial topic of this thread. Seeing that there is no separate I/self...
Could you maybe write something about what is currently being believed about a separate, individual self?

[placebo8]

I know it appears that I have been sidetracked, but all the time I'm trying to get to the bottom of something very primary and which I feel is connected to the relation between this false concept called a separate self and the truth. I'm intrigued by the existence of order rather than chaos, of patterns rather than randomness. This might be irrelevant from a non-dual understanding, but I'm curious as to what generates or enables the order seen in duality. A stone always falls towards the ground. That's order. Liberated beings don't go around torturing kittens for fun. That's order. I'm just curious as to why it is so and how it related to the separate I/Self... Maybe I'm just being stubborn and should allow the pieces to fall into place by stopping to insist they do it in the way I think they should...

But back to your question as I'm here to be guided and not to rant...

What is currently believed about a separate individual self? It's not a clear-cut understanding yet, and the degree of clarity changes but in clearer moments it is seen that whatever is experienced, including a belief that there is a separate experience is a just thought playing out in the only place it can exist, which is the only place every other thought and anything and everything can exist and there's nothing this place does not encompass. Calling it a place suggests borders but it is infinite. Nothing can be said about it without being less that what it is, and nothing is separate from it. These are the glimpses I get. Due to the low intensity of the realisation, I don't know how much of it is real and how much is "planted" beliefs from previous intellectual understanding, and it should be obvious to you that I'm not yet firmly planted in this knowledge, but this is where things are at for now. I keep working on noticing thoughts in the hope that the realisation at some point will gather momentum and will no longer belong to anyone.

[Alexw]

I'm trying to get to the bottom of something very primary and which I feel is connected to the relation between this false concept called a separate self and the truth

What would make a concept into a true or false concept? Another conceptual idea, right?
So how would you find this truth? Do you think you will be able to find a conceptual thought that accurately describes truth? What if this is not possible? How long will you keep on looking for it?

I'm intrigued by the existence of order rather than chaos, of patterns rather than randomness. This might be irrelevant from a non-dual understanding, but I'm curious as to what generates or enables the order seen in duality

Sure, why not. It is fascinating. Agree. But this is a purely conceptual "hobby" and not something that will bring you closer to realisation. Does a tree care why it always grows towards the sun or a bird how aerodynamic its wings are?
I know, questioning life and trying to figure out why things are as they are is very human and it has brought us a lot of "progress", but has it made us happy? What it does is generating more and more questions - we know more and thus we have even more questions than before as we will never be able to know it all... Its like opening Pandoras Box...

in clearer moments it is seen that whatever is experienced, including a belief that there is a separate experience is a just thought playing out

Yes, great!

What makes a clear moment into a clear moment compared to a murky moment?
Does the experience, the perceiving itself, change? Or is there only a thought "Aha, now I see clearly!" vs. other thoughts that simply talk about random stuff..? Can a thought make anything clear or unclear?

Due to the low intensity of the realisation

What defines intensity?

it should be obvious to you that I'm not yet firmly planted in this knowledge

What is obvious to me is that there really is no you that could be "firmly planted in this knowledge" and that there are just thoughts arising and vanishing stating this and that... it is also obvious that there still are many thoughts about expectations and doubts and it might simply take more looking at these ideas and beliefs to have them lose their power (frequency of arising).
How are you feeling recently? When you compare how you are feeling and acting now compared to before we started our dialogue - is there any difference at all? Has anything changed?

[placebo8]

What defines intensity?

I meant low intensity as an analogy to a poorly lit room - where there's a "sort of" seeing, a "sort of" recognition of what is where but not like when the light is fully on and everything finally, unambiguously and permanently falls into place. I gather this is yet another expectation, right ? :-)

Does the experience, the perceiving itself, change? Or is there only a thought "Aha, now I see clearly!" vs. other thoughts that simply talk about random stuff..? Can a thought make anything clear or unclear?

The perceiving can't change - it is just where the thought plays, but this could be said about the most ignorant individual equally as well as a totally liberated person, only one of them believes he is the thoughts and the other doesn't - yet knowing one is not the thought is also a thought, so why is this somehow more liberated?

How are you feeling recently? When you compare how you are feeling and acting now compared to before we started our dialogue - is there any difference at all? Has anything changed?

I find it difficult to answer the question of how I'm feeling. Perhaps it's because it takes time for me to realise and observe differences that take place. Compared to the zero vs one, yes vs no of the software world where I can easily analyse and quantify the problem, design the solution and monitor how far I am from getting there - this is uncharted territory for me. I have no idea if I'm making progress, or whether I'm going in circles, if the magnet of the story is losing it's grip or whether it is just fatigue from the search. whether life really appears to look less threatening regardless what it may bring or it is just a passing phase. My feeling is that there is something stirring, but after so many years, I'm not holding my breath with expectation.

[Alexw]

where there's a "sort of" seeing, a "sort of" recognition of what is where but not like when the light is fully on and everything finally, unambiguously and permanently falls into place. I gather this is yet another expectation, right ? :-)

Sounds like an expectation to me... :-)
When things fall into place, what would it be that does this "falling into place"? Is something not in its right place? Maybe a few thoughts are "out of place"... but how do you fix them? Are they your thoughts to fix? Or maybe simply seeing/observing them will do the trick, making it clear that they are just a funny/sad story that can never harm you...

The perceiving can't change - it is just where the thought plays

Yes!

this could be said about the most ignorant individual equally as well as a totally liberated person, only one of them believes he is the thoughts and the other doesn't - yet knowing one is not the thought is also a thought, so why is this somehow more liberated?

Yes, all conceptual knowledge is thought based. And as these thoughts don't belong to anyone, there is also no ignorant or liberated person/individual. Thus it can never be about a realisation that liberates you from ignorance, but only about a realisation that liberates You from you.
A certain shift might happen where you understand yourself not anymore as this body/mind entity, but rather as whatever shows up - but not as the things that seem to show up, but rather as the experiencing itself. This is very liberating as nothing is personal, nothing ever happens to you. You experience your ego-self(thoughts) just like any other part of experience, but you don't get carried away anymore by something that is no more important than any other thought/sound/smell...

[placebo8]

When things fall into place, what would it be that does this "falling into place"? Is something not in its right place? Maybe a few thoughts are "out of place"... but how do you fix them? Are they your thoughts to fix? Or maybe simply seeing/observing them will do the trick, making it clear that they are just a funny/sad story that can never harm you..

There's no way for me to answer any of these questions without an element of expectation. "Falling into place" for me means being ok with things even when things are not ok for the imagined separate "I" thought. For this, the "I" thought must be seen for what it is, and of course that can't happen to me, because "I" am the very thought I wish to wake up from. Catch 22...
I keep putting this "just notice the thoughts" to the test, but I know it won't work in extreme conditions which then brings up thoughts of whether noticing the thoughts is really enough - i.e if something only works for certain things then it is not the complete truth etc. etc. and before you ask, yes, all these are just more thoughts and expectations :-) but they are so strong and persistent that it's hard to dismiss, just as it is hard to view "my hand is burning" as another passing thought and not a suffering "I"...

I can't think of anything to do other than continue to watch thoughts to the extent I can catch catch them (rather than thinking I am them). Perhaps be more disciplined in having a meditating schedule? I understand that "doing" is counterproductive to seeing, but forgetting about liberation and getting lost in the belief that I am my thoughts isn't going to work either.

As I previously mentioned, there are these small isolated islands of understanding, when I'm not there. Most of the time, this "I" is alive and kicking, asking questions that only exist because it is there, and constantly concerned about what else can be done to be done with itself...

By the way, regarding science - while it is true that science hasn't produced much spiritual liberation, I do think it points to truth and not to some endless goose chase. As I heard somewhere, I believe one day scientists will look at reality and understand that we are looking at ourselves, that the observer and the observed are the same. It's true however that this is irrelevant for me and most of humanity as a practical method of liberation, so as fascinating as the questions are, I'll refrain from trying to look for answers in that direction, at least not as a method of realising "no I".

[Alexw]

"Falling into place" for me means being ok with things even when things are not ok for the imagined separate "I" thought. For this, the "I" thought must be seen for what it is, and of course that can't happen to me, because "I" am the very thought I wish to wake up from. Catch 22...

Let me re-phrase this in a different way... There is the knowledge/understanding that this separate I is only a thought, but there is the belief that this I-thought is waiting for something to "fall into place" so this I(thought) can enter a state where everything that happens (to it?) is ok, no matter if labelled as good or bad. Is this what you are saying?

If yes, then who would be this "me" that the situation would be ok for?
Is there one besides your idea of one? Aren't this "me" and the I-thought one and the same thing?
Something can only be ok or not ok - this is just a thought saying "I like it / don't like it!". Does this thought require another thought - an I-thought - to be ok with it?

Imagine there is no separate I thought that could be ok/not ok with anything, but only the thought saying "I like it / don't like it!". No I-thought needed to do the liking or not liking - just a thought of judgement. Now... What would it mean to be ok with whatever shows up? It would mean that either no judgemental thought about a certain situation will show up at all - which is rather unusual, if not impossible - or that at least when such a judgemental thought shows up that there is a knowing, in the background, that this is just a thought doing what it does. Not more and not less. A bit like knowing that you exist, a fact that you don't need to think about all the time, it simply is there.

You seem to believe that thought is so much in control of "you", of life, of everything, that you make liberation dependent on thought allowing it, on thought processes changing in a way so you reach a specific state. But there is no one to be in special state - every state is it - and thought can also not allow it as it has no power over it in the first place.

Imagine you sit at the beach and watch the waves rolling in. You listen to the sound. You don't believe that you can choose what kind of sound the waves should make when they crash. You simply listen and accept. You don't expect the waves to change in a way so the sound becomes less intrusive or more melodic.
When you look at thought, it is the same process. You watch them rise and fall just like waves. Sure, when situations get intense it might be more difficult to watch thoughts initially, but maybe try to make these difficult situations into a kind of alarm signal that sets off the observation process. Once you start observing you will find that no matter what kind of situation is at hand, it will very soon lose its sting.

[placebo8]

Sure, when situations get intense it might be more difficult to watch thoughts initially, but maybe try to make these difficult situations into a kind of alarm signal that sets off the observation process. Once you start observing you will find that no matter what kind of situation is at hand, it will very soon lose its sting.

That's exactly what I try and do, but notice that there are situations that do not loose their sting as they are too overwhelming. They trigger a belief in the "I" thought because of the intensity of the "I don't want this" thought. This is not something that I notice improves with practice. When I'm washing the dishes and the water suddenly turns too hot, I can't leave my hands under the hot water flow, letting some "background awareness" watch the thoughts of "this is too painful". The pain and natural reluctance to it is the very thing that breaths life into the "I" thought and the suffering that follows.

Thought has no power over liberation, but it has total power over me, because my level of identification with it and the fact that I don't appear to know anything else. This is the spell that I want to break. To see thought for what it is, instead of identifying "my" existence with thought's existence.

I notice thoughts, including what I'm writing here but this doesn't seem to change much in the belief of being the separate "I" thought. Something needs to click and I doubt there's anything that can make it click. It will either happen or it won't. On a level where "I" don't exist (which I take to be the truth) it doesn't matter whether it clicks or not as there is no "me" in the first place. From the illusion that I'm living in though, I really hope it does...

[Alexw]

When I'm washing the dishes and the water suddenly turns too hot, I can't leave my hands under the hot water flow, letting some "background awareness" watch the thoughts of "this is too painful". The pain and natural reluctance to it is the very thing that breaths life into the "I" thought and the suffering that follows.

No, its not the pain or the natural instincts to avoid this experience. Its conditioned thinking, its the belief that there is a separate you that is suffering.
Can you find this "background awareness" that seems to be watching the thoughts of "this is too painful"..? Look. What is really happening? It doesn't have to be pain that you are observing, you can observe any process where thought is involved judging the experience - its always the same no matter how much thought might object to this.

Lets assume you observe sound happening... how does this work? There is obviously some kind of sound - then something else happens - a thought pops up stating "I hear a bird.". The sound happened and vanished and a thought happened and vanished... The sound didn't contain the information that it is a bird, did it? The thought stated something about the sound, it simply happened and said "I hear a bird".
Did any of the above, the sound, the thought, require an "I" to happen, to be noticed, to be experienced? If you think so, please tell me how this "I" manages to do/control this process called "experiencing"?
Or did they maybe simply happen and when they happened they happened to... "no-one"..? Was there a listener or just sound happening? Was there a thinker or just thought happening? If there is just thought happening, then where is the one that suffers?

When there is intense pain, where is the difference? There might be more thoughts saying "I am in pain! - Auauaua - poor me! I can't stand it any longer! I wish this would end!". Now, where is the difference to hearing sound? Yes, there are more thoughts happening, but is there any other real difference?

[placebo8]

Can you find this "background awareness" that seems to be watching the thoughts of "this is too painful"..?

Regarding the "background awareness" thing - I was referring to what you said about "there is a knowing, in the background, that this is just a thought doing what it does". It is likely that I misunderstood what you meant though.

please tell me how this "I" manages to do/control this process called "experiencing"

It doesn't do it or control it - it is defined by it: Sensory inputs, logic, memory and the proper conditioning create a notion of an "I". I have no argument that there is in fact no real separate "I" there - just a process, a pattern responding to other patterns - it's just that the fact that I know it is not enough to dis-identify from it.

Was there a listener or just sound happening? Was there a thinker or just thought happening?

Guess I'm in one of my less lucid moments so to be honest, I can't really grasp the meaning of sound without a listener or thought without a thinker. The prospect seems as meaningless as asking what Bach's music sounds like when there's no one there to hear it. The reason there's an experience of sound is that there is a body/mind that can process it. No body/mind - no sound, no concepts and no existence that thought can get at. I'm struggling to see the existence that thought can't reach, the existence which contains thought but is not thought. At the moment the notion seems futile - as though I'm locked in a maze of concepts and every door just opens to a new concept, so there's no escaping concept planet (which makes sense since, given that this is exactly what the "I" is made of) but knowing one is in a trap doesn't help much in escaping it.

When there is intense pain, where is the difference?

No difference really - it's just a sort of test I sometimes play with when I think something has been understood and which makes me quickly realise it really hasn't been understood... guess I should stick to noticing ordinary thoughts instead of testing the "no suffering" theory while still believing there's someone here who can suffer.

[Alexw]

I can't really grasp the meaning of sound without a listener or thought without a thinker

Its not really about grasping the meaning and wrapping another concept around it. Its simply about seeing, listening, feeling, thinking... Don't try to think your way to a conceptual solution - what kind of solution would that be? Just another story, right?

When you sit down, relax and simply listen. Does listening require a story, a conceptual process being present to work?
Or is listening simply happening, effortless, without you doing anything to achieve it or make it work?
When you listen to Bach, thought might pick out certain instruments that you label as a violin or a piano, but this is only thought doing its thing. Its a pattern recognition process happening (again, without a you doing this) and matching it with the appropriate label. Its pretty much the same with the separate I/self - experiences happen and thought picks out a few, just like the violin, and labels it as me or other.
The sound itself wouldn't care if it comes from a violin or a trumpet, its just a sound, the meaning is provided by thought about the sound, which is not the sound itself, but only a story that is attached to the sound. Without the story, there is no violin or trumpet or me or you... This meaning making process is not a bad thing - its a great tool for communication, but it can get quite tricky when this process invents certain entities that have no existence outside of thought - thought about thought about thought. Its fine when a certain label points to direct experience or a part thereof, like the violin, but if there is no direct experience of this label, just more thought-story, then it should also not be taken for more than story... So where would you place the separate I/self? In the "can be found in direct experience" category or in the "can NOT be found and thus story" category?

Now, even this might be seen, the story-character still wants to find a way to see and experience reality, but how should the story character achieve that if all that he can ever "know" is the story (or rather: all there is in this story world is the story about a character, but there really is no character, just the story about one). Reality is present all the time, but not in way as the story goes... its not been perceived by a separate character... The character lives in story-land only - forget the story and simple reality/presence here all the time.

[placebo8]

Don't try to think your way to a conceptual solution - what kind of solution would that be? Just another story, right?

Right, and to me it seems to be an unbreakable barrier to "getting it" especially with with a glorified "I" that hangs so tightly to it's supposed existence that it can't be removed with a crowbar, let alone polite self inquiries :)

When you sit down, relax and simply listen. Does listening require a story, a conceptual process being present to work?
Or is listening simply happening, effortless, without you doing anything to achieve it or make it work?

If I look at it logically then no, listening does not require a story - it happens. Then a thought happens, Then something else happens. Things happen and there is no separate anyone in control (or out of control for that matter). There is an illusion of someone things are happening to, but that too is a thought happening just like everything else that is happening.
Now if my description above (which I both logically understand and seems intuitively right to me) is indeed a more or less accurate description, the question remains: Why am "I" still here, as ignorant as ever? I see the absurdity in a thought trying to understand it is just a thought and yet, that's exactly where I'm stuck.

Reality is present all the time, but not in way as the story goes... its not been perceived by a separate character... The character lives in story-land only - forget the story and simple reality/presence here all the time.

Ok, this is another point I'm stuck at. The fact the reality is present all the time - described by some as "nothing which is everything". When I try to imagine what things will be like after I'm physically dead, it's not "nothing which is everything" that comes up, but rather "nothing which is nothing". I know existence will happily continue to exist after this "I" story disintegrates - but just as I can't fathom this all encompassing non-dual existence while I'm alive, it is likewise beyond anything I can possibly conceive after I'm dead. So what is a poor thought to do? :-)

[Alexw]

Now if my description above (which I both logically understand and seems intuitively right to me) is indeed a more or less accurate description, the question remains: Why am "I" still here, as ignorant as ever?

If you see a mirage in a desert and you realise that this is just an optical illusion, does this make the mirage go away? Or will there be simply the knowing that it is not more than a mirage? This knowing will obviously dispel the idea that you will find water over there, or that some other kind of positive event will materialise.
The knowing that the separate I/self is just a mirage is very similar, there will still be I-thoughts happening, but they are seen to be just an "optical illusion" (yes, over time, this knowing will also reduce the frequency of I-thoughts happening).

Why am "I" still here, as ignorant as ever?

The I-thought still happening doesn't mean that there ever was a real, separate I, does it?
Thinking about pink unicorns doesn't make them real, does it?

Ignorance is acting in the belief that I am a separate person in control of my life. Ignorance will dissolve when it is understood that this is not so and that there really is only life happening - to no one in particular.

I can't fathom this all encompassing non-dual existence while I'm alive, it is likewise beyond anything I can possibly conceive after I'm dead. So what is a poor thought to do? :-)

There can be the acceptance that thought is simply not the right tool for it. Thought is dual, relative - it is its nature. It can only work with objects in duality. It can think and theorise about how non-duality would be/feel like, but it will always be like thinking about eating an apple vs. really eating an apple.
Non-duality is very simply. You experience nothing else but the non-dual - but thought tells you that you are alive in duality - maybe this is why you don't see the non-dual nature of it..?
Listen. Hearing happens. No separate listener. No separate sound. Just hearing happening. Now, where is the duality in that? Is there a border to be found? Does a sound have a border where it starts or stops? Or are all relative properties that are attached to sound simply a conceptual overlay?
Its the same with thought. It happens. No separate thinker, No separate thought. Just thinking happening. No borders...
Look, the non-dual is not a special state that you could be in. Who would it be that is separate from it? If anything could be separate it would not be the non-dual anymore, would it?
Yes, when you are in deep sleep (or dead) this specific thought story of "you" will be no more - but this is just like the end of any story... what has a beginning also has an end. But the non-dual, absolute, is not like that :-)