Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

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?

I like the analogy, and obviously, knowing that the mirage is an optical illusion will not make it real. If I were to extend the analogy, I'd say that I logically understand the mirage isn't real and yet somehow am hypnotised and drawn to it, on some level still believing it is real in spite of everything I know.

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..?

Even though I know you are limited to the duality of language and this is not what you meant, my "I" logic grabs on to the words "You experience nothing else but the non-dual" and says "Ha! so how can the non-dual be experienced if there is no experiencer?" and of course, I don't expect any answer to satisfy my "I" story because, as the saying goes - it can't find any solutions because it is itself the problem...
Yes, thought tells me that I'm alive and duality is instantly and automatically derived from this thought. It happens so fast that it's very hard to see things before they are split into the experiencer and the experienced, so that getting to see effortless non-dual existence seems to require a lot of effort in the illusion of duality...

If anything could be separate it would not be the non-dual anymore, would it?

Existence without the experience of existence is beyond anything accessible to me (or rather the "me" story), and by the same token, experience without an experiencer, as they define each other - like good and bad or black and white. Basically, what I'm saying is that non-dual existence for me is indistinguishable from non existence. So I gather this "me" can't participate in seeing non-duality and therefore I try (I'm aware of the irony of a story trying to see it is a story...) to see it for what it is, but feel that the only available tool at my disposal is completely incapable of breaking free of the story. Something will eventually have to give, and hopefully it will happen before this story is forced shut... :-)

[Alexw]

If I were to extend the analogy, I'd say that I logically understand the mirage isn't real and yet somehow am hypnotised and drawn to it, on some level still believing it is real in spite of everything I know.

I wouldn't worry about this too much - it is pretty normal to fade in and out of clear seeing. This is so as "clear seeing" can only be defined as "clear seeing" using thought, and as we know by now, you don't control thought, so how could there be knowingly clear seeing all the time? I had a very nice discussion with Joan Tollifson about this very topic and she said: "...when I confessed once to a certain teacher, whom I regarded as a great enlightened being, that I am in delusion most of the time, that teacher smiled a huge smile and said, “Me too! Isn’t it wonderful?” Shunryu Suzuki described the life of a Zen Master as “one continuous mistake.” Zen teacher Elihu Genmyo Smith writes that, “"Mistake after mistake is the perfect way.""
Maybe this puts your idea of perfect, continuous self-knowing in a different light?

"Ha! so how can the non-dual be experienced if there is no experiencer?"

Sounds illogical, right? But only because you have been brought up with this kind of logic that you now believe in. If you would have been told from day dot that there is only experiencing happening, no you experiencing anything that is separate from this you, how would your idea of there being a separate subject experiencing separate objects sound like? Pretty weird, right?
When you look at direct experience, which one is true(er):
1) I am a separate subject that is in control of perceiving objects that exist in a separate and independent fashion.
2) All there is is perceiving (including thinking) happening. There is no separate perceiver to be found and no separate objects can be found either.

and by the same token, experience without an experiencer, as they define each other

They define each other only in the logic that you apply, not in this direct experience. This experience doesn't know anything about definitions or dependencies. It simply is. As soon as you ask questions about it, you "destroy" it.

So I gather this "me" can't participate in seeing non-duality

What exactly is this "me" that should do this seeing or participating?
Even if you define the "me" not as a separate entity but as this knowledge that you seem to have, even then all that could potentially happen is that some more knowledge is acquired saying that the non-dual is like this or that... It will NEVER work as there is no this or that in the non-dual... Is there a this or that in direct experience? Is there a this or that in pure hearing? Sit down and listen and write down the This and the That, are there any This/Thats outside of your concepts about hearing?

[placebo8]

Maybe this puts your idea of perfect, continuous self-knowing in a different light?

That's very interesting and does make me reassess my expectations. It also brings up the question of the difference between a Zen master living "mistake after mistake" and average Joe living mistake after mistake.

When you look at direct experience, which one is true(er):
1) I am a separate subject that is in control of perceiving objects that exist in a separate and independent fashion.
2) All there is is perceiving (including thinking) happening. There is no separate perceiver to be found and no separate objects can be found either.

That depends who you're asking :-) If you're asking a false entity, you'll get a false answer. Someone tells me they're in pain. I think, "Hey, I don't feel anything - this obviously means I'm separate from them". But of course, without a belief that there's someone here to which the pain or no pain is happening to, no such conclusion would be reached because there would be no one to reach it. "I don't feel anything - this obviously means I'm separate from them" is yet another thought happening to no one.
As I mentioned earlier, while writing this, it seems obvious that things have to be this way, and yet there's this expectation - it's like realisation itself becomes conceptualised and automatically slips away. I understand that what is happening is that the "I" thought wants in on the fun but it can't be admitted to the club because by it's very existence it has excluded itself from the club (well, to be more accurate, nothing can exclude the club, but something can believe it is excluded and as long as I'm here, I'm stuck in this belief).

As soon as you ask questions about it, you "destroy" it.

I understand this only too well... :-)

Sit down and listen and write down the This and the That, are there any This/Thats outside of your concepts about hearing?

It goes something like this. I listen. There's the sound of the fan spinning. I think about what this sound is apart from my experience of it. No answer comes up. Then a thought appears "hey, if I fall asleep now there will be no experience of the sound, but I know that the experience will still exist for whoever is not asleep". Another thought pops up "There will be no experience for anyone who is not asleep as there is no one there - only experience happening" - on and on it goes... I find it difficult to eliminate the expectations. There's another thought "I feel so close, I can almost taste it!" followed by another thought "if you think there's anyone here to taste anything, then it's just another delusion" all the time with an intellectual understanding that these and those that follow are just more thoughts floating belonging to no one, and yet in the background some irrational belief shouts "come on, it looks exactly like Santa - it has to be real!"

On a different (well, actually not different) topic, just wanted share another insight (again, no accompanying fireworks, auras or floating angels - just a fleeting glimpse of understanding) - it occurred to me that the whole debate of whether ultimate reality or "God" is personal or non personal is based on an assumption that "personal" and "non personal" are two different things, when in fact reality is simultaneously the most impersonal and the most personal thing there can be (which is also a misleading statement as it implies there could be anything else)

Anyway, expectations are still blocking the seeing - which is quite funny actually since I'm now expecting the expectations to stop :-)

[Alexw]

This was a great post. Good to see that you take it with some humour and less serious :-)
A very good sign!

That depends who you're asking :-) If you're asking a false entity, you'll get a false answer. Someone tells me they're in pain. I think, "Hey, I don't feel anything - this obviously means I'm separate from them"

When I was asking you to look at direct experience to see which one is true(er), I really meant for you to sit down and simply look. Not think about how it might be when pain arises, but rather how it is right now, this very moment.
In this case it shouldn't matter who I am asking. It will rather depend on being brutally honesty in your inquiry and on putting aside all hopes and expectations of how things should be – otherwise one will always color what is being found in a certain way. It’s like asking a question with the potential answer already in mind. Your inquiry will go a certain, predetermined path, but it won’t flow direction-less which is the only path to truth.
So, please, can you do the simple exercise, lock away your logic for a little while, not just think about it, but just look/be/live this very moment :-)

it occurred to me that the whole debate of whether ultimate reality or "God" is personal or non personal is based on an assumption that "personal" and "non personal" are two different things, when in fact reality is simultaneously the most impersonal and the most personal thing there can be

Yes, nicely put.
All we do with this ruminating about how things are or should be is inventing stories, new concepts are created and beliefs are being constructed. Its all good, but its not more than a story - in a way its all story, so no harm done as long as it is seen that this is so and no absolute truth will be ever told in any story.

[placebo8]

So, please, can you do the simple exercise, lock away your logic for a little while, not just think about it, but just look/be/live this very moment :-)

Simple exercise? I felt that you might as well have asked me to try and fly :-) I sat for around 30 minutes, at first trying to rid my mind of any thought, then just noticing experiences and thoughts as they occurred, without expecting anything (at least not consciously) . While not unpleasant, my only insight is that this exercise has a tendency to make me drowsy and fall asleep. I could ask someone to stand behind me and hit me with a stick when I start to nod off, but doubt that will help the inquiry much. Seriously though, this "I" belief takes over most of the time. Perhaps it's a matter of more practice to undo the combination of being such a good subject for conditioning together with a tendency to get caught up in events.

As much as I try to be brutally honest in everything I do, my conclusion is that there's obviously some self deception going on, which perpetuates the illusion. Hopefully it will be spotted.

[Alexw]

Simple exercise? I felt that you might as well have asked me to try and fly :-) I sat for around 30 minutes, at first trying to rid my mind of any thought, then just noticing experiences and thoughts as they occurred, without expecting anything (at least not consciously) . While not unpleasant, my only insight is that this exercise has a tendency to make me drowsy and fall asleep

Well, what can be more simple than to just sit, be and observe..?
You don't have to try to rid your mind of thought, it won't work anyway. It will quieten down after a little while anyway - just don't pay more attention to thought than you do to sound or smell or sensations. Be like a neutral umpire at a soccer game (if that exists at all) There are two teams, 11 people each on the field and your attention will wander from one to the next, thought commentary will arise, but don't follow it, just keep your attention on the movements.
You can do this just as well by looking outside the window or sitting in a park, the forest or a busy road. Just watch, observe...
Some ideas on how to look:
Do you control where the focus of attention moves... or does it move freely from vision, to sound, to thought... Are you part of this happening or are you separate? Is this scene something that you control? Or does it flow like a little river would flow.. People walking around cars or other people, you sitting where you sit... do you control any of the things that happen out there - or even "in here"? Did you decide to sit down where you sit? Did you decide to look at what you are looking at right now?
What made you look at the car that is just driving past? Did you decide to look? If the car wouldn't have been there, would you still have looked in this direction? Why was the car there? Did anyone decide to put it there just right now? Could it have been another colour? Who decided to paint it red?

Isn't any moment, every experience a combination of the whole universe unfolding to get to exactly this moment, and the next, and the next? Is any part of this unfolding presence outside of the interconnected flow of life? Are you?

Maybe this kind of inquiry will keep you from dosing off :-)

[placebo8]

Well, what can be more simple than to just sit, be and observe..?

You forgot to add "and see that none of it is happening to you". That takes the level of difficulty up a few notches... :-)

Thank you for the ideas regarding the inquiry. I'll reread them a few times and strive to make them a habit during my waking hours, and report what is seen according to the guidelines you suggested. I understand your questions and feel I already know the answers beforehand, but there's still a "me" answering them, so it's not there just yet.

I was also wondering if perhaps I'm not that predisposed to "seeing", or more accurately, have more of a tendency to get lost in illusion which makes seeing more difficult. I mean, daydreaming and getting lost in stories is something I've always excelled in, let alone the embarrassing fact that I can get mesmerised by anything happening on a TV screen, no matter how idiotic the program is (which is one reason why I never turn the TV on...) If I find it difficult to break the spell of an idiotic TV program, doesn't it suggest that it's going to be quite a challenge to break the spell of the illusion of a "me"?

[Alexw]

I understand your questions and feel I already know the answers beforehand, but there's still a "me" answering them, so it's not there just yet

How is this "me" doing that? How is it answering?
Aren't the answers that you already know beforehand simply a thought, based on some acquired knowledge, that just popped up when reading my questions? Did it require a "me" to collect these answers (from some sort of memory-database?) and then think them?
Yes, sure there are answers popping up, and questions, and doubts about their validity, and ideas about a me that does the answering... but aren't these all just thoughts that happened simply because you read what I have been writing?

Also, have a look at the pre-formulated ideas of what the answer should be like, about how "getting it" would feel like. How you would change once you got it...
Why would you change if there is no such thing as a separate you at all? How could you lose/drop something if you never carried it in the first place?
Wouldn't the only thing that really changes be the knowledge that these are just thought processes happening, thoughts about a me getting it or not getting it, thoughts controlled by no one, happening to no one..?

[placebo8]

Wouldn't the only thing that really changes be the knowledge that these are just thought processes happening, thoughts about a me getting it or not getting it, thoughts controlled by no one, happening to no one..?

I appears that no matter how this question is contemplated, it will be filtered through thought bringing up more questions such as "where does this knowledge exist?" and "isn't it just more thought"? Also, as I think I've already mentioned before, from inside the dualistic thinking, there's an obvious "before realisation" and "after realisation". There's a point in time (again, within a dualistic belief system) where before that point a body/mind believed in a separate self, and after that point the belief was gone (it's not always so clear cut / black and white, but that's the general idea). So while I know that I won't get it, because an illusion can't "get" anything, there's an expectation by this "I" for something to happen even though the "I" won't participate in this event.

I don't want to write too much because I first want to practice the exercise you suggested, noting the ideas you suggested. One thing that seems puzzling is that it seems whatever I'll notice will only happen after the fact and also just bring up more thought. So the change of attention will be noticed, for example: "Hey, I just realised that anger popped up about that guy on the road cutting in, followed by a thought of being late to the office, followed by a feeling of anxiety about whether I'm pursuing the right business model at work". Now noticing this did not change the fact that while it was detected after the event occurred, there was an illusion of "I am angry" and "I am anxious" before that, and what's just as incorrect is the illusion of "I am observing my thoughts" that follows, which of course is not what is really happening.

I recall that in one of the previous answers you mentioned that doing this still works (in terms of eventually seeing things happen without happening to anyone) in spite of the fact that it seems now to all return to the "I" thought, so instead of regurgitating the same questions, I'll stick to doing the work...

Thanks again for your patience - while it lasts :-)

[Alexw]

Yes, good idea - "stick to doing the work..." - and lets talk again when you had some time playing around with the suggestions I posted a few days ago.

[placebo8]

Fair enough, work has begun... :-)

Will report when there's something to report

Thanks,
Amnon

[Alexw]

ok, take your time - and be perfectly honest with "yourself" - when thought has a logical solution about something, see if this is also reflected in direct experience etc etc... good luck!

[Alexw]

Hi Amnon, how are you doing?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[placebo8]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for following up.

I don't have any new realisation to report and didn't want to bother you with descriptions of the same old beliefs.

Hopefully I'll keep remembering to watch the thoughts instead of believing I am the thoughts and thereby eventually see them for what they are. For the time being, it's either that I'm so involved in thought that I don't notice I'm thinking or catch myself thinking and then intellectually understanding "ah yes, there was a thought now, and this is another thought about that thought and they all just happen".

An interesting analogy that occurred to me with regards to "who makes things happen": There's an exercise where you take a stick and place the index finger of each hand on the two endpoints of the stick, and then try to make your fingers meet at the point where the left and right side of the stick are balanced by moving them slowly one towards the other. The funny thing is that they will always meet at that point, and there is nothing that "you" are doing that makes it succeed.

Still, belief in the "I" is very much there and with it the belief that I'm not any closer to being free from worries about the future or suffering in general. It's very easy to fall back into belief in this self-sustaining pattern so I don't expect it to dissipate any time soon. I think more is required - perhaps setting up constant reminders, or putting aside more time dedicated to looking. While it may be true that everything just happens, as long as there's a belief in a "me" it seems that realisation will only happen if this "me" puts more effort in making it happen.

Hope to someday be able to repay your patience and generosity, hopefully by at least doing the same in the future for some lost "me" stuck in the same situation I'm finding myself in now :-)

[Alexw]

Hi Amnon, when watching of thoughts happens, do "you" watch these thoughts, or is watching simply happening?

There is a clear distinction between pure watching (being aware) and thinking about thought... When you listen to sound or pay attention to physical sensations there is pure experiencing happening. Yes, there might be thoughts stating this or that about the experience, but let's not worry about them. When thought states "I feel my feet tingling " then simply perceive the tingling.. Thought labels this sensation, fine, but there is also the pure sensation... Can this sensation really be confined by any border? Does it really belong to someone? Isn't it simply life showing up as this specific form? Changing and moving, never the same...

See if you can watch thoughts in the same way as you watch sensations. With clear awareness, without identification... I know this will not work 24x7, but this is also not necessary to realize how pure presence, pure experiencing works. Use this aware presence to investigate... What is there and what is just a belief?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk