vince

[vinceschubert]

Do I exist ?
Obviously it can't happen that every new person spoken to gets an explanation that they see 'themselves' differently to how this person relates to self, so a convention of language will continue.
When typing a lower case i indicates no identification with Ego (capital I)
I (Ego) exists for sake of daily navigation. Identification as who i am does not.
It is clearly seen how I was a construct, a concept, and how it came about.

What is the self and how does it work?
Hmm, i imagine that 'self' and 'I' are synonymous, so "what is self" answered above.
"How it works" is that Ego, constantly masturbating, lays claim to ownership of any thought that bolsters it in any way and rejects by way of projection any thought that might diminish it.
It is clearly seen that everything that people do is for the purpose of feeling better.

How would you describe this to a friend who has never heard of this before?
In the past I would take any opportunity to expound the virtues of 'spirituality' to anybody that would listen (or mostly was a captive audience)
This friend would have to show some interest or at least be suffering in some way that might create an opportunity for interest.
Firstly, i would describe the end of suffering for me. (explain the difference between pain and suffering)
i might lead them, as gently as possible, to see that what they took to be themselves is a mental concept and that there is a feeling component to freedom from that obsession.
i would explain that the brain being conditioned will almost certainly mean that habit for old ways may well continue, but that it will taper off as realisations occur about how it all works.


What was that last push?
There was no flash of recognition, so it is hard to say.
A recent significant moment was when Skyping Eric Gross http://liberationfromthelie.com and he told me to "trust" (the actual converstion is somewhat vague now even though it occurred only two weeks ago)
That coupled with a blog entry of his on scratching the itch (see my take on it witha reference back to his post here, http://vince-wisingup.blogspot.com/2011 ... ng-to.html

How does it feel to be liberated?
There is no certain knowledge that it has occurred.
There is however a subtle feeling of freedom (from the illusion of a identifiable me)
It is centred around the sternum area and when focused on elicits a definite sensation in the head which i would describe as an altered state of consciousness.
It feels good to see anger/frustration reactions fade almost instantly with a chuckle. This feeling is a result of a thought about achievement/success/progress.

Is there a separate entity at all in real life?
No, not separate, no entity.

Was there ever?
Only in mind.

tell me what is real?
Don't know.
i can only behave as if certain things are real for the sake of navigating through daily life.
i don't even know if all this isn't happening in a dream and i will dream that i woke up only to wake up and realise that i was dreaming that i woke up and dreamed that i woke up.
For the sake of daily life, just to separate concepts from descriptions will suffice.
(see this blog post http://vince-wisingup.blogspot.com/2011 ... sited.html

[Ilona]

Hi Vince,
Pleasure to have you here.
All seems pretty clear, but what is that with Ego, does it really exist? can you expand on that please.

[vinceschubert]

but what is that with Ego, does it really exist? can you expand on that please.

The Ego is now seen for what it is, a collection of thoughts/memories that produces other thoughts which attract judgments (more thoughts) about the worth of an idea called self.
It's a label for a concept.
It exists as much as any concept can exist. That is it is maintained by thought.
When thought stops, Ego stops.
i also use the term ego for those useful thoughts (mostly 'unconscious') that take care of things like tying shoelaces or nose blowing - daily living stuff that doesn't require attention.

[vinceschubert]

Has 'it' happened ??
Sometime over the last two days something has changed for me.
It is subtle, but very definitely a shift in thinking/feeling has occurred.
i hesitate to call it Enlightenment as that claim seems too preposterous.
i have lived with the belief that those enlightened beings definitely know that it has happened for them.
i don't know!
i guess it doesn't actually matter, as this new 'state' is one of being very involved in actual experience with only occasional thought about the past or future. Recognising them as just thoughts. No attachment.
Recognition that i expected a sonic boom as i sailed through the gate-less gate exists. That certainty would exist. That i would be able to pontificate with authority. That i would know how things work. That i would recognise Oneness. All these things have fallen away.
Now i realise what others have said about the 'ordinariness' of it.
While i wouldn't describe it as ordinary, the extraordinary-ness is subtle.
There is a tolerance, hmm, an acceptance of everything as OK. Amusement at accidents, even recognition of value in them. Knowing the rightness of the phrase "everything is as it should be"
Thoughts that it might be temporary, that it is yet to be really tested, keep occurring, but without any vigour.
There is a sense that it might be better to keep it secret from family and friends as i imagine that 'proof' will be sought. Though it might be fear that their reaction might threaten what seems a fragile thing.
These of course, are just thoughts. As someone i read recently almost said, "Once you know Santa is your parents", you can never again believe he is more than a concept. So how could i ever again believe I is more than a concept ? Still, there is a sense of possessiveness present.

[Ilona]

The shift is very subtle, you may not notice it, for others it's quite intense. everyone is going through unique experience. But there is certainty that it happened.

I understand what you say about ego, but there is no need for ego to be involved in shoe lace scene. It's the brain that collects data about environment, makes decision and action follows. There is no need for a fictional character to take care of business. All works like an itch and a scratch. Is there an ego in there?

Can you look at vince as a character and tell us what you see. How does a character operate? What mechanism drives it?

[vinceschubert]

Can you look at vince as a character and tell us what you see. How does a character operate?
There are qualities distinctive to an individual mind/body, but they are not "in there". They occur because of the conditioning and experience that has happened.
There used to be a part played by an actor attempting to be Vince. Now there is no need to be Vince. There is just what occurs.
What mechanism drives it?
Reaction. Reaction to external stimuli. Reaction to thoughts that occur. Reaction to feelings (stimulated by thought)

Hmm, i get your point about ego. Even though i was using it as a convenient label for a collection of certain thoughts, it does start to look like a description of an entity, but i wasn't giving it existence as anything separate. Certainly better to drop it even as a description.

[Ilona]

Cool, yes, no need to use the entry labels. That only creates confusion.

Tell me is there any doubt at all that there are no separate beings?

[vinceschubert]

Absolutely 100% belief that there are no separate beings.

There is an issue that may be better handled in aftercare, but will voice it here as impatience exists.
Actually two issues.
Physical health. i have a dermatitis that comes and goes seemingly without reason. i have believed it to be psychologically caused. The day before yesterday it started to rapidly heal and i was able to stop treatment (steroid ointment & moisturiser) and it continued to heal beautifully.
Yesterday (as i impatiently waited for your response) it started to decline again.
Couple this with issue 2.
Overeating. Last night an old habit reoccurred. Awareness completely disappeared and i gorged without realising what i had done until at bedtime i became aware of a distended stomach. This is something that used to happen frequently but hadn't for some time, until last night.
Ok, as i type the answer appears. Both are the result of brain conditioning and the quality of persistance in that (habit), no doubt triggered by thought that was lost in inattention.
It brought to light (again) the expectations held about 'Enlightenment' which also seem to have some persistance.
Thank you Ilona

[Ilona]

Belief? Hmm, we are not talking about 100% belief here. Way past that.
Is it just a word you use, or you still take it as a belief?

Tell me, vince, what is that you know 100%. Not believe, but really know.
Complete honesty please.

[vinceschubert]

It was honesty that made me use the word belief.
The only thing i know is that i can't know anything.
If i say i know, it is just words meaning that i believe with certainty, which i do.
So honestly, with all the investigation that i have brought to this issue, i still can't say i know.
This belief is not a belief in the usual sense of the word. There is nothing beyond it.
One of the ideas i had about Enlightenment was that when it happened i would know. Recently i saw that as just thoughts.
To give you a bit of background for these ideas about belief and knowing, consider this.
i once woke up in the morning, rose and dressed for school, then my mother woke me up to go to school.
Considering this, i can't even know that i am not dreaming now as i type this. (i do believe i am awake)
So the statement above that i can only know that i can't know anything is only a belief.
If my previous idea that Enlightenment (beyond where i am now) will bring certain knowledge is actuality, then i am yet to experience it.
If this means that i haven't yet passed through the gate, i feel both disappointment and relief. Disappointment that it hasn't happened and relief that this ordinariness may yet yield some kind of sonic boom... Which of course are just thoughts in an attempt to feel better.
Ok, how do i know that i know ?

[Ilona]

Tell me, does knowing require a knower? Is there somebody that knows and believes?

How does that work?

[vinceschubert]

Write this down.
There is no self at all in reality. No me that lives my life.
Watch, wait, notice, write- what comes up?
i am at ease with this. i see clearly that there is only a concept of I/me
Is there fear?
No fear. In fact there is exhilaration, an excitement about adventure.
Is there doubt?
No doubts. i can't see how it could be different.
Resistance?
See fear (above)
Frustration?
Yes, some frustration, but see the hollowness of this. i can see how it is the result of thoughts about how i used to imagine Enlightenment would be, specifically how certainty would exist.
Something that wants to scream and make a turn away, something that says this is not working?
Thoughts that i may not be 'there' certainly exist, but are seen as just thoughts that are a hangover from old ideas.
Or maybe there is wow, joy, relief?
No, ordinariness prevails.
Notice all that is going on inside and just put it down in writing.
What is going on is a subtle sense of release. A seeing that the old identification with an I was responsible the illusion/story that causes all of the suffering in the world.

Strip away all expectations.
What do you expect that liberation is going to be like?
Expectation have changed as of two weeks ago. No more expectations of a sonic boom.
i guess this is not answering the question. What do i expect ?
i expect a progression, a deepening into a state where brain conditioning will fade resulting in habitual, ritualistic thoughts decreasing.
What do you want from it?
There is no I/you to want anything and no 'it' to deliver anything.
How do you imagine a liberated human behaves?
They would be as varied as their conditioning/experiences.
What should it be like?
i'm tempted to say that this is a stupid question that doesn't deserve consideration, but will see where it takes me.
It should be what it will be.

[vinceschubert]

Tell me, does knowing require a knower? Is there somebody that knows and believes?
logically speaking knowing can only happen to a knower, but as there is no-one (there is a body but whether it can have knowing is another story - grin) no-one to do the knowing and believing, all that can be said is that knowing or believing just happens - if it does.
How does that work?
Hah! this question just triggered something from my waffle about not being able to know anything.
When writing that i was focusing on absolute knowledge and the Aha that just occurred was 'who' can't know anything for sure. Of course! it's inane, it's a non issue, there is no-one to know.
So to answer your question of a couple of posts ago...
seeing that there is no i has happened. There is no seeing of knowing or believing.

There is some apology for being so difficult with this, but honesty prevails.

[Ilona]

How about there is seeing, there is knowing, there is believing, there are thoughts and feelings, sensations, experience, only there is no you to which it is happening. it's still happening, but it does not require an experiencer, as experience, experienced and eperiencer is one act, one event.
is this true?

does life need a liv-er?

[vinceschubert]

There is just happening.
call it life-ing, or whatever. These are just conventions of language (sometimes a new word) in an attempt to describe the qualities of the happening.
If you insist on trying to define the experiencer you can only end up describing more happenings.
Seen + Seer = Seeing. To try and separate Seeing into subject and object destroys it, which is impossible.
Life-er + Lived = Life-ing. This is just language. Life-ing is just the convenient label for a collection of happenings.
There is just happenings.