Self Banishing Rituals

[deesee]

So, look to what surrounds you and see if you find any evidences that what you are writing here matches what is being experienced:

deesee wrote:
There are temporary psychological selves, that step into existence one into the shoes of the last.

Do these thoughts point to something that can be perceived - or are these thoughts only thoughts?

That was my analytical summary of my experience, so yes. I could have gone into specific detail; thought process A arose and passed, thought process B arose and passed, etc, and said that it was apparent that all thoughts were just thoughts, and most of them masqueraded as some aspect of "self", or narrative about "self" in past or future.

That is approximately what I tried to say, but I expressed it in a conceptual abstract that captured the lived experience.

If you could give an example of the format of response you were talking about, that might help. The way you gave an example in one of the first few posts was very helpful.

Obviously, that way of framing my experience is not unfamiliar to me, but communicating it "raw" without conceptual expression is very unfamiliar to me. I'm interested to try, I just don't "get it" fully yet. :)

Maybe this will be useful, it's from other guide:

How do you find out whether something exists or not when inquiring?

Can you see it? Hear it? Touch it /sense it in the body? Smell it or taste it?

If yes - it exists.

If not - what you are looking for doesn't exist. It is a fiction.

That's very good. Thought's do exist experientially. However, they are indeed fictional. It's tough to communicate this well in English. Everything that is experienced is real exactly as it is experienced. Nothing that is believed about experience is true.

[Canfora]

Obviously, that way of framing my experience is not unfamiliar to me, but communicating it "raw" without conceptual expression is very unfamiliar to me. I'm interested to try, I just don't "get it" fully yet. :)

Yes, it may need some practice :) We are so used to think about stuff instead of simply noticing what is happening now.

I also struggle with the difficulty to find the most accurate words to express what I want to, probably because it seems most things we say are already biased by the perspective we are coming from at the moment. And, like you so well say, we can't escape conceptualizing when we use words to describe. But we need to say something to communicate :)

It's interesting how you say that thoughts arise and pass as a process. The illusion of being a separate self can be described as a process. Some things that are happening now may make the self illusion appear to be real, the same way rain and sun can, in the "right" proportions, make a illusory rainbow appear to be real.

If you could give an example of the format of response you were talking about, that might help. The way you gave an example in one of the first few posts was very helpful.

I don't want to format your responses, they're okay as they are. This process can be seen like tuning a piano. I ask something and you say something in response and eventually we will resonate. Even if your responses don't match my way of seeing things to a tee, I will know that you are seeing with clarity what I'm guiding you to see, in your own way. I think you already have glimpses of what I'm pointing to, although you are overlaying a conceptual layer over it.

Right now, is there something going on that makes you believe you are a separate self?

If there isn't, can you try noticing when it appears that you are a separate self? What do you see going on at that moment?

I remember that one of the things that used to seem like a proof of the existence of a me, to me, was a contraction in the throat area that used to make me go into scary stories about what could happen to my health in an imaginary future.

Maybe you can notice some things like these that trigger the belief that a self must exist?

What I'm trying to do here is make you find out something that causes the illusion of being a self in your experience.

Let me know if you get stuck while trying to find what makes you think you are a separate self, a real you. It's necessary to take a step back from the illusion to see what is causing it, which can be difficult to do. We can follow other paths instead of this one, although they all take you to the same place, what is here now, as it is.

Take care,
S

[deesee]

Right now, is there something going on that makes you believe you are a separate self?

If there isn't, can you try noticing when it appears that you are a separate self? What do you see going on at that moment?

I remember that one of the things that used to seem like a proof of the existence of a me, to me, was a contraction in the throat area that used to make me go into scary stories about what could happen to my health in an imaginary future.

Maybe you can notice some things like these that trigger the belief that a self must exist?

What I'm trying to do here is make you find out something that causes the illusion of being a self in your experience.

Let me know if you get stuck while trying to find what makes you think you are a separate self, a real you. It's necessary to take a step back from the illusion to see what is causing it, which can be difficult to do. We can follow other paths instead of this one, although they all take you to the same place, what is here now, as it is.

Take care,
S

a) A lot of how the impression of a true identity is perpetuated is subtle or subconscious, in the form of prompt-like sensations and habits or tendencies.

There seems to be an ongoing network of sensation processes that all have the flavour of "self". The way the body feels moment to moment seems to be composed of self-identified sensations, each with their own identity traits.

Examples:

electric pulse sensation at back of ribs arises in perfect synchrony with thought of apparent possible future event.

A situation does not go as I wanted, and resentment arises along with narratives in the mind. I suddenly realise that the resentment is not real. It is just tension in the backs of my legs and a flush round my forehead and cheeks. The narratives also are just a viewpoint and not real.

b) The mind's games, once observed and cognized, are easier seen as source and perpetuater of the "true identity" delusion.

"Attack Thoughts" as described by A Course In Miracles are fairly obviously geared towards identification as "self". They always come with body-charge, the reality of which is transposed on to the thoughts as apparent "truth".

These thoughts may be of attacking the world, or of being attacked, and often arise as one dynamic archetype where the mind plays all the parts in a drama of attacker and victim.

Examples:

often in the day, there will arise a very sudden "surprise attack", where the mind floats a negative future scenario or consequence, potentially overwhelming the critical faculty.

harder to spot initially, are the more subtle manifestations of identity thoughts. There are regular aside narratives, like commentaries that include the separate self in the narrative. Obviously these narratives are presumably supposed to be pitched from this very "self" that is a character in the narrative.

then there is the identification with judgments and opinions. Right now, I heard a certain dialogue and reacted by mentaly criticising and then identifying with the judgement.

[Canfora]

Thank you for your post! I understand what you are saying about how sensations, thoughts, interpretation of what is going on and self-commentary add to the identification as a self.

A situation does not go as I wanted, and resentment arises along with narratives in the mind. I suddenly realise that the resentment is not real. It is just tension in the backs of my legs and a flush round my forehead and cheeks. The narratives also are just a viewpoint and not real.

I know it's impossible to use language without imply the existence of a subject and ownership but notice how you wrote "my legs" and "my forehead and cheeks" instead of "legs" and "forehead and cheeks".

If you look around, can you find something in your immediate experience that owns the body?

How would you answer these questions:

Is the body a self?

Is a self inside the body?

Looking forward to your reply,
S

[deesee]

I know it's impossible to use language without imply the existence of a subject and ownership but notice how you wrote "my legs" and "my forehead and cheeks" instead of "legs" and "forehead and cheeks".

If you look around, can you find something in your immediate experience that owns the body?

Nouns imply a continuity and limitations that may not be congruent with the lived experience of "body". There is nothing that could be said to "own" the body, but there is a constant process of usufruct. Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

The body is made of perceptions, beliefs, interpretations and patterns in process. When a cluster of thoughtforms and somatics are identified with, a "self" is generally projected, along with a map of reality including memories, what is thought to be happening, and expectations of what will happen.

How would you answer these questions:

Is the body a self?

The body is made of perceptions, beliefs, interpretations and patterns in process. When a cluster of thoughtforms and somatics are identified with, a "self" is generally projected, along with a map of reality including memories, what is thought to be happening, and expectations of what will happen.

Is a self inside the body?

The phenomenon of "self" appears to resolve to a mistaken view of how things exist, and ignorance of how things are experienced, backed-up by conditioned tendencies and aversions.

There appear to be common trans-personal archetypes that often arise as interpersonal dynamics, as well as various neuroses, vices, and traits; all of which tend to create strong self-identification. Are these inside a body?

"Inside" is just an idea. It implies conditions upon an experiential phenomenon that may obscure the observable from the mind.

[Canfora]

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

What do you mean by this? What is possessing what?

How does it feel to look for a self and not find one?

Has anything changed since we started this conversation?

[deesee]

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

What do you mean by this? What is possessing what?

I think Jung referred to them as archetypes. Similar to a sankara or vasana. All the self-identified fragments that arise and pass. Neither intention nor agenda need be postulated. The process invariably postulates a "self" into existence; that would be the "possession".

How does it feel to look for a self and not find one?

I've really been in a process of finding dozens of them, in various guises.

Has anything changed since we started this conversation?

"self" spotting capacity has increased and there is subsequently less tendency to get pooled into identification.

[Canfora]

Good morning, Donald!

I think Jung referred to them as archetypes. Similar to a sankara or vasana. All the self-identified fragments that arise and pass. Neither intention nor agenda need be postulated. The process invariably postulates a "self" into existence; that would be the "possession".

Can you please answer from your own experiential knowing instead of relying on Jung's or Buddhist ideas? This is not about what others think or said. It's about what you can see here now as it is.

I've really been in a process of finding dozens of them, in various guises.

And is any of them real?

"self" spotting capacity has increased and there is subsequently less tendency to get pooled into identification.

Does this mean that it is easier to observe what is going on while it is going on? Maybe identification as the witness or awareness is getting stronger? What can you see noticing this identification?

Take care,
S

[deesee]

Can you please answer from your own experiential knowing instead of relying on Jung's or Buddhist ideas? This is not about what others think or said. It's about what you can see here now as it is.

All the self-identified fragments that arise and pass.

And is any of them real?

All of them are real, but none of them are true.

Does this mean that it is easier to observe what is going on while it is going on? Maybe identification as the witness or awareness is getting stronger? What can you see noticing this identification?

Yes. The noticing appears to come from learning, from seeing how a magic trick works. When that trick plays out it is seen to be a trick.

The noticing, could be said to arise as part of experience manifesting, the same way as ignorance or anything else does.

[Canfora]

All of them are real, but none of them are true.

Please explain this to me like if I am 5 years old.
What makes you say there are many real selves and what makes you say none of them are true?

[deesee]

All of them are real, but none of them are true.

Please explain this to me like if I am 5 years old.
What makes you say there are many real selves and what makes you say none of them are true?

In a previous response to your colleagues pointing, I raised the point; everything that arises as experience is real exactly as it arises.

However, experience can be deconstructed and thereby noticed to be lacking in truth or inherent meaning.

The phenomena themselves are real, but they are empty in truth.

What we believe may not be true, but that belief exists as an idea that may have physiological and behavioural partners.

That's why experience is so very convincing; it's always made entirely of reality.

[Canfora]

That's a way of explaining things that matches my ideas about what is labeled as reality. At the same time it is only a way of explaining what reality is or isn't, isn't it? There are many ways of explaining what reality is or isn't. The goal here is to look at reality and really see it. Theories, ideas, explanations aren't needed to see what is here as it is and they keep you stuck in a conceptual view. You don't need a map to see the landscape.

Drop any ideas and look to what is here with fresh eyes. Be curious! See what is here as it is - not as thoughts tell you it is.

You know Santa Claus isn't real without having to think about it. How about Donald? Is Donald a real entity? Have a look. Can you find a you? If you think you can, describe this you, like you would describe a pen.

[deesee]

That's a way of explaining things that matches my ideas about what is labeled as reality. At the same time it is only a way of explaining what reality is or isn't, isn't it? There are many ways of explaining what reality is or isn't. The goal here is to look at reality and really see it. Theories, ideas, explanations aren't needed to see what is here as it is and they keep you stuck in a conceptual view. You don't need a map to see the landscape.

Drop any ideas and look to what is here with fresh eyes. Be curious! See what is here as it is - not as thoughts tell you it is.

You know Santa Claus isn't real without having to think about it. How about Donald? Is Donald a real entity? Have a look. Can you find a you? If you think you can, describe this you, like you would describe a pen.

"Donald" is a faint tension across the forehead, and running idea-processes of what "Donald" is in the form of stories and identifications.

There is identification with a mirrored sensation of density above the kidneys, to which are attached various narratives and ideas about "Donald" in relation to "the world".

"Donald" is a thought-cluster that suddenly arises that appears to decide that examples of specific thoughts are expected.

A story about "Donald" going to Costa Rica.

"Donald" reviews what he has written and appears to decide that further examples are needed.

"Donald" is also habitual patterns of behaviour.

"Donald" glances at tab-bar and notices Facebook.

There is an urge to open the Facebook tab.

This is identified with as a "trait" of "Donald".

There is a "thought-storm" of things that could all be subjects that might be thought about by "Donald".

Thoughts about thoughts in torrent.

These "selves" are real experientially, but may be noticed to be constructs, without inherent objective meaning or validity or emotional charge.

[Canfora]

These "selves" are real experientially

You can imagine everything you want. Are imaginary unicorns real experientially? Is the imaginary self that appears as a body doing stuff in the thoughts realm real?

It seems you have looked and found thoughts about a self and identification with a self. What is experiencing this identification? What is thinking the self-thoughts? Can you see a self that identifies as a self? Or that is thinking thoughts? Are those self's real?

[deesee]

You can imagine everything you want. Are imaginary unicorns real experientially? Is the imaginary self that appears as a body doing stuff in the thoughts realm real?

Yes, in the sense that everything is exactly what it is. All experience is real, exactly as it is experienced. Using the word "real" as a substitute for "true" or "meaningful" is common, but encourages much confusion, including the belief that actual experience is not real.

The experience is real, but it obscures the way in which things exist to apply the concept "real" to mentally abstracted phenomenon. I would be disinclined to use the negation "not-real" in regard to the "self" for the same reason.

The conceptualisation and evaluation parts of the experience can appear to modify themselves in order that the understanding that experience is a construct with no inherent meanings or true individual identity existent is noted more often.

It seems you have looked and found thoughts about a self and identification with a self. What is experiencing this identification? What is thinking the self-thoughts? Can you see a self that identifies as a self? Or that is thinking thoughts? Are those self's real?

Those thoughts are their own things. Exactly what they are is what they are. Thoughts about a self from first person to third person.

The conceptual experience of a separate perceiver sometimes arises as part of the total experience, or there may be comparatively stronger identification with thoughts which seem to point to other thoughts not being a true individual permanent "self".