All your experiences are but a manifestation of mind.

[Lin]

Hi Ratnapani
First there was this thin and fragile notion of 'there is just awareness' that I wrote a very late night. That slipped away and I entangled myself in a lot of concepts and totally forgot about 'experience' and got very logical. In one of your questions there was this notion of 'big depth' that I couldn't get my head around. Now, I believe that I have finally got it a little bit. I asked myself, how does Inside/outside feels/knows/experience. Are these concepts really a part of my experience
- in the experience of -is there an inside? I would answer no, inside is just a concept. There are just sensations.

Let me try again as you suggested yesterday.

After the exercises I will comment some of your questions.

Body excersise again:
How many toes do you have?
I dont' know. Toes are a concept and there is noting in my experience that explicitly says toes and noting that says that there are a number. What I sense is also a language-concept, but warmth, tingling, some vibrations and so on.

Can it be known how tall the body is?
No, there is just experience of sensations.

Does the body have a weight or volume?
No, there is nothing in the experience that actually says that this is weight and that is volume. It is just sensations.

What is your gender?
Nothing, tells me about gender.

In your first-hand experience, does the body have a shape or a form?
Shape or form are also concepts and doesn't have anything with experience to do.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
No, here again boundary is a concept and there is noting that explicitly says boundary in my experience.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
No, i just experience 'pressure' (not even that but there is no other word to use 'pressure' is also a concept)

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
Inside and outside are also concepts and there is nothing in the experience that says inside or outside.
Inside of what?
I don't know.

If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?
see above. I just experience sensations and there are no concepts attached to them.

Can any ‘I’ or ‘me be found in the body?
no the 'I' is also a concept. There is no sensations in the body that says this is the feeling of an 'I'.

What does the word/label ‘body’ actually refer to?
this human form as a separate entity with its 'skin' as a boundary, dead or alive. But as you wright, it is just a word and a label. dead or alive are different concepts/labels for a states.

What is the actual experience of the body?
the actual experience is beyond words. but certain sensations can be labeled as follows:
pulsating, tingeing, heaviness, darkness, itching, aching, a bit burning, heart-beating, warmth, pricking, contraction, release, vibrations...

This is actually the emptiness of the conceptual world, isn't it? there was a lot of them concepts that I had to pass before I came here. This feels fragile but healthy <3

No to your questions:

You assume there was some kind of choice but you didn't see a Lin making one.

yes I assume there was a kind of choice but I didn't see a Lin making one. I couldn't really experience it.

we think that we are making choices, don't we? not as an 'I' entity but as a process.
Do you in fact still think that 'you' make choices because you haven't seen that a Linness wasn't necessary for the events to occur? The idea of 'just a process' is still an idea. Even if a true one !

there is two parts here. the first one is language. 'We' human beings 'thinks' 'we' 'make' 'choices'....
the second part: no, it is really a process that happens. without all the concepts of it.

There are impulses, but I don't have to follow them, even if they are strong.
And does that prove there is a me/myself that 'chooses' not to follow them?
Could it be just conditionings and memory and thoughts arising?
Do you feel that if there was no one fixed in the driving seat then everything would be just random ?

No that doesn't prove anything of a me or choices happening.
Yes I guess conditions and memory and thoughts are part of that process ( even if those also are labels and concepts)
some years ago I wouldn't even question if there wan't anything but a fixed self. Of cores it was! it was the control in it self that was hard to let go of. like fear..there seams to be nothing behind fear the fear is the monster so to speak. the same ting with control and fixed selves. there is just sensations of all kinds of labels.

If there is intention to do or say something and if I follow that kind of impulse, I guess that is what is called volitional action. Processes are happening and some of them the consciousness become aware of.
Certainly but where is anything 'fixed' in that ? Do these events need a 'self' in order to happen ?

Did I mention a fixed self ;)

But look at your experience, is there an actual 'me' in the middle of impulse, volition and so on.

No there isn't an actual 'me' anywhere. but this is really a fragile and purely new experience.

all the best
Lin

[ratnapani]

Hi Lin,
It seems the exercise has had the desired effect ! Distinguishing what your actually experience from any thoughts or assumptions.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
No, i just experience 'pressure' (not even that but there is no other word to use 'pressure' is also a concept)

If you experience pressure or sensation I think we can go with that, we have to use words and needn't worry that they contain concepts. A boundary would be a concept obscuring direct experience, those are the ones you are seeing through.

This is actually the emptiness of the conceptual world, isn't it?

Ermm - how about one step at a time, the 'emptiness' of 'you' ?

This feels fragile but healthy <3

Is that the illusion of 'me' that feels fragile ?

no, it is really a process that happens. without all the concepts of it.

Did you actually see that, a process or whatever without a me in the middle?

I know this next bit answers my questions but keep looking at experience, you can't do too much of that.

No there isn't an actual 'me' anywhere. but this is really a fragile and purely new experience.

Nice, that really doesn't sound like theory!
I can understand new but would you like to tell me about 'fragile' ?

Best Wishes,
Ratnapani.

[Lin]

Hi Ratnapani

This is actually the emptiness of the conceptual world, isn't it?
Ermm - how about one step at a time, the 'emptiness' of 'you' ?

ok, then. one step at the time :)

This feels fragile but healthy <3
Is that the illusion of 'me' that feels fragile ?

oh no the me doesn't feel fragile at all. on the contrary.

no, it is really a process that happens. without all the concepts of it.
Did you actually see that, a process or whatever without a me in the middle?

yes and no it was of cores not at process that actually led to a result. but a lot of different sensations.

No there isn't an actual 'me' anywhere. but this is really a fragile and purely new experience.
Nice, that really doesn't sound like theory!
I can understand new but would you like to tell me about 'fragile' ?

Yes, it is fragile because it is new and almost like walking on frozen crust on the snow. You never know when to fall through. You might fall back into old habitual ways of thinking. I don't want that. My mind went back and forth for a while before I actually got it, and the thought actually stayed with me and it could be applied on other concepts as well and still be true. you catch it and don't want it to slip through. If I breathe, it might disappear. I know it won't.
all the best
Lin

[ratnapani]

Hi Lin,

This feels fragile but healthy <3
Is that the illusion of 'me' that feels fragile ?
oh no the me doesn't feel fragile at all. on the contrary.

What 'me' is that ?

You might fall back into old habitual ways of thinking. I don't want that. My mind went back and forth for a while before I actually got it, and the thought actually stayed with me and it could be applied on other concepts as well and still be true. you catch it and don't want it to slip through

.

This is about thoughts and thinking and concepts to which it can be applied.
It sounds as if you have seen something but have you seen that within the thoughts and concepts there IS NO 'ME' ?
It's that simple - it's not even 'true', there is nothing to hold on to - just how things are.
Best Wishes,
Ratnapani.

[Lin]

hi ratnapani

This feels fragile but healthy <3
Is that the illusion of 'me' that feels fragile ?
oh no the me doesn't feel fragile at all. on the contrary.
What 'me' is that ?

that is the conceptual me. No, 'I'm' fine (language) it somehow came out wrong. What I meant was that it feels very OK to have seen through. I have 'seen' alright. Now this new way of 'seeing' has to be integrated so it becomes the normal way of understanding. To learn to lean on it.

It sounds as if you have seen something but have you seen that within the thoughts and concepts there IS NO 'ME' ?
It's that simple - it's not even 'true', there is nothing to hold on to - just how things are.

I have seen, that in the actual experience there are no concepts at all. We can't even call the sensations by names because they becomes concepts. I mean the example with' pressure', there isn't a single thing on this earth that actually would accurately be named pressure. that is just a word, a concept for an event or a sensation.
All of this is 'my' experience without a me and without thoughts constructing.

Best wishes
Lin

[ratnapani]

Hi Lin,

I

mean the example with' pressure', there isn't a single thing on this earth that actually would accurately be named pressure. that is just a word, a concept for an event or a sensation.

Yes, quite so, I was being careless, not referring to actual experience !

Can you help me with your use of language ?

I have seen, that in the actual experience there are no concepts at all.

We have a head full of concepts,I don't often bump into trees but distance and solidity are concepts.
Are you saying there is no reality 'behind' them ?

Have you seen for sure that once there was an assumption of a 'self' but in fact that was a concept ?
If so, how did it feel when that illusion disappeared ?

Best Wishes,
Ratnapani.

[Lin]

Hi Ratnapani
Yes that might be what I'm saying. Take the concept pressure again. How do you know that what you are sensing, sitting on a chair, is actually pressure? There is nothing in that experience that says 'pressur!'
The same goes for 'me' or 'I' there is nothing in the body that tells me how 'I' or 'me' feels.

How did it feel?
Well, that won't be easy to tell. I have intellectually, more or less understood this but not actually experienced it. But it it was a bit like falling through a surface. Like the frozen crust on snow, although it wasn't cold of course. When I went through, I immediately grasped back on concepts agan and then I kept looking and saw that it was what I was looking for. I had to look around for a bit to see if it was true. It was a aha, yes, Now I understand. It also helped to see that the 'I' was also a thought.
:)
Lin

[Lin]

... or, you could say that it was like putting (diving) your head through the surface of water, not knowing that you could actually do that and then open your eyes while still unders the sutface and still be abel to se but from a distans where conceps and words didn't stuck to senses or events anymore.
:)
Lin

[ratnapani]

Hi Lin,
Ok, we have seen what is sensation and what is added thought or assumption. It's great to be able to distinguish direct experience from constructs.

The same goes for 'me' or 'I' there is nothing in the body that tells me how 'I' or 'me' feels.

Well yes, you've been looking well but there wouldn't be anything in the body to tell you how something that isn't there feels.

I have intellectually, more or less understood this but not actually experienced it

Fair enough, that seems clear. But what are you expecting to 'experience'?
How would you experience an illusion?

It was a aha, yes, Now I understand. It also helped to see that the 'I' was also a thought.

Understanding, even if it feels profound, is not seeing - knowing.
'I' IS just a thought but while that thought is still believed at some level it gives us our world view.

Keep looking, is there any 'myself' 'underneath' or 'behind' the sensations which you have been exploring and the thoughts that have arisen ?

:)
Ratnapani.

[Lin]

Hi Ratnapani

what are you looking for? it feels that you twist every word I say. I know that is your job but it is not easy to explain what I've seen. I have to use words and concepts don't I.

The same goes for 'me' or 'I' there is nothing in the body that tells me how 'I' or 'me' feels.
Well yes, you've been looking well but there wouldn't be anything in the body to tell you how something that isn't there feels.

when I say how the 'I' feel, I mean if there is an 'I' somewhere, if the 'I' can be sensed in any way. is there a sense of an 'I'? and No, there isn't. Not in the direct experience. I can't be experienced because it is an illusion a concept.

I have intellectually, more or less understood this but not actually experienced it

Fair enough, that seems clear. But what are you expecting to 'experience'?
How would you experience an illusion?

If you experience something different it might be the a difference between having the illusion and the lack of it. It might be a difference here. I don't know how understanding or seeing works. I'm not expecting to experience anything, I am just trying to answer your question.

I have intellectually, more or less understood this but not actually experienced it

this was before and it is a difference if you know something intellectually 'by the book' or if you have 'lived' it so to speak. If it is something that you have *experienced' with your body and mind. Not just knowledge.

It was a aha, yes, Now I understand. It also helped to see that the 'I' was also a thought.
Understanding, even if it feels profound, is not seeing - knowing.
'I' IS just a thought but while that thought is still believed at some level it gives us our world view.

well, i don't know.i just use the words that I habitually use. it wouldn't have turned out any differently if I used the word now 'I' see. This is starting to become like when, you know the artist Prince? when he changed his name to a sign. No one could say his name anymore. I am putting quotation-marks around every word that I use.

Keep looking, is there any 'myself' 'underneath' or 'behind' the sensations which you have been exploring and the thoughts that have arisen ?

yes I will! i do the body exercise. that where helpful.

I have seen, that in the actual experience there are no concepts at all.

We have a head full of concepts,I don't often bump into trees but distance and solidity are concepts.
Are you saying there is no reality 'behind' them ?

yes, words are just explaining states or functions. without comparison there is no left or right, no long or short or solidity. And as I wrote we put a word like pressure onto a sensation but the sensation has nothing to do with the word or concept.

Have you seen for sure that once there was an assumption of a 'self' but in fact that was a concept ?
If so, how did it feel when that illusion disappeared ?

the assumption is just what you say it is an assumption, nothing else.
This is what I tried to answer before but I think that you have something else in mind, when asking the question.
I will sum up the feeling with words, I think I became a bit Happy (can't explain that feeling, because there isn't a simple describable happy-feeling, that functions with the word.) I was thinking outside the box.
all the best
Lin

[Lin]

Hi Ratnapani
Words seams so far away from experiences. They doesn't even get us close to what we are trying to express. Take for exampel the word blue as in the colour blue. That is a concept that builds on that the person being communicated with gave a 'close' or a 'similar' experience or that you have a common agreement. If ine of the persons comunicating have never seen 'blue' or are blind from birth, how can you describe the colour to that person? It is the same with concepts and experience. The are not even close. How could they ever be that? Close I mean. It is two totally different worlds. Even so, we go on....
Best wishes
Lin

[Lin]

Not gave but have... have a close ir a similar...

[ratnapani]

Hi Lin,

My job is certainly not to twist your words. My job is to understand them and in what way they do or do not indicate that you have seen the illusion of a self. If I spoke your language confusion would not arise!

With a change of words things are much clearer

when I say how the 'I' feel, I mean if there is an 'I' somewhere, if the 'I' can be sensed in any way. is there a sense of an 'I'? and No, there isn't.

That's clearer for me.

. I can't be experienced because it is an illusion a concept.

Great, but Is there a lack of confidence here ? This is put in terms of a conclusion rather than of knowing. You don't say ' 'I' wasn't experienced - there isn't one !' (or some such)

I have intellectually, more or less understood this but not actually experienced it
this was before and it is a difference if you know something intellectually 'by the book' or if you have 'lived' it so to speak. If it is something that you have *experienced' with your body and mind. Not just knowledge.

Your first sentence lacks one word - 'but not actually experienced it 'before' . That makes all the difference, as it is, it says you haven't actually experienced it now.
In fact my instincts knew what you meant,that post was uncomfortable but I couldn't tell why.

or if you have 'lived' it so to speak. If it is something that you have *experienced' with your body and mind. Not just knowledge.

Yes !! Now I understand. That is much more convincing !
There are still 'if you' this and 'if you' that. 'I have experienced this with my body and mind' would sound less theoretical, I hope that is just your style of writing.

it wouldn't have turned out any differently if I used the word now 'I' see.

The implications are very different. 'Understanding' almost always implies something in the realm of thought.
'Seeing' has connection with insight into how things are.
Which is why I came up with all those annoying questions.

I am putting quotation-marks around every word that I use.

Haha.

This is what I tried to answer before

I hope that is sorted.

I will sum up the feeling with words, I think I became a bit Happy (can't explain that feeling, because there isn't a simple describable happy-feeling, that functions with the word.)

I get the picture, words are fine, we all know they are limited but they are all we have until someone produces mind to mind transmission on line.

I just saw your latest. You are not trying to describe blue to a blind man. You are trying to describe your seeing of the illusion 'of self' to one who has seen it. It takes one to know one !

'See' you later,
Ratnapani.

[Lin]

Hi Ratnapani
I hope that I didn't offend you. I am sorry in that case. I know very well that you are helping me. But I felt so confused and a bit frustrated again because I think it is sometimes so hard to answer the questions. Sometimes they seam like questions that I answered before and now and then they seam to mean something else or what ever. I guess much the difficulty that I experience is that I'm not speaking the same language as you. Even though I know a lot of English words and can put them together rather nicely, I guess I don't use them in the same way as you do. They might sometimes have a different value to you than they have to me and I don't know when this is the case. You have to be clear on what you mean and I will be better to ask when I don't understand.

My job is certainly not to twist your words. My job is to understand them and in what way they do or do not indicate that you have seen the illusion of a self. If I spoke your language confusion would not arise!

Thank you I understand that. I do also long for the 'mind-transfer-line. To me, that means that you seam to turn my words around so that I don't know what I mean or what I have written or what I believe that you have understood from my writing, or if there is anything else that you what me to see that I haven't seen yet. I felt confused. Now it seams like using the word 'twist' wasn't so good.

'

There are still 'if you' this and 'if you' that. 'I have experienced this with my body and mind' would sound less theoretical, I hope that is just your style of writing.

yes this is my style of writing and speaking. this is perhaps one of the language difficulties. I have experienced and I do experience the lack of self. maybe I use If instead of when, 'when I experience'...
and I think I 'm trying to 'explain' my experience instead of just telling about it.

I can't be experienced because it is an illusion a concept.
Great, but Is there a lack of confidence here ? This is put in terms of a conclusion rather than of knowing. You don't say ' 'I' wasn't experienced - there isn't one !' (or some such)

no there isn't a lack of confidence here.

'Understanding' almost always implies something in the realm of thought.
'Seeing' has connection with insight into how things are.
Which is why I came up with all those annoying questions.

Thank you. I learn English from Direct pointing ;) (joke)

Haha.

:)

I just saw your latest. You are not trying to describe blue to a blind man. You are trying to describe your seeing of the illusion 'of self' to one who has seen it. It takes one to know one !

I don't think YOU are a blind man. I am convinced that you have 'seen through'. There was an hour of thinking and seeing and reflecting between my posts. it felt like my 'seeing' became much broader and I saw all that we humans do and that we think is true. It was meant as an reflection on concepts and reality and on how far we humans are from the truth of what actually is. If someone is blind here, it would probably be me, even though I see a little with 'one eye' (joke). It was also meant as a way to once more find a way to get closer to explaining the experience and on how I see the gap between concepts and reality. (that probably just made it even more confusing.)

oh dear, this was complicated, words are not enough and sometimes to much. new day tomorrow.
metta
Lin

[ratnapani]

Hi Lin,

It was also meant as a way to once more find a way to get closer to explaining the experience and on how I see the gap between concepts and reality. (that probably just made it even more confusing.)

'The gap between concepts and reality' goes a lot, lot further than the scope of this enquiry if it is followed up - right into the territory of 'all your experiences are but a manifestation of mind!' To me this makes 'concepts' to be in fact assumptions of how things are. But we are not here to philosophise !

LU has a set of questions that help to give a summing up of what you have seen and might help clear up any confusion between us.
Would you have a go at answering them ? ('have a go at' means there are no demands and no pressure!)

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was crucial in making you look and really see ?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

If you answer please take your time and answer as fully as possible, that really helps. There are No Right Answers!

:)
Ratnapani.