NowHere

[oboundless]

Thank you Sunil,

I'm sorry for my delayed reply; we haven't talked much lately and it's been the Thanksgiving celebration here (so I haven't been checking much of anything.)

I read and reread what you posted to me, and I'm not sure I really understand it. When I sit quietly, it takes a substantial period of time for there to be enough quietude to become aware of the unconditional. There does seem like an endless compulsion for these thoughts to seem like me (or rather, for the occurrence of these thoughts to spontaneously configure a coming-after character, supposedly the thinker, moi.) And all the thoughts fundamentally revolve around finally getting "there," in time, where there will be satisfaction, fulfillment and completion; happiness, and wholeness. That's revealed to be nonsense when sat-chit-ananda is apparent; the greatest satisfaction is unconditionally and acausally now, when everything else falls away.

Could you please expound a little bit on "Which may be the case but only if it is turned into action."?

[kvotski]

Hi Glenn,

I meant pretty much what you said. But I'll try to explain.

Each thought or set has a hidden agenda of the me thought or ego planting a craving inside which makes it look like a compulsion to seek Utopia or make it happen without any further action. This is impossible. What is possible is to see the mistake. And that's the needed action.

All things you seemingly want, do not arrive through acquisition but through shedding the unwanted.
So wholeness is nowhere to be found but emerges when the seeming fractures are seemingly repaired. Happiness emerges when the mistake of unhappiness is realised. And so it is for all your apparent heart pines for.

[oboundless]

Thanks.

"Happiness emerges when the mistake of unhappiness is realised."

Would another way to say that be "...when the mistake of desire is realized."?
Or, something like "...happiness is revealed to be the already-nature of things when the mistake of chasing after happiness is realized."?

And, those moments of the most profound tranquility and ease, as deep as the universe, sure seem to vanish utterly and completely when a complex situation blows up involving a clash between my seeming needs, and my girlfriend's declared needs....and the inordinate stress of that. Then there seem to be about 18,264 layers, give or take a few, of complex conditioning that are instantaneously and painfully at play. Just saying, to be real.

[kvotski]

Not quite. It's not chasing but understanding or knowing that happiness is not from anything out there. And checking this over and over. GF wants something different. Why does that make me unhappy? I want something different why is that making her unhappy?

I try not to do voodoo simple logic until it reaches the end. At that point a curiosity remains but also much peace as the process unties many unknowns.

Physical conditioning like addiction is much harder to let go than mental. Stresses we create for ourselves are hollow when you do a deep looking.

Early on I had my knowing was shaken by some life event. Ilona the founder of LU helped me in a personal online session. You may want to try.

[oboundless]

Thanks Sunil,

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand you. I feel like the dumbest student ever right now, because I sense you are sharing some logic of interiority that I can't quite follow. "Understanding or knowing that happiness is not from anything out there" sounds great -- but I don't seem to have access to that knowing at the moment. Without that, following the logic doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on.
I'm not in any way objecting here, just saying I don't think I quite understand what you are getting at.

Were you suggesting the possibility of my talking to Ilona in a personal online session? Just clarifying if I heard correctly...

I'm tired today, and a bit ragged-feeling from a short night's sleep last night; hope you are well.

Thanks again.

[kvotski]

Yeah, it was a little obtuse. Lemme explain.

A deep knowing that chocolate doesnt make you happy but the taste of sugar, bitter and some combo. An intentional soft touch of a lover is not the lover but the sensation followed by a feelng that another loves you is felt here to make this happy. Getting a client satisfied with your help makes a long chain of pleasant sensations including dreams of comfort and accepatance of the story you created as a self. All happiness is felt here in the body not anywhere else. A stark example is imagine the most beautiful girl in a sexy pose and how it feels here and now imagne you are in her body with a huge headache.

Yes, ilona has a lovely method of just focusing on the heart without any philosophy. It was amazing for me.

[oboundless]

Thanks Sunil, now I get it. That helpfully draws me back in.

Today, although it may seem a negative take on things, I'm aware how every substantial problem is because it affects me, I, I, I, I, I. Perhaps it's just because I seem to be so far from the recent days of amazement at 'no-I!' that all I can do today is notice how all the difficulties that have legs are mine, and me, and I. Sigh. (who would be sighing....?)

I appreciate you mentioning Ilona: how do I contact her?

[kvotski]

You can send her a private message here or Facebook or her blog. Tell her I recommend you do a session.

Focus on who draws you in?

Is there anything other than thoughts?

Why are some thoughts so attractive that they draw you in?

[oboundless]

Thank you Sunil,

I will contact Ilona.

What draws me in? Once again, seems to be the 'I' thought. The only relief I get lately is when the I thought is remembered to not be real, then easing happens.
Is there anything other than thoughts? No, but there are sometimes sensations associated with thoughts (pain and pleasure both) that are powerfully stimulating. Thoughts in relation to them seem especially compelling.
Compelling because the experiences are so powerful - and because the habit of thought-I constellating around the experiences is so....familiar.

There's a dullness about me lately - I don't seem to be operating with the fire and intensity that shines through some of our prior postings, that I re-read today. I wonder if it's something of a cop-out to say there almost seems to be a willful reluctance to again open the spaces of astonishment-at-nobody-here that have been present at earlier times.

[kvotski]

Hi Glenn,

The problem of keep thinking about a real I and an imagined one is so sticky. There can't be two. None of them exist at all. they are all thoughts. The habit is a thought, compulsion is a thought and boredom or dullness is a thought.

Somehow you persist on solving your life problems using an imagined entity called I. This may give the semblance of success in the short run but it sets up for a bigger fall soon after. Its that seeming success creates the seeming powerful controlling I.

There really is no alternative. Until your brain is convinced of this, you will go around in circles. Not sure if even Ilona can help you. Instead of focusing on problems try looking at the successes which you take credit for? I is smugly hiding in there telling you all this work is nonsense. It has done it before it can solve your issues again.


keep plugging away.

[oboundless]

Thanks. Here's how this seems to me this morning: In relaxation, the natural state becomes apparent. The natural state is utterly relaxed. There's nobody separate in the natural state. The natural state is just seeing, hearing, etc, and entirely unproblematic.

I just don't know how to function from here. Except, sitting here quietly I'm already functioning from here, but there's no I doing it. It's just happening. When I say I don't know how to function from here, it's because thoughts say I would just sit here like a bump on a log, were I to continue to be like this.

If there is any action-functioning from this relaxation I'm utterly unfamiliar with it. I can sit quietly, and that's about it, so it seems. But most likely this is more thought telling lies about how things are. But the thoughts frighten me because it seems to me I'd need a caregiver if I was going to function perpetually like this. I don't mean to be dramatic, but wouldn't perpetual functioning from here be a kind of suicide of the separate I?

So there's a lot of tension in my ordinary functioning. I don't think more than a 'normal' amount, but compared with the natural state, an awful amount. And this tensioning is entirely the functioning of a separate-seeming I. It's busy with perpetual problem solving: who has a problem? "I" do.

I have to get to work later today, and when I'm sitting with my clients if I made no effort I think I'd lose them pretty quickly. On the other hand, this natural state is what they all want anyway. It's just that the disappearance of separate I is the precondition for its appearance. The tension of ordinary functioning camouflages it.

Any thoughts (!!!) about this Sunil?

Thanks again.

[kvotski]

Yes.

Everything you report directly or indirectly implies the separate self is the doer. You ate this natural bring like a sloth and unless you assume the existence of a separate self nothing done.

Is this true?

This is why asked to recall incidents, happy ones, where a separate self did the doing.

Can you give me some examples where a separate self was needed?

There is no separate self, you have seen. So it must be a thought that you need to somehow invoke this imginary self to treat your clients.

Can you dig deep and find out how this actually works?

How does any doing happen?

Please answer all of these.

[oboundless]

Thank you Sunil. Somewhat in the order you posed questions:

I don't think this is true - but it's how I (!) habitually live. When I carefully examine the process of living, it's not true. But much of living is not so rigorously examined.

No, I can't give you any examples of when a separate self was needed, or functioned, because every single time I look to see what's happening, the selfing-thought comes afterwards.

And this is complicated by the fact that quite often prior to actions there is the thought of the action. But most of the time the actions happen by themselves. And, but, most most of the time what is persuasive is that thought happens, then action takes place (somewhat) correspondingly, then I-thought claims it as mine. It seems to take a lot of rigor to constantly examine what actually happens, although the outcome of the examination is over and over again that actions happen by themselves.

I think I'm describing how this works as I perceive it. Doing happens - like typing that, just now, which 'I did' - except that as it happened, it just happened.

I hope that responds to all your questions. And, but, the habitual fog seems to come back over the whole thing, rather readily. Then it's I, I, I, all the way. Is it that I just am too lazy to be perpetually rigorous? Certainly there's a kind of shake-awake possibility, a coming back to reality whenever I am rigorous, but all too soon, I seem to be snoozing again.

[kvotski]

That's perfect, Glenn.

Why did you smoke, really?

What we're the triggers?

What are they now as you slip into a comma so often?

[oboundless]

Because smoking is a significant physical addiction, and because every ciggie was the completion of a small cycle of craving-anticipation-release, leaving me free of desire, in that moment, at least. And because when I started smoking I wanted to be like my dad, and then as time went on it became a defense against the emptiness and against simply feeding things. In order to quit I had to make a deal with myself that I would agree to feel everything.

The triggers were a cup of coffee, or a meal, or alcohol, unhappiness, stress or distress, or simply the familiar times a day at which I would smoke; almost always arising within in the form of a physical sensation followed by a thought of a cigarette.

I feel a bit overwhelmed by your invitation to notice the triggers to slipping into this dull state, especially with it being so prevalent the last couple of weeks, but let me take a look this morning, and get back to you in a couple of hours. Thank you.