Falling into

[Matthew]

Could it be that I am meditating to optimise the self that doesn't exist?

Yes. How do you optimise something, that does not exist?
How do you improve something, that does not exist?

Another popular belief is, that meditation shall cleanse something or purify something.
Clease what? The mind? How do you cleanse something, that does not exist?
Purify what? Thoughts? Are there "impure" thoughts? What makes thoughts "impure"?

It does seem to help shift from doing into being.

How exactly is doing not being?
Is there non-being?

No, it's just a label that is applied using language.
It's not who I am.
Then who am I?

You can try this with anything really.

Am I [nationality]?
No, that's just an idea (thought).

Am I [political view]?
No, that's just a concept (thought).

Am I [name]?
No, that's just a name (thought).

Then who am I?

Are you a "who"?

Who is asking the questions?

Is there a "who" asking this question? Does this question come from "who"?
Does it come from anywhere specific? Or does it come from nowhere?
Does it come from anyone? Or does it come from no one?

Who needs to know the answer to these questions?

Was there a "who" authoring this question?
If not, is there actually anything which needs an anwer to this question?

What needs an answer to this question?

[Cloudberry]

Wow, this guiding is really exposing the self and not leaving it anywhere to hide. Thank you

How exactly is doing not being?
Is there non-being?

Autopilot vs Awareness but I get the point that there is always awareness and being. It's the quality of being and stepping out of thoughts and stories of what is happening and connecting with the raw data of experience, bare attention. Nowness. Just this. Just sitting enables clear looking to see what is here as it happens.

Is there a "who" asking this question? Does this question come from "who"?

It's messy. It feels like there is a who. There is identification with a process that feels like.... Me. This writing is coming from reading our dialogue and then thought arises and the impulse to write and the body writing. That all feels like a me. But when looking into the components there is no solid me.

I was going to say how to be free of this identification or how to untangle from the self but there is "no thing" that can untangle from or "no thing" to be free. Knowing that logically doesn't change that me wants want to be rid of me. So there's no secret technique for the me to do as that's just reinforcing the me.

I was going to write that I feel like I'm stuck in a loop and can't get out.

Something feels like it is stuck in a loop and trying to get out by doing something.

Me-ness is being exposed.

[Matthew]

Okay good.


The next questions could leave some question marks hovering around when first reading them. But no worries!
Simply read them, then STOP and LOOK at what is HERE NOW.
What presents itself as an answer, by itself. Without thinking about.
On the basis of that, simply answer.
There are only good answers:

It feels like there is a who

There is identification with a process that feels like.... Me

Can you describe this "who" or this "me"?
How is it experienced?
Can it be seen?
Can it be heard?
Can it be sensed?
Is it a thought?

There is identification with a process that feels like.... Me

What identifies with this process?
Maybe "I"?
Is "I" more than a word, more than a thought?
Can a word or a thought identify?

Is there actually anything identifying?
Or is there just a thought about identification?

[Cloudberry]

Thank you Matthew

Can you describe this "who" or this "me"?
How is it experienced?
Can it be seen?
Can it be heard?
Can it be sensed?
Is it a thought?

This who me is illusive. The words faceless presence b
just came to me. Can't be seen, heard or sensed.
Could it just be a thought? I can see other thoughts but how can this be a thought and not be seen like other thoughts? Awareness of thought arising and passing. Can the same method be used to see this "I" thought? I guess that would imply something doing something and using a method.

Is there actually anything identifying?
Or is there just a thought about identification?

This is really interesting. If true then I need to see it happening and be aware of it. See through it. See it for what it is.

I'll keep reading and seeing what comes up.

Thank you do much for your time and patience

Wishing you well

Rob

[Matthew]

Thank you do much for your time and patience

No patience needed here. Just enjoyment!

I guess that would imply something doing something and using a method.

So yes, that's a sticky assumption.
"For doing to happen, there needs to be a doer doing things."
But does it?

An apple tree grows apples. It won't grow cherries.
There is no one and no thing inside that tree doing it and telling how this is supposed to happen.
This process is like 1000 times more complex than most things we superimpose the quality "needs a conscious doer" on.
Yet the apple tree does its thing. There is no doer in growing apples, just doing.

How about a human doing things.
Does that need a doer?

Where is "I" in doing?
Is an "I" needed for doing to happen?
What does "I" have to do with doing?


Look outside the window.
Is there an "I" seeing?
Where is "I" in seeing?
Is "I" doing the seeing? Can that be observed in actual experience?
Or is there just seeing.

"I is seeing" sounds ridiculous, doesn't it.

So!
Where exactly is "I" in doing?
Is there an "I" in doing?
Is "I" doing the doing?
Or is there just doing.

[Cloudberry]

Thank you Matthew

No patience needed here. Just enjoyment!

This is great to hear.

An apple tree grows apples. It won't grow cherries.
There is no one and no thing inside that tree doing it and telling how this is supposed to happen.
This process is like 1000 times more complex than most things we superimpose the quality "needs a conscious doer" on.
Yet the apple tree does its thing. There is no doer in growing apples, just doing.

Beautiful. Life just happening. Life just living and doing its thing in all its wonderful forms.

How about a human doing things.
Does that need a doer?

No it doesn't, no more than the apple tree needs to do its thing or my car to do its catting.

Where is "I" in doing?
Is an "I" needed for doing to happen?
What does "I" have to do with doing?

NobI needed in doing. Thoughts can label after and claim the doing but that's just an illusion.

Look outside the window.
Is there an "I" seeing?
Where is "I" in seeing?
Is "I" doing the seeing? Can that be observed in actual experience?
Or is there just seeing.

No I in seeing,. I is not doing the seeing and cannot be seen. Thoughts can label what is seen but that's interpretation, analysis etc and after the event. Just analysing the data of that which is seen maybe?

So!
Where exactly is "I" in doing?
Is there an "I" in doing?
Is "I" doing the doing?
Or is there just doing.

No I in, or doing the doing. There is just doing.

Beautiful

[Matthew]

Just analysing the data of that which is seen maybe?

Labelling experience. Commenting on it. Giving it "meaning".
So thought is not a "bad" thing at all. It gives an immeasurable richness to experience.

Thing is to see thought for what it is.
Thought tells a story about reality.
It does not constitute reality.

Who would ever truly be bothered by a story being told?
Nobody.

No I in, or doing the doing. There is just doing.

How does it feel to see this?

[Cloudberry]

Who would ever truly be bothered by a story being told?

Just a story being told. It's like believing what is written in newspapers. An interpretation.

No I in, or doing the doing. There is just doing.
How does it feel to see this?

Liberating. Freeing.

[Matthew]

For the next few days, just tell a little what comes up.

What changes?
What stays the same?

Looking forward to that!

[Cloudberry]

Will do.

Thank you

[Cloudberry]

I felt I should write. It's been a bit of a pause from stopping and looking for the last couple of days Flowing with life you could say I've been happy which has been nice.

There's been a mixture of seeing "I" thoughts arising and passing but also being caught in the "I" story.

Today I went through the thread and made some notes.

You cannot be what you can see

Im ready to start looking again

Hoping you are well?

Thanks

Rob

[Matthew]

Hi there

That sounds really good. Thanks, I'm fine!

also being caught in the "I" story

Have a close look at that, what is caught in the "I" story.
What is it?
What does it consist of?
How is it experienced?

Is there something outside of the story being caught into?
Or is the whole story of being caught into just that.
Another story?

What is caught into?

[Cloudberry]

Or is the whole story of being caught into just that.
Another story?

A story being told about a story

What is caught into?

It seems to be thoughts. Just thinking. The more I look all I seem to consist of is thoughts about what is happening, has happened, will happen.

It seems another layer of the onion is being peeled away

I'll keep looking

Thank you so much for your time, guidance and teaching. This is amazing

[Matthew]

So yes.

There is a thought story about "being caught into".
And there is a thought story about a "thing, which is caught into".
Or a thought story about a "one, who is caught into".


Is this "one" more than a thought about such a "one"?
Does this "one" exist in reality?

[Cloudberry]

Is this "one" more than a thought about such a "one"?
Does this "one" exist in reality?

So, looking in to this. It's not been fully seen through yet. There's still a sense of looking FROM the one than AT the one. However as a concept it's starting to sink in.

I guess I STOP and LOOK into it right?

What we are saying is that the me or I that I think I am is just another thought? I want to see this I really do. It's just that I've not been able to see it yet clearly.