am i on the right track? or just deluded lol

[Matthew P]

All good Greg!
Thanks for letting me know.
Give your self a rest. :)
Matthew

[flux3000]

- Does 'something' (E.g. Aliveness / Awareness, the being-ness) need to be there for noticing to happen?

in my experience Aliveness / Awareness / the being-ness is always there even when don't know about it...
so they are there as a background / container / space but not the doer doing the noticing...
or they may be the actual noticing happening itself...
(as in who i really am - just noticing / awareness)

- For noticing to happen, is identification with 'something' (E.g. Aliveness / Awareness, the being-ness) required?

Nope, noticing happens, and it seems to be focused on one point and / or can be spread out.
When noticing something small, there is focus but also the aliveness awareness are there in the background / as the background space / aliveness.

It is as if there are always two parts of me - the ego sense of self (not real but with consequences in the everyday world) and the background stillness (real - beyond the everyday world).

- What is the 'something' from which thoughts come that you speak of?
The something is a no-thing. It is not an object / concept / thing / sensation. It has no shape or form.

- Is it true that it is "a" no-thing?

It's not a thing / object / concept as far as I know. It can't be put in a box,measured, described, photographed etc.
However to say it's not there is not true for my experience either.
The thoughts just appear, as if from nothing. But i can't categorically say it is nothing - that would be speculation.

- Can you see it?
No

- So take another look for this 'something that is a no-thing.' What do you see?
[/quote]
Nothing. the seeing.

- Are you the author of thought?
...In everyday reality no there is no independent author.

"Everyday reality" as opposed to what other reality?
[/quote]
Everyday reality (sense of self, reactions, person, memories, stories etc.) vs The Changeless reality (stillness, As it is)

BTW... Please check each answer you respond with: "Is this what I see right now, or an answer I think I know?"

I sense both dimensions in the moment - the dynamic everyday reality (when focusing on it happens), as well as the silent stillness awareness being-ness background behind / pervading / containing the dynamic.

Thoughts come up based on causes and conditions.

Is this true?
[/quote]
Who knows? Perhaps most, but not all? How to know how thoughts come up?
Will be difficult not to get speculative with this answer?

I think generally thoughts come and go. Most thoughts are labels / judgements / self talk / inner critic etc. - so based on language (past / conditioning / structure / patterns etc). So they have causes and conditions that can possibly trigger thoughts - so then they arise.

Thoughts seem to appear out of nowhere, like characters appearing on a TV screen, or like letters on this PC Monitor screen. That is how i experience them, those were just analogies.

But i can decide to count to 10 in my mind for instance.

- Is there a decider anywhere?

Wow good question. Well conventionally the sense of self likes to think so, but from experience now it looks like there doesn't have to be a decider. Choosing happens - sense of self takes ownership - possibly before, during or after the decision.

- If so, what does it give commands to?

Sense of self seems to be giving decisions to brain / body etc.
But i am starting to see more,that these are just choices that come up in the present moment, moment to moment, based on causes and conditions / things and events and / or spontaneously as well. And it seems as though we are making decisions but we in actuality we are not (as there is no decision maker to be found).

- And how does it give commands to the body?

Hmm lol, never thought about this. Sense of self thinks it gives commands (By thought / intention / willpower?) as there looks to be a kind of feedback loop. Showing up as a Cause and Effect relationship.

In direct experience that's what it feels like anyway. eg. Now i will move my hand upwards. There is a thought or image and the body follows. Hand moved up, so it reinforces the idea that i 'gave' the command idea that seemed to be / was followed through.

Do this exercise...
Open a new Word document and write down everything you are experiencing right now. E.g. I am writing. I am breathing. I see the computer. etc.
Then copy and paste it to a page below it. Edit it so there are no 'I's and 'me's and it still makes sense. E.g. Writing is happening, etc.
- What do you notice from doing this exercise?

Sitting, Typing, Breathing etc. can happen without a 'me' doing it.

- Take a look for this controller of thoughts. What do you see?

Looking i find nothing. I am the looking. Looking is happening.
Another interpretation of what is happening in direct experience is:

I am the controller so how can i find myself?
I am just myself - just Pure Timeless awareness - with the illusion of separation / space-time (and no I).

- What is it that takes over the process of breathing?

Awareness / Being-ness / Conscious intention 'seems' to take over...like a pupeteer - holding on / tugging this way and that way. Due to the feedback loop / cause & effect relationship it seems as though this is real.

- Can you stop thinking for 30 minutes at will?
i am not the thinker. So in a sense no.

- So in some other sense, "yes"?
- If so, in what other sense?
[/quote]
I meant that in the sense that i am an independent sense of self i could say 'yes' i stop the thinking process by conscious decision (but not for 30 mins lol).

But as i am discovering more and more the thinking happens or doesn't happen - by itself / due to previous causes and conditions / or perhaps spontaneously there is no do-er doing the stopping or starting - although it persistently feels like that.

So i was kind of being a smart alec saying i am not the thinker, thinking happens, so nothing controls it. So i can't stop thinking (for 1 second or 30 mins). Thinking stops all of itself / runs out of steam as it were.

Playing around with this i was concentrating for a few minutes, on a one syllable sound that i was repeating every few seconds to myself - but still i could sense an undercurrent of thoughts below the conscious thinking, that would creep in and seek attention / to take over more attention.

However I can choose to concentrate on reading or replying to your forum post one pointedly without interruption (been about 30 mins now as re-reading now).

- What is it that chooses?
Look. No concepts or theory please.[/quote]

Choosing is happening. Spontaneously (and / or based on previous conditioning etc.)
However when I look for the chooser i can't find, because it's like looking to see my own nose / face or trying to see my own eyeballs without a mirror.
The way i interpret this - I am the choosing / seeing so can't find myself.
But i can see experientially that there can be choosing without an I / identification / ownership / being as a person - but it really feels like there is an I.
So the looking can not find the looking because it is the looking.

- Do you know what the next thought will be?
if 'i' chose to interrupt the flow then yes.

- Please choose to interrupt the flow of thought. Do you know with 100% certainty what your next thought will be?
[/quote]
Maybe not 100%, perhaps 80-90% i can choose (agree with myself / set an intention) of a word as a thought in advance - of course this works less if there is noise or are distractions around / todo list / responsibilities / children screaming / fears / doubts / etc.

...thoughts are coming from a field (of awareness), like waves in the ocean.

- Can you see this field (of awareness) in your direct experience?
[/quote]
Not with eyes / regular vision. But i can sense with inner vision (or by implication / inference / extropolation). hmmm now i am seeing if purely looking if thinking can arise. Seems not (temporarily at least). Point is , at one time there is no thought just field of awareness. Next moment - thought appears either in the field of awareness or totally obscuring it (last option seems to be more and more rarely).

- Can you see thought originating in this field?

Wow great question again...starting to wonder what does originate from even mean now..
A thoughts seems to appear from nothing...

- How do they originate in this field exactly? Describe it to me.

like characters / words that appear on a TV / Computer screen. Or like sounds that arise in a radio.
There was nothing before but suddenly there is something - a next thought / sound / image
eg. next letters being typed - where there was a 'blank' screen before (that was not blank at all if you get my drift - empty but not nothing. Potential for anything, but still a something - a blank screen with pixels in this case - or like a radio with nothing tuned in yet / receiving silence).

I see the ego self sense of i like an eddy current / vortex. Seems to be real but it isn't.

This is what you imagine it be like... "...an eddy current / vortex," not what you actually see.
Do you actually see this ego self sense of i?

You're right! No, i don't see an ego self sense - i intuitively sense that sense of self - the vortex example makes logical / visual / intuitive sense to me. Its as if there is a self out there made of something, but it's 'seeming' presence is only due to some motion.

No the ego self can't be found, either because it doesn't exist, and / or because i am the sense of self / i looking for myself.
To say otherwise would be speculation?

- Can you prove - with dead certainty - choosing happened based on things and events just before it?

Probably not, it's not 100% sure. Difficult to prove anything with 100% certainty.
But most of the time yes....
eg. just got an itch on head...
so then it got scratched - (although it did feel like i was choosing to scratch the itch, because then the scratch got itched (lol) or itch got scratched) so this process seemed to confirm a chooser, a doer, action, reaction, cause / effect etc.

However I could agree with a possibility of thoughts coming / choosing happening spontaneously.
But this seems to suggest there is no cause and effect. I mean the tree that i can see out of my window yesterday, is there still today. Did it arise and disappear spontaneously?
I can understand / see on an atomic level - It is not the same tree and it is not different - but still there is a pattern of waves / molecules that has a similar pattern to the tree yesterday.

There is nothing simpler or more natural than being.
Notice the sense of being.
- Are you doing it?
Yes.

- Can you see this 'you' doing it?[/quote]
No 'I am' being being. There is just being, when being being. Everything else is either nothing / illusion / smoke and mirrors or a small ripple.

Aha i see, you thought i meant i was doing it....

Lol i meant (from reading: "Notice the sense of being. - Are you doing it?")

"Yes I am noticing the sense of being."

I didn't mean - Yes I am doing being.

- How is this 'you' doing it?

By letting go and vanishing / aligning with Being.

- Does this 'you' turn on being when you first wake up in the morning?[/quote]

No i am always being, whether i recognize it or not.

So there is a separate entity there from which words are flowing?

No, there is no separate entity. Words are flowing. There is an illusion of a fixed solid entity where words are flowing from.

Focus on the image of me, the separate individual entity, is it an image or an actual entity?

Image. But I sense at least two main dimensions -

1) Body/Mind - where there is the illusion of self,
and 2) beingness where there are no concepts or labels, but things are still happening.

being can't be stopped. the space of being / container of experience does not vanish.

Previously you said you are doing the sense of being.
If you are doing it, why can't you stop it?

Sorry no, this was the misunderstanding of the question and answer above.
[I didn't mean to say i was doing it - i meant i was being the beingness? ie. it was happening by itself.]

Please look for this ego self that can forget about being. Where is it?

Normally the ego self (that is not real) is felt or perceived in the head (as loops of though) or in the pit of the stomach (especially when reacting to perceived threat). But by looking i can't see myself, there is only looking.

However I think I understand your question is pointing at the investigating of how the ego / sense of self (that isn't solid) can forget about being.
Hmmm...tough one...i have been looking into this and it seems in direct experience as follows:
- when 'i am' lost in thought / absorbed in something
For example - really concentrating on something / fixated / compulsive about something there is a real narrowing of consciousness, to the exclusion of everything else. So there is a forgetting of being / openess / spaciousness (even though it is always there as a space / background - there is no awareness of awareness at the point of loss / forgetting).

It seems as though in those moments I am not present. As in the percentage of looking is not spread out panoramically and is not necessarily aware of the body, surroundings, noises etc.

In moments of absorption / forgetting, like stated above, it's easy to get surprised / shocked / jump 'out of my skin'. But i must say this happens quite rarely indeed (consciously at least lol).

I am comfortable in my skin more and more now.

- Is sense of being personal?
Look again. Can you get to a clear "Yes" or "No" to this question?

Is sense of being personal? No.

- ‘Being’ is a verb, not a noun. Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
just being-ness (verb)

Being-ness is a noun.

I meant Beingness, like 'Wakefulness' an ongoing state moment to moment - with no do-er.

- Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

Just being

- Is life happening to a being or as being?
as a being

So this being is an object?
[/quote]
No. It's not happening to a Being (Person).
Life is happening as a being-ness / wakefulness / isness / ongoingness.

You're giving yourself something else to identify with when you say things like, "I am being-ness" and "I am being-ness but without thought."

Hmm..There is definitely a very subtle sense of identification with this sense of aliveness. I may need to work on this part.

However what i am getting at is 'I' sense of stillness / aliveness / spaciousness is beyond words / concepts labels. It is a pure awareness. Closest to this is a sense of clarity / lucidity / awareness.
The label, concept and identification 'I' comes after this out of this.
I recognize I may be (at times) holding onto a state that i intuitively feel as aliveness and sticking a label on that calling it the 'New me' / 'real me'. Instead of just letting 'it' go and letting be.

Direct pointing (“I” does not exist) differs from Inner inquiry in non-duality (Who Am I?).
Mixing both will only give you either a temporary fuzzy, blissful state, or your brain will start to 'explode' from trying to solve this riddle.
In Direct Pointing we hold attention, very narrow focus, on one and only thing —that “I” does not exist.
“Who am I?” inquiry implies that there is some “who” that exists. You may have been conditioned from past enquiry to look for some thing. This question assumes a basis, a default — there is a “who” there, and just need to find it.
You look ‘for’ something, rather than look ‘at’ what is actually there.
In Direct Pointing the focusing is on not finding.
In “Who am I?” Inquiry the focus is on finding.

Hmm....Interesting. Good you have brought this up.
It relates to my point just above. For me it seems to reconcile in a way though.
In the looking there is no finding. There is just looking. Some people would say that the looking is the new 'True Self' but I am seeing that the 'True Self' has no name. But yes subtly the 'small i' / sense of i has found a new home.

Hence the name of this thread.

I want to know if I am truly just being (verb) - or if the (small / fake / illusion) sense of self is just proclaiming this.

At the moment it feels like looking is looking for myself / anything. It (i) can't find anything because it is (i am) the looking.
So looking is happening. But even when I say the 'I' is looking (for itself that it can't find) is a sense of aliveness and not an actual separate I.
It is an impersonal awareness. The I is imputed onto some thoughts and feelings.

I know this in experience because sometimes 'i can take things personally' or other times let things be without gluing / sticking to them / without reactions happening. Like being like space.

But I wonder if 'i' (ego sense self) am being like space (faker / copycat) - or if i actually am space....(natural ease clarity being lucidity) or both

Not sure but I may need to integrate / reflect on the difference between these two (Direct Pointing and 'Who am I' enquiry) further.

"...ego-self jumps in the driver seat (where there was no driver before).

Is this what you see in your direct experience, or is this a story?
[/quote]
This is how i experienced it at that time and sense it. The driver / car is just an analogy to convey the words / feeling.
But it feels like there is just happening / listening / stillness when being - but if suddenly something is said or done the sense of self steps up to protect it's property / view point / me. But even when the sense of self comes up there is still a subtle sense of awareness of it pervading and in the background.

it is only a thought noticing the beingness

Take a look.
- Can a thought notice being?
[/quote]
No

- Can a thought see things? [/quote]
No
- Or is there simply a thought about being?
Yes

- "Yet there is not nothing." Is it true?
Well there is not-a-thing.
Not a thing that has a name, shape, form, colour etc.

So what defines it?[/quote]

Nothing defines it. Nothing in language can define it. The nearest words can convey i currently see as:
Intelligence. Awareness. It itself is attempting to describe itself. But itself is beyond words / concepts / undefineable / immeasurable.

So this sense of self is merely aliveness plus a label.
Seems so yes. Not sure if 'merely' aliveness though - an aliveness that has potential to spurt out / catalyze anything at all (?)

If you're unsure about something, it suggests you're assuming, theorizing etc. In direct experience, seeing is pretty clear.
[/quote]
I get what you're saying, and I agree - but in this case (and most my other answers where i use it) i say 'seems to' in the sense of allowing space for unknown variables. I am experiencing this, sense of self, but i don't like to assume that is it ONLY aliveness plus ONLY a label. For instance the sense of self could be aliveness, plus a label, plus concepts, plus memories, sensations, fantasies + unknowns etc.

I think many things are unknown and it would be speculation to think otherwise. So I say 'it seems like this' - not to lock down on just one solid fixed point of view. As any solid fixed point of view would be a (certain) theory in a sense too (until the next truth / theory comes up).

BTW... 'ego' is specialized term used by certain professions. It has different meanings to different people, so I find it not useful to use.

OK will try to remember. But when i use it / have used it here i mean the small sense of self - that disappears or appears in 'opposition to' or 'agreement with' or 'ignorance of' something.
[/quote]

'Vortex' in this context is a concept I'm not familiar with. Are you sure you see a vortex in your direct experience?

I don't see it in direct experience, it would be a visual overlay / analogy. Like when using a spoon to stir a liquid in a glass. Quite quickly. Then when we take the spoon out the liquid is still spinning.

In this process it works to keep concepts to a minimum. We're simply looking for a separate entity 'I.'

OK, the concepts / ideas came up when describing my experience - i just thought they were useful when trying to convey something [beyond words]...picture tells a thousand words etc. :)

Where does the sense of self arise exactly?
Generally In the field of awareness / being / aliveness.

- Is this your theory or what you actually see in direct experience?

This is what i sense in direct experience. When there is no sense of self there is just stillness / looking / thinking.
When an 'outside' event seems to trigger something inside - a sense of self steps up to defend itself. From where it comes i don't know...but it seems to appear in this ground of awareness. I say seems to because perhaps it comes from a different dimension. Like a 3D shape coming into 2D. I use concept here to describe something beyond words again. That's how it feels. Whether or not the awareness gives birth to it I don't like to say 100% but it sure feels like the sense of self appears and disappears in / on it - like a picture on a screen (man..i can't stop these analogies!).

But in a sense the screen (metaphor?) / field of awareness / stillness is the only reality - that doesn't change. The sense of self comes and goes. From where to where who knows?

- This response came from looking in your direct experience. Good job!
...except for the "mind area" bit. Where is that?

Behind the eyes, in between the ears.

- When does the sense of self arise exactly?
When causes and conditions arise. In strong reaction / opposition to something, fight or flight or freeze. When there is fear, greed, desire, hatred, anger, envy, ignorance, delusion, pride etc.

So the sense of self only arises in reaction to 'negative' causes and conditions?

Or when something perceived as positive too. Also when complimented.
eg. You look beautiful today! You did a great job! You're amazing at what you do!
Also when ignoring something it doesn't wan't to see.

(Sense of aliveness does not disappear whatever the label).

So sense of aliveness is always there (24/7) in your direct experience?

Most of the time I am aware of it. But not 24/7 eg. during sleep, or absorbed in something.

- Is this sense of self an “I”?
The ego sense of self is not the real "I". It vanishes very quickly.

Is there a real "I"?

Yes and No. Depending on how we are defining / using words / concepts.

i) I could answer there is a Real I - the changeless I. The One and Only I. The same I / sense of aliveness / vibration that is in every being / thing. But when I say this i am aware there is no 'I' it is just a label. The sense of aliveness / being / stillness is happening.

The label 'I' that I am using conventionally on top of this 'Real Isness' is pointing to an 'I am-ness' -

There seems to be at least two levels - conditioned (a 'personal' condensed focal point of awareness) and unconditioned (not a thing, spaciousness / being in which conditioned 'I' arises and passes).

The unconditioned is only reality as it is changeless. The I personal sense of self or any language is not real as it is impermanent. Likewise the small i is not solid and it is not independent - and actually it is not real because only the unconditioned is actually real.

However as a side note, in everyday, conventional, reality - tt seems as though there are a few components to experience that i am seeing from direct experience right now:

a panaromic awareness - the space - container of everything (unconditioned) - beyond space-time.

THEN CONDITIONED:

an ability to focus / condense this awareness into a particular point / area - (attention)
based on an intention / will power
perceptions -
sensations / feelings eg. pleasant / unpleasant
concepts / memories / fantasies / plans etc.
+ more / other / unknowns etc. (not limiting this as a fixed definition).

i can see clearly now that there is No fixed solid 'I' in any of the above. Neither is I the whole group. The sense of self (small i / ego) identifies itself as the bundle of most of above and calls itself I. But there is no solid fixed I.

HOWEVER for me personally (lol)
The [awareness of] panoramic awareness / space / changeless stillness is what i most identify with [<---- is this my issue?]
I probably intellectually identify with it, but experientially i am not always being it, but identifying with the awareness of it. The awareness of awareness.

Just being [feels most natural] with an effortless awareness.

NON-SELF

ii) On the other hand I can see there is no real I (real or imagined) However there is a perception / concept / image of an 'I' -that is doing the looking thinking - but on investigation there is no 'I' - there is just the looking / thinking process - happening (somewhere / nowhere?)

....
wow this was a long one! Phew

[flux3000]

Just this answer shouldn't have been in quotes:

- How do they originate in this field exactly? Describe it to me.

like characters / words that appear on a TV / Computer screen. Or like sounds that arise in a radio.
There was (seemingly) nothing before but suddenly there is something - a next thought / sound / image

eg. next letters being typed - where there was a 'blank' screen before (that was not blank at all if you get my drift - empty but not nothing. Potential for anything, but still a something - a blank screen with pixels in this case - or like a radio with nothing tuned in yet / receiving silence).

Thank you! Hope you are having a great weekend! Wet and damp here in the UK!

[Matthew P]

Great weekend here thanks.
Ha, yes, that was a long one. Lots of thoughts about an 'I'.

- Are you the author of thought?
...In everyday reality no there is no independent author.

"Everyday reality" as opposed to what other reality?

Everyday reality (sense of self, reactions, person, memories, stories etc.) vs The Changeless reality (stillness, As it is)

Do you see an author, independent or otherwise, in 'The Changeless reality (stillness, As it is)'?

But i can decide to count to 10 in my mind for instance.

- Is there a decider anywhere?

Wow good question. Well conventionally the sense of self likes to think so, but from experience now it looks like there doesn't have to be a decider. Choosing happens - sense of self takes ownership - possibly before, during or after the decision.

Good 'looking.'

- And how does it give commands to the body?

Hmm lol, never thought about this. Sense of self thinks it gives commands (By thought / intention / willpower?) as there looks to be a kind of feedback loop. Showing up as a Cause and Effect relationship.
In direct experience that's what it feels like anyway. eg. Now i will move my hand upwards. There is a thought or image and the body follows. Hand moved up, so it reinforces the idea that i 'gave' the command idea that seemed to be / was followed through.

- Can you have a thought about moving your hand upwards and then nothing happens?

- Are thought and resulting action inexorably entwined?

- If you were to remove the reason 'cause and effect,' what do you actually see when hand moves upwards?

Notice body breathing, look, is it breathing by itself of is there a breather?
Label says “I breathe”.
Is there an I that does the breathing?
How about when you sleep?
Does breathing need a breather?

Same when hand moves upwards, with walking, eating, listening to music, dancing. Every experience is followed by “I did this” commentary.
But look closer; is there a hand lifter, walker, an eater, a dancer?
If language says that there is an object doing action, is that true in your direct experience?

Play with the labeling for a bit, notice that label I is just a label, a word that precedes other words in the labeling. Right now reading happens effortlessly and if you just stop for a second, thoughts appear and start labeling………I is one of thoughts. I is not a thinker, it's a thought arising in awareness.

- Take a look for this controller of thoughts. What do you see?

Looking i find nothing. I am the looking. Looking is happening.
Another interpretation of what is happening in direct experience is:

I am the controller so how can i find myself?
I am just myself - just Pure Timeless awareness - with the illusion of separation / space-time (and no I).

Is this second interpretation what is seen when looking at direct experience, or a thought about what is happening?

Thoughts about experience keep you from seeing what is. Please keep looking at direct experience and reporting only what is seen.

- What is it that takes over the process of breathing?

Awareness / Being-ness / Conscious intention 'seems' to take over...like a pupeteer - holding on / tugging this way and that way. Due to the feedback loop / cause & effect relationship it seems as though this is real.

Is this what is seen in your direct experience, a belief, or an assumption?

- What is it that chooses?
Look. No concepts or theory please.

Choosing is happening. Spontaneously (and / or based on previous conditioning etc.)
However when I look for the chooser i can't find, because it's like looking to see my own nose / face or trying to see my own eyeballs without a mirror.

- So there is a chooser (or some kind of ultimate chooser), it just can't be seen?
- Do you know this reason to be true in direct experience?
- Or is it something you've heard and are regurgitating?

The way i interpret this - I am the choosing / seeing so can't find myself.
But i can see experientially that there can be choosing without an I / identification / ownership / being as a person - but it really feels like there is an I.
So the looking can not find the looking because it is the looking.[/quote]
- So you have a pre-determined idea of what you are looking for?
- And it's definitely that?

- How do they originate in this field exactly? Describe it to me.
like characters / words that appear on a TV / Computer screen. Or like sounds that arise in a radio.

And we can assume the origin of characters / words that appear on a TV / computer screen and sounds that arise in a radio originate from humans in other, mostly unseen, places. And the origins of those humans are... And so on.
Is there something behind awareness?

No the ego self can't be found, either because it doesn't exist, and / or because i am the sense of self / i looking for myself.
To say otherwise would be speculation?

This response sounds like speculation.

- Can you prove - with dead certainty - choosing happened based on things and events just before it?

Probably not, it's not 100% sure. Difficult to prove anything with 100% certainty.
But most of the time yes....
eg. just got an itch on head...
so then it got scratched - (although it did feel like i was choosing to scratch the itch, because then the scratch got itched (lol) or itch got scratched) so this process seemed to confirm a chooser, a doer, action, reaction, cause / effect etc.

- Get up... walk slowly...is there a controller that controls walking, or is there just walking?

- Describe from direct experience the process of how "your self" makes a choice.

- What is the difference between a choice and what is running on automatic?

"Yes I am noticing the sense of being."

Or is "noticing of being is happening"?

I didn't mean - Yes I am doing being.

Glad to hear, otherwise we'd really have some work to do in this process. :)

Focus on the image of me, the separate individual entity, is it an image or an actual entity?
Image. But I sense at least two main dimensions -
1) Body/Mind - where there is the illusion of self,
and 2) beingness where there are no concepts or labels, but things are still happening.

Out of all the experiences that arise and pass away, "the body" is one of the most constant, and also the most identified part of experience. If you believe or feel you are your body, or are in your body, let's look at your perceptions and held assumptions about what the "body" is...

"Does the body experience sensations and thought?;
or
“Is the ‘body’ just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile and kinesthetic)?"

- ‘Being’ is a verb, not a noun. Can you tell if there is a being or just being?
just being-ness (verb)
Being-ness is a noun.
I meant Beingness, like 'Wakefulness' an ongoing state moment to moment - with no do-er.

Look at your belief in the concept of an ongoing state.
Please read this which points to the ever changing nature of states...
http://markedeternal.blogspot.co.id/201 ... state.html

I recognize I may be (at times) holding onto a state that i intuitively feel as aliveness and sticking a label on that calling it the 'New me' / 'real me'. Instead of just letting 'it' go and letting be.

Good noticing. Yes, let be.

In the looking there is no finding. There is just looking.

Look at a pen on the desk (or any other small object).
Now hide the pen behind your back.
What do you see?
Is it possible to see the absence of something?

- "Yet there is not nothing." Is it true?
Well there is not-a-thing.
Not a thing that has a name, shape, form, colour etc.
So what defines it?

Nothing defines it. Nothing in language can define it. The nearest words can convey i currently see as:
Intelligence. Awareness. It itself is attempting to describe itself. But itself is beyond words / concepts / undefineable / immeasurable.[/quote]
- "It itself is attempting to describe itself." Take a look. What's actually happening?
- Is it an 'it'?

If you're unsure about something, it suggests you're assuming, theorizing etc. In direct experience, seeing is pretty clear.

I get what you're saying, and I agree - but in this case (and most my other answers where i use it) i say 'seems to' in the sense of allowing space for unknown variables. I am experiencing this, sense of self, but i don't like to assume that is it ONLY aliveness plus ONLY a label. For instance the sense of self could be aliveness, plus a label, plus concepts, plus memories, sensations, fantasies + unknowns etc.

I think many things are unknown

...
Yes!
...

and it would be speculation to think otherwise. So I say 'it seems like this' - not to lock down on just one solid fixed point of view. As any solid fixed point of view would be a (certain) theory in a sense too (until the next truth / theory comes up).

If you're looking or enquiring and don't see or know the answer, rather than speculating, what's another possible response?

BTW... 'ego' is specialized term used by certain professions. It has different meanings to different people, so I find it not useful to use.
OK will try to remember. But when i use it / have used it here i mean the small sense of self - that disappears or appears in 'opposition to' or 'agreement with' or 'ignorance of' something.

For this enquiry, I find it useful to focus on 'I.' For most, this ‘I’ lives as ‘the thing that owns the life being lived’.
It's a label that assumes an object does the action.

In this process it works to keep concepts to a minimum. We're simply looking for a separate entity 'I.'
OK, the concepts / ideas came up when describing my experience - i just thought they were useful when trying to convey something [beyond words]...picture tells a thousand words etc. :)

Could incessant thoughts about what is, block seeing what is?

I can see clearly now that there is No fixed solid 'I' in any of the above. Neither is I the whole group. The sense of self (small i / ego) identifies itself as the bundle of most of above and calls itself I. But there is no solid fixed I.

Then what is there? Look. What do you see?

HOWEVER for me personally (lol)
The [awareness of] panoramic awareness / space / changeless stillness is what i most identify with [<---- is this my issue?]

- What do you think?
- Do you believe at some level there is a core self/awareness, a constant and unchanging ‘me’?

[flux3000]

Do you see an author, independent or otherwise, in 'The Changeless reality (stillness, As it is)'?

No just this. Just isness. Just looking.

- Can you have a thought about moving your hand upwards and then nothing happens?

Yes

- Are thought and resulting action inexorably entwined?

No

- If you were to remove the reason 'cause and effect,' what do you actually see when hand moves upwards?

Hand moving upwards

Notice body breathing, look, is it breathing by itself of is there a breather?
Label says “I breathe”.
Is there an I that does the breathing?

No. Just breathing (by itself).

How about when you sleep?

Continues breathing (by itself)

Does breathing need a breather?

No. It needs a body though?

Same when hand moves upwards, with walking, eating, listening to music, dancing. Every experience is followed by “I did this” commentary.
But look closer; is there a hand lifter, walker, an eater, a dancer?

No

If language says that there is an object doing action, is that true in your direct experience?

When looking closely in direct experience there is no doer.

Play with the labeling for a bit, notice that label I is just a label, a word that precedes other words in the labeling. Right now reading happens effortlessly and if you just stop for a second, thoughts appear and start labeling………I is one of thoughts. I is not a thinker, it's a thought arising in awareness.

Yes.

Thoughts about experience keep you from seeing what is. Please keep looking at direct experience and reporting only what is seen.

Yes i agree and see what you are saying. However I find this difficult. When i am looking there is only seeing. Labels and reporting are an afterthought / overlay. So any reporting (from where i am sitting) is using language and analogies etc.
When there is reporting there is not necessarily seeing (but might be). When there is seeing there is just seeing ('i' is just an imputed label / idea for the sake of writing here conventionally in answer to your questions).

- What is it that takes over the process of breathing?

Awareness / Being-ness / Conscious intention 'seems' to take over...like a pupeteer - holding on / tugging this way and that way. Due to the feedback loop / cause & effect relationship it seems as though this is real.

Is this what is seen in your direct experience, a belief, or an assumption?

Hmm i see now, nothing actually takes over breathing. but it feels like it does. The breathing just is making more noise in the foreground when 'a thought arises to take over breathing'

- So there is a chooser (or some kind of ultimate chooser), it just can't be seen?

I meant choosing happens without a separate entity chooser.

- Do you know this reason to be true in direct experience?
Actually scrub the above answer / to clarify - I see now, there is no chooser. There are just thoughts and actions , hands moving etc. Choosing is just a label on some thoughts that arise before an action occurs.

- Or is it something you've heard and are regurgitating?

lol, most likely i've been following the script of 'there is no thinker' so 'there is no chooser' 'just choosing'.
but i am seeing now there actually is no choice....so no choosing either. Just thoughts, actions etc.

So the looking can not find the looking because it is the looking.

- So you have a pre-determined idea of what you are looking for?
- And it's definitely that?

hmmm interesting...possibly...i mean while looking there is no finding of a fixed solid i (or anything).
but i can see how it's possible to be confused by this, because one could assume that the fixed separate solid I is the one looking.

Is there something behind awareness?

Not that i can see / perceive.

- Get up... walk slowly...is there a controller that controls walking, or is there just walking?

Just walking.

- Describe from direct experience the process of how "your self" makes a choice.

i see now there is no choice, as there is no chooser, just things happening..one after the other. really looks like there was / is a chooser though! Great damn illusion!

- What is the difference between a choice and what is running on automatic?

A choice feels like there is a chooser. Also some-'one' who monitors it closely, micro managing possibly.
ie. somethings are done consciously (in the foreground), other things unconsciously (in the background).

"Yes I am noticing the sense of being."

Or is "noticing of being is happening"?

haha yes noticing of being is happening.

"Does the body experience sensations and thought?;
or
“Is the ‘body’ just another thought label for sensations (namely tactile and kinesthetic)?"

Wow. yes the body is just another thought label...but it indeed seems to have a boundary. If i hit 'my' toe, the pain sensation is felt. If the neighbour stubs their toe knowing about it does not necessarily occur.

Speculating now, but a biologist / doctor would say that the body experiences sensations, and the brain has thoughts?

Look at your belief in the concept of an ongoing state.
Please read this which points to the ever changing nature of states...
http://markedeternal.blogspot.co.id/201 ... state.html

Ok thank you.

Perhaps those that look for permanent non dual / no self state are really looking for something else, like bliss 24/7, being at peace, feeling of oneness, unity, flowing, staying always happy and high? That too is a fantasy, unless you are constantly on mind altering substances, or have a highly evolved abilities.

Yes i've probably put this idea on a pedestal - and want to make a project out of it in order to attain 'it'!

Look at a pen on the desk (or any other small object).
Now hide the pen behind your back.
What do you see?

Just seeing (underneath where the pen was).

Is it possible to see the absence of something?

no, just seeing. There may be a thought / concept about its absence shortly afterwards though .

- "Yet there is not nothing." Is it true?
Well there is not-a-thing.
Not a thing that has a name, shape, form, colour etc.
So what defines it?

Nothing defines it. Nothing in language can define it. The nearest words can convey i currently see as:
Intelligence. Awareness. It itself is attempting to describe itself. But itself is beyond words / concepts / undefineable / immeasurable.[/quote]

- "It itself is attempting to describe itself." Take a look. What's actually happening?

Just looking / knowing / being. Then when asked to define, a thought comes up to stick a label on it.

- Is it an 'it'?

No. Awareness is Awareness.

If you're looking or enquiring and don't see or know the answer, rather than speculating, what's another possible response?

[Silence / Nothing / No reply / Just this]

For this enquiry, I find it useful to focus on 'I.' For most, this ‘I’ lives as ‘the thing that owns the life being lived’.
It's a label that assumes an object does the action.

Could incessant thoughts about what is, block seeing what is?

Yes. However when there is direct looking there are no thoughts being perceived in this awareness. The thoughts about / overlay / commentary / judgements often come afterwards. However i have found there can still be looking / awareness / being / aliveness / spaciousness even while there are thoughts and actions etc. going on.

... But there is no solid fixed I.

Then what is there? Look. What do you see?

Nothing (label). Silence. Stillness. Seeing.

HOWEVER for me personally (lol)
The [awareness of] panoramic awareness / space / changeless stillness is what i most identify with [<---- is this my issue?]

- What do you think?

At times i have wondered, if i have made a state or a conscious recognition of a state 'This is it' and then i am trying to hold onto it, and anything or anyone who gets in the way / takes me away from that stillness / or recognition of stillness gets noticed.

- Do you believe at some level there is a core self/awareness, a constant and unchanging ‘me’?

Not a me per se. But a core stillness /awareness /aliveness - that doesn't say 'Me' but it just is.

On some superficial level I sense that the 'sense of me' floats around and sticks itself (as ownership / identity) to different states / positions / view points / concepts - wherever the 'sense of me' 'chooses' consciously or unconsciously etc. [although i wonder if the idea of no choice needs to be lived / experienced more with that understanding here]

There is some sense of witnessing a lot of the time. But (when the incessant thinking calms) there is also a sense of Being with a letting go...nothing to do...nothing to monitor (these are speculations / thoughts after the being so as to report).

At the deepest level in this experience there is no fixed, solid, independent, unchanging me. It sure feels like it though. But 'me' / 'I' label is added on, especially while communicating - eg. while replying here for instance.

[Matthew P]

You're ability to look in direct experience is clearer - well done Greg.

- What is the difference between a choice and what is running on automatic?
A choice feels like there is a chooser. Also some-'one' who monitors it closely, micro managing possibly.
ie. somethings are done consciously (in the foreground), other things unconsciously (in the background).

- What is not on automatic?

Speculating now, but a biologist / doctor would say that the body experiences sensations, and the brain has thoughts?

Notice the compulsion to speculate.
You don’t need to understand everything about a wall in order to demolish it. You just hammer through.
This is an opportunity to practice looking and discovering what's so for yourself.

Perhaps those that look for permanent non dual / no self state are really looking for something else, like bliss 24/7, being at peace, feeling of oneness, unity, flowing, staying always happy and high? That too is a fantasy, unless you are constantly on mind altering substances, or have a highly evolved abilities.
Yes i've probably put this idea on a pedestal - and want to make a project out of it in order to attain 'it'!

Are you willing to drop this idea/expectation?
Do you still want to make a project out of it in order to attain 'it'?
If not, what do you want now?

HOWEVER for me personally (lol)
The [awareness of] panoramic awareness / space / changeless stillness is what i most identify with [<---- is this my issue?]
- What do you think?
At times i have wondered, if i have made a state or a conscious recognition of a state 'This is it' and then i am trying to hold onto it, and anything or anyone who gets in the way / takes me away from that stillness / or recognition of stillness gets noticed.

- Who or what is there to hold onto a conscious recognition of a state 'This is it'?

On some superficial level I sense that the 'sense of me' floats around and sticks itself (as ownership / identity) to different states / positions / view points / concepts - wherever the 'sense of me' 'chooses' consciously or unconsciously etc.

-Is 'I' an accurate label for this 'sense of me'?

[although i wonder if the idea of no choice needs to be lived / experienced more with that understanding here]

The sense of 'self' / 'I-thought' continues to appear after seeing. This core belief can take time to unravel. Like a fan that's just been switched off, it can continue to spin for some time.

At the deepest level in this experience there is no fixed, solid, independent, unchanging me. It sure feels like it though. But 'me' / 'I' label is added on, especially while communicating - eg. while replying here for instance.

Greg, if you saved the writing exercise - Writing with ‘I’ vs Writing with no ‘I’ - please re-read it.

Whilst reading, watch what is happening in the body.

- Now compare the two ways to label experience - is one truer than the other?
- If so, which one?
- What is here without labels?
- Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

Your body knows. I is a label, not experiencer. Not a thinker, not a doer, not a hearer of rain. I is not what makes eyes blink and it is not a breather, it's a word, that is used for convenience of communication. If it's believed to be an entity, the mind is confused, the body is tensed up.
Unconfusing it is simple - bring attention back to now and look once again - is there a me behind the word 'me'?

[flux3000]

- What is the difference between a choice and what is running on automatic?
A choice feels like there is a chooser. Also some-'one' who monitors it closely, micro managing possibly.
ie. somethings are done consciously (in the foreground), other things unconsciously (in the background).

- What is not on automatic?

lol you have me stumped here. I think intellectually i can see there is no chooser, only actions, but don't think this has permeated 'my' being yet. I am / have been under the impression - being conscious means we do not buy into the drama / stories / conditioning of life. Whereas being in automatic pilot mode means we do things impulsively, based on fear, greed, reactions, conditioning etc.
I get my statement above could imply a choice and thus a chooser (which doesn't exist)....hmm...at this point i would say then there is a possibility for consciousness to either follow each thought etc. or to stand ones ground in the spaciousness. Is this a independent choice...no...is it automatic?..hmm....there is an impulse of intention / will power / movement....may need more work on this area...

Speculating now, but a biologist / doctor would say that the body experiences sensations, and the brain has thoughts?

Notice the compulsion to speculate.

Yes and fear of being wrong / incomplete....but they are not me lol...

...Yes i've probably put this idea [24/7 awareness] on a pedestal - and want to make a project out of it in order to attain 'it'!

Are you willing to drop this idea/expectation?

yes

Do you still want to make a project out of it in order to attain 'it'?

No

If not, what do you want now?

Don't know...right now just living moment to moment...who knows what's next...

- Who or what is there to hold onto a conscious recognition of a state 'This is it'?

noone - it's a thought / awareness standing by itself...declaring this is it...

On some superficial level I sense that the 'sense of me' floats around and sticks itself (as ownership / identity) to different states / positions / view points / concepts - wherever the 'sense of me' 'chooses' consciously or unconsciously etc.

-Is 'I' an accurate label for this 'sense of me'?

depends how you define 'i'?
perhaps point of view / focus / perspective / angle would be more accurate?

The sense of 'self' / 'I-thought' continues to appear after seeing. This core belief can take time to unravel. Like a fan that's just been switched off, it can continue to spin for some time.

Yes great analogy :) [Btw didn't you know I have a propensity / compulsion to memorize and regurgitate analogies :) ]

Greg, if you saved the writing exercise - Writing with ‘I’ vs Writing with no ‘I’ - please re-read it.
Whilst reading, watch what is happening in the body.

Yes I feel, every time the word 'i' is read - it seems to reify / energize the sense of self as in some tingles / power arises.

- Now compare the two ways to label experience - is one truer than the other?
- If so, which one?

no, both are true - depending on what level / perspective / who's asking

- What is here without labels?

there is some sense of witnessing / non-self, point of view / being / inward / outward flow...there is no 'me' thought or label...but there is a sense of aliveness / stillness...just this....(no labels)...

- Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

Hmm depends on what level...Generally i would say labels don't effect (the object at least) - unless communicating with someone else
eg. Calling an object White instead of Red...(and asking a friend to bring it over for instance could cause issues with experience in that sense lol).

The thing is when the 'i' label was used in the exercise above there were some sensations felt inside this body...so in a funny way it does effect experience?

Could n't talking without an 'i'/ 'i am' / me / myself / mine cause issues when communicating?
My youngest daughter is learning to to say 'this is mine', 'my tooth hurts pain', 'my toy', 'i want that' etc...
how to function / communicate in everyday circumstance without using 'i'? Is there a need for that?
Can't i use the word 'i' conventionally but understand there is no fixed, separate i
ie. that it's just an expression (apart from fact it kind of reinforces the illusion of separate self)

Your body knows. I is a label, not experiencer. Not a thinker, not a doer, not a hearer of rain. I is not what makes eyes blink and it is not a breather, it's a word, that is used for convenience of communication. If it's believed to be an entity, the mind is confused, the body is tensed up.
Unconfusing it is simple - bring attention back to now and look once again - is there a me behind the word 'me'?

There is no label or word 'me' behind me...it's like a stand alone thought / label....but 'me' does seem energetically to emphasize / create a [false] sense of self when spoken / thought...

However when there are no words, 'me / mine' labels, or thoughts - life carries on,
there is still some sense of witnessing / non-self, point of view / being / inward / outward flow...there is no 'me' thought or label...but there is a sense of aliveness.../ point of view / consciousness...(these are just words to describe something beyond words in my experience)....

[Matthew P]

- What is not on automatic?
lol you have me stumped here. I think intellectually i can see there is no chooser, only actions, but don't think this has permeated 'my' being yet. I am / have been under the impression - being conscious means we do not buy into the drama / stories / conditioning of life. Whereas being in automatic pilot mode means we do things impulsively, based on fear, greed, reactions, conditioning etc.

- "Whereas being in automatic pilot mode..." Do you see a pilot anywhere?
- Who or what is there to "...do things impulsively, based on fear, greed, reactions, conditioning etc."?
- Please look around in the world. Do you actually see fear, greed, reactions and conditioning?
- If not, why not?
- And if not, what do you see?

I get my statement above could imply a choice and thus a chooser (which doesn't exist)....hmm...at this point i would say then there is a possibility for consciousness to either follow each thought etc. or to stand ones ground in the spaciousness. Is this a independent choice...no...is it automatic?..hmm....there is an impulse of intention / will power / movement....may need more work on this area...

For any question you need extra time to look at, please take it. Do not step over any question.
It's not a hard and fast rule to respond every day.
Only respond when you see what's there.
- Again, what is not on automatic?

- Who or what is there to hold onto a conscious recognition of a state 'This is it'?
noone - it's a thought / awareness standing by itself...declaring this is it...

Can a thought or awareness, or thought / awareness declare anything?
Or is it just a thought label for something that happened?

-Is 'I' an accurate label for this 'sense of me'?
depends how you define 'i'?
perhaps point of view / focus / perspective / angle would be more accurate?

I will always use 'I' as the belief in a separate entity 'I' unless otherwise noted.
- Is this 'sense of me' 'I'?
- Or are you referring to sense of being?

The sense of 'self' / 'I-thought' continues to appear after seeing. This core belief can take time to unravel. Like a fan that's just been switched off, it can continue to spin for some time.
Yes great analogy :) [Btw didn't you know I have a propensity / compulsion to memorize and regurgitate analogies :) ]

LOL

- Now compare the two ways to label experience - is one truer than the other?
- If so, which one?
no, both are true - depending on what level / perspective / who's asking

So "I am typing" is just as true as "Typing is happening"?

- Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
Hmm depends on what level...Generally i would say labels don't effect (the object at least) - unless communicating with someone else
eg. Calling an object White instead of Red...(and asking a friend to bring it over for instance could cause issues with experience in that sense lol).

Are those "...issues with experience..." that may happen, more labels?
What could actually happen in that example of asking a friend to bring over a red object you call white?
What could I see if I was a fly on a wall?

Experience is what labels point TO.

The thing is when the 'i' label was used in the exercise above there were some sensations felt inside this body...so in a funny way it does effect experience?

- Did the sensation happen first and then it was labelled, or did you label a sensation and then it happened?
- If there was no label for a sensation felt in the body, could the sensation still happen?

Could n't talking without an 'i'/ 'i am' / me / myself / mine cause issues when communicating?

Yes talking without an 'i'/ 'i am' / me / myself / mine would cause issues when communicating, and be weird.
I suggest not getting caught up trying to do this.

Can't i use the word 'i' conventionally but understand there is no fixed, separate i
ie. that it's just an expression (apart from fact it kind of reinforces the illusion of separate self)

Yes, you can use the word 'i' conventionally but understand there is no separate i entity.

[flux3000]

- "Whereas being in automatic pilot mode..." Do you see a pilot anywhere?

Lol, no pilot..it's just that there is a distraction...and the sense of being is not so apparent (but still there).

- Who or what is there to "...do things impulsively, based on fear, greed, reactions, conditioning etc."?

No 'I' is there. The body/mind is there (apparently), enforcing the sense of separation (and lack of sense of being).

- Please look around in the world. Do you actually see fear, greed, reactions and conditioning?
- If not, why not?
- And if not, what do you see?

Lol good question. No, fear, greed, conditioning etc. cannot be seen - only the effect of them / reactions / experience / movement / actions / sensations etc. can be seen / felt...eg. someones face going red, or sudden shouting for instance.

In much the same way we do not see the wind but can feel it's effects on the skin / or when wind is blowing through the leaves on the trees.

Some winds / emotions do feel warm in contrast to cool (can be measured by instruments to be different temperatures) but labels overlaid onto pure experience none the less)

For any question you need extra time to look at, please take it. Do not step over any question.
It's not a hard and fast rule to respond every day.
Only respond when you see what's there.

Ok cool, good to know, Thank you for your kind support and continuing working with 'me'.

- Again, what is not on automatic?

Nothing, there is only Sense of Being, (no I).

Can a thought or awareness, or thought / awareness declare anything?

No. And who would be listening to the declaration if there was such a thing lol...(sense of being, not an I)

Or is it just a thought label for something that happened?

Yes just a label.

I will always use 'I' as the belief in a separate entity 'I' unless otherwise noted.

Ok good to have this clear (as this could be a potential for misunderstanding with me here).

- Is this 'sense of me' 'I'?

Sense of me is an illusion of a separate I.

- Or are you referring to sense of being?

I have on occasion been using i for both sense of me/self ( separate ego personality) as well as for sense of being (the non-self sense of being beyond separation / words / concepts / labels) - but will do my best not to use I for the sense of being from now on (but just to be clear in 'my mind' the two levels of 'sense of self I' vs 'sense of being / aliveness / awareness' are distinct experientially ).

The sense of 'self' / 'I-thought' continues to appear after seeing. This core belief can take time to unravel. Like a fan that's just been switched off, it can continue to spin for some time.

How can one tell if the fan is still spinning while the fan is still on, as opposed to if its just spinning after been switched off?
[Guessing answer - if fan switched off no-one left to care either way]

So "I am typing" is just as true as "Typing is happening"?

I think it really depends what you mean by 'true', but in this context, based on our investigation the idea that 'I am typing' is less / not true.

Are those "...issues with experience..." that may happen, more labels?
What could actually happen in that example of asking a friend to bring over a red object you call white?

There may be some consequences that would have not otherwise have happened (that could then be labelled and interpreted in different ways), but generally Yes everything can just be labelled (or not).

What could I see if I was a fly on a wall?

movement / dancing light / creative energy / expression / flow / change [as a fly in slow motion relative to our vision i speculate]

Experience is what labels point TO.

Yes the labels are not the experience, only an overlay, commentary. Nothing has any intrinsic meaning / independent existence from it's own side. Experience is just experience / energy / flow and our little ego selves stick a meaning on experience and break it up etc.

The thing is when the 'i' label was used in the exercise above there were some sensations felt inside this body...so in a funny way it does effect experience?

- Did the sensation happen first and then it was labelled, or did you label a sensation and then it happened?

In this example, just before the sensation arouse - First the label 'me' was said / thought,
then there was a sensation (which came up immediately after or during saying the label 'me',
which was then labelled as / associated with the temporary feeling sense of me (separate mini me) reinforcing it.

- If there was no label for a sensation felt in the body, could the sensation still happen?

yes certainly.

Yes, you can use the word 'i' conventionally but understand there is no separate i entity.

Awesome, Thank you again!

[Matthew P]

Thank you for your kind support and continuing working with 'me'.

You're welcome!

"Whereas being in automatic pilot mode..." Do you see a pilot anywhere?
Lol, no pilot..it's just that there is a distraction...and the sense of being is not so apparent (but still there).

- If it is the illusion of being a separate I entity that is the distraction, is there awareness of it at the time that it is a distraction?
- If not, how could it be a distraction?

- Who or what is there to "...do things impulsively, based on fear, greed, reactions, conditioning etc."?
No 'I' is there. The body/mind is there (apparently), enforcing the sense of separation (and lack of sense of being).

- Can the body/mind actively enforce the sense of separation (and lack of sense of being)?
- Is the body/mind the do-er?
- Or is there simply belief in/identification with being an I entity that is separate to life?

- Please look around in the world. Do you actually see fear, greed, reactions and conditioning?
- If not, why not?
- And if not, what do you see?
Lol good question. No, fear, greed, conditioning etc. cannot be seen - only the effect of them / reactions / experience / movement / actions / sensations etc. can be seen / felt...eg. someones face going red, or sudden shouting for instance.
In much the same way we do not see the wind but can feel it's effects on the skin / or when wind is blowing through the leaves on the trees.

- Is wind in real life?
- Are fear, greed, reactions and conditioning in real life?
- If not, where are they?

Can a thought or awareness, or thought / awareness declare anything?
No. And who would be listening to the declaration if there was such a thing lol...(sense of being, not an I)

- Can a sense of being listen?

- Is there any identification with this sense of being there, even the slightest bit?
Look. Answer honestly.

- What is sense of being?

The sense of 'self' / 'I-thought' continues to appear after seeing. This core belief can take time to unravel. Like a fan that's just been switched off, it can continue to spin for some time.
How can one tell if the fan is still spinning while the fan is still on, as opposed to if its just spinning after been switched off?
[Guessing answer - if fan switched off no-one left to care either way]

Caring can still happen.
Doubts can arise.

- Have you seen through the illusion of a separate self?

- Is a seer, witnesser, noticer, looker, experiencer, focuser, whatever -er still there?

- Are you on the right track?

- Or just deluded?

[flux3000]

- If it is the illusion of being a separate I entity that is the distraction, is there awareness of it at the time that it is a distraction?

hmm not sure i understand. i guess distraction can be defined differently.
It is very rare now that there is no awareness of what is happening (apart from when asleep). Nowadays there can be a sense of distraction / absorption / distraction / zoning out - but there is still a sense of awareness in which that occurs.

- If not, how could it be a distraction?

in the past it would be that distraction (lack of spacious open awareness of what is going on in the present moment) could go on for longer, then suddenly there would be mindfulness of that state / awareness of what had just gone previously. A bit like waking up in the morning ie. there was no or very little awareness during the dream, but upon awaking, there is a sense of 'i must have been asleep / dreaming'.

- Who or what is there to "...do things impulsively, based on fear, greed, reactions, conditioning etc."?
No 'I' is there. The body/mind is there (apparently), enforcing the sense of separation (and lack of sense of being).

- Can the body/mind actively enforce the sense of separation (and lack of sense of being)?

No. I meant the fact that there seems to be a body/mind (in everyday reality that feels sensations and interacts with other mind/bodies) helps to solidify an idea / image of separate self (that is an illusion).

- Is the body/mind the do-er?

No.

- Or is there simply belief in/identification with being an I entity that is separate to life?

Yes there is a belief / sense of identification with an I entity - that takes ownership, likes, dislikes, ignores. That identification / belief / dynamic is still quite apparent here.

- Is wind in real life?

Lol, depends what we are calling real life. In everyday life (on planet earth) the effects of wind can be experienced. But wind is just a label for (as i understand) some changes in pressure and some difference between them (I'm not a meteorologist). There is no object wind, that can be pin pointed, held, described and nobody doing the wind.

- Are fear, greed, reactions and conditioning in real life?
- If not, where are they?

I see them as the wind above. Ultimately not real, no label, just movements, changes in pressure, contrasts, differentials, but in everyday life they are felt as being real (like the wind is felt on the face).

- Can a sense of being listen?

Sense of being is Pure Listening.

- Is there any identification with this sense of being there, even the slightest bit?
Look. Answer honestly.

When simply being sense of being there is no identification. As there is no subject / object.

- What is sense of being?

In my case - Not describable with words or concepts. Being Here now. Beyond labels. Aliveness. Awareness. Knowing. Pure Listening. 'Oneness'. No Otherness. No sense of separation. Just This.

How can one tell if the fan is still spinning while the fan is still on, as opposed to if its just spinning after been switched off?

Caring can still happen.
Doubts can arise.

Thank you.

- Have you seen through the illusion of a separate self?

The separate self is seen as an illusion. There is a knowing that that sense of me is not real. The sense of Me / I is a label.
But it seems quite often that the separate self (as a bundle of conditioning, reactions etc) still shows up quite often.

- Is a seer, witnesser, noticer, looker, experiencer, focuser, whatever -er still there?

A witnesser, knower, writer, seer of the illusion of separation etc. is still there a lot of the time.

- Are you on the right track?

- Or just deluded?

Lol, yesterday i was very tired, and kind of at a breaking point of confusion, unknowingness.

All that seemed / seems left is to dive into Pure Experience and knowing. Then / there are no more questions and no more looking back checking if i am on the right track / who am i / sense of ..... But the 'sense of me' and his big brother the witnesser still show up. (and yes there does seem to be some identification with the witnesser - the True me).

So to answer, at this stage, i feel i am both:
ie. - deluded ('sense of me' and even witnesser still there) and
on the right track ('sense of me' more and more tired with itself - that may eventually give up at some point)

[Matthew P]

- Is wind in real life?
Lol, depends what we are calling real life. In everyday life (on planet earth) the effects of wind can be experienced. But wind is just a label for (as i understand) some changes in pressure and some difference between them (I'm not a meteorologist). There is no object wind, that can be pin pointed, held, described and nobody doing the wind.
- Are fear, greed, reactions and conditioning in real life?
- If not, where are they?
I see them as the wind above. Ultimately not real, no label, just movements, changes in pressure, contrasts, differentials, but in everyday life they are felt as being real (like the wind is felt on the face).

Get in touch with real. By real I mean that which is actually here, that does not disappear if you stop believing in it.

Imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine form, size, weight, temperature, keep it there, close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.
Open your eyes; is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or it never existed?

Notice that there was no boom and no bright light flashes in the eyes when imaginary spoon was no longer imagined.
Remember: Shift is not going to be more than the dropping of a belief - the glue that holds the illusion together.

Have you seen through the illusion of a separate self?
The separate self is seen as an illusion. There is a knowing that that sense of me is not real. The sense of Me / I is a label.
But it seems quite often that the separate self (as a bundle of conditioning, reactions etc) still shows up quite often.

Are you willing to simply notice it, not make it wrong, just be with it?

- Is a seer, witnesser, noticer, looker, experiencer, focuser, whatever -er still there?
A witnesser, knower, writer, seer of the illusion of separation etc. is still there a lot of the time.

- In what form?
- Is it you?
- Do you exist?

- Are you on the right track?
- Or just deluded?
Lol, yesterday i was very tired, and kind of at a breaking point of confusion, unknowingness.
All that seemed / seems left is to dive into Pure Experience and knowing.

- Is "Unknowingness" something to be rectified?
- Do you need to know?
- Who needs to know?
- To know what?
- Who is there to dive into Pure Experience and knowing?
- What exactly does this mean? (not a conceptual response either)

Then / there are no more questions and no more looking back checking if i am on the right track / who am i / sense of .....

Is this what you expect happens after seeing through the illusion of a separate 'I'?

But the 'sense of me' and his big brother the witnesser still show up. (and yes there does seem to be some identification with the witnesser - the True me).

How long will you identify with "the witnesser - the True me"?

So to answer, at this stage, i feel i am both:
ie. - deluded ('sense of me' and even witnesser still there) and

Delusion happens. Can you be with this? I.e. Not judge it, not make it wrong?

on the right track

Is there a wrong track?

('sense of me' more and more tired with itself

Does this 'sense of me' actually have the power to get tired with itself?

- that may eventually give up at some point)

Do you want it to give up at some point?
If so, look for what is wanting.
What do you see?

Here is another exercise:

Close your eyes and imagine you are in the kitchen. Just visualize and look around, notice where things are put. Notice the space, the feel of it.
This is an image, it can trigger feelings and contractions - expansions, thought stories and feelings attached to them.

Open eyes and see how an image can be created and explored in the mind.

Go to the kitchen and look at same things that you saw in the image, how does imagining and experiencing same things differ? Is the image of the kitchen and experience of kitchen the same?

[flux3000]

Get in touch with real. By real I mean that which is actually here, that does not disappear if you stop believing in it.

Ok.

Imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine form, size, weight, temperature, keep it there, close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.
Open your eyes; is there a spoon here, in real life?

No.

So how did you see that there is no spoon?

when opened eyes, spoon was not there.

What happened to the spoon?

Nothing, it never existed. It was a figment of imagination.

Did it disappear or it never existed?

It never existed as a real object.

Notice that there was no boom and no bright light flashes in the eyes when imaginary spoon was no longer imagined.
Remember: Shift is not going to be more than the dropping of a belief - the glue that holds the illusion together.

OK. Understood.

Are you willing to simply notice it, not make it wrong, just be with it?

Yes.

- Is a seer, witnesser, noticer, looker, experiencer, focuser, whatever -er still there?
A witnesser, knower, writer, seer of the illusion of separation etc. is still there a lot of the time.

- In what form?

Formless.

- Is it you?

There is no 'me' there is just this and a process of witnessing / seeing of this.

- Do you exist?

As a real fixed solid separate object no. No there is just happening, sensing, hearing, writing, reading etc.

- Is "Unknowingness" something to be rectified?

Lol. No, it can be just allowed to be

- Do you need to know?

No.

- Who needs to know?

The separate little, finite, conditioned self usually wants to know things.

- To know what?

objects of knowledge, how to drop knowledge, how to unite fully with reality.

- Who is there to dive into Pure Experience and knowing?

No one. Just an intention. A burning desire.

- What exactly does this mean? (not a conceptual response either)

Listening to silence between / behind thoughts - while life continues.

Then / there are no more questions and no more looking back checking if i am on the right track / who am i / sense of .....

Is this what you expect happens after seeing through the illusion of a separate 'I'?

No this is not an expectation, but a direct experience. The comments are made above, after the 'small sense of me' appears, and the fragrance of the direct experience just preceding it / pervading it is apparent to the witnessing self.

How long will you identify with "the witnesser - the True me"?

Until identification drops. However 'i am' seeing more and more the witnesser has no identity - there is just pure witnessing / awareness. Then pure being when even witnessing drops away.

Delusion happens. Can you be with this? I.e. Not judge it, not make it wrong?

Yes.

Is there a wrong track?

No. There is no track.

('sense of me' more and more tired with itself

Does this 'sense of me' actually have the power to get tired with itself?

No power to get tired, just runs out of steam. Dissolves, let go. Fuel is burnt up by itself. Illusion is seen.
No spoon, never was.

- that may eventually give up at some point)

Do you want it to give up at some point?

If it does it does. Until then it is ok.

If so, look for what is wanting.

there is a longing / yearning - for freedom / spiritual truth. Not sure where is located - possibly in the heart/mind.

What do you see?

Pure longing.

Here is another exercise:

Close your eyes and imagine you are in the kitchen. Just visualize and look around, notice where things are put. Notice the space, the feel of it.
This is an image, it can trigger feelings and contractions - expansions, thought stories and feelings attached to them.

Open eyes and see how an image can be created and explored in the mind.

Go to the kitchen and look at same things that you saw in the image, how does imagining and experiencing same things differ? Is the image of the kitchen and experience of kitchen the same?

Images in the mind are not identical as the objects in the kitchen.
The experience is not the same but similar.

[Matthew P]

So how did you see that there is no spoon?
when opened eyes, spoon was not there.

- "when opened eyes" or "when eyes opened"?

- Is a seer, witnesser, noticer, looker, experiencer, focuser, whatever -er still there?
A witnesser, knower, writer, seer of the illusion of separation etc. is still there a lot of the time.
- In what form?
Formless.

- So how can it be there?
- Have you seen it?
- And how can it do the witnessing, do the knowing, do the writing, do the seeing of the illusion of separation etc?

- Is it you?
There is no 'me' there is just this and a process of witnessing / seeing of this.

- So you see two things happening?

- Do you exist?
As a real fixed solid separate object no. No there is just happening, sensing, hearing, writing, reading etc.

Yes!

- Is "Unknowingness" something to be rectified?
Lol. No, it can be just allowed to be

- Who could allow it to be?

- Who needs to know?
The separate little, finite, conditioned self usually wants to know things.

LOL

- To know what?
objects of knowledge, how to drop knowledge, how to unite fully with reality.

Yes.

- Who is there to dive into Pure Experience and knowing?
No one. Just an intention. A burning desire.

- What does Pure Experience mean to you?
- Knowing what?

Then / there are no more questions and no more looking back checking if i am on the right track / who am i / sense of .....
Is this what you expect happens after seeing through the illusion of a separate 'I'?
No this is not an expectation, but a direct experience. The comments are made above, after the 'small sense of me' appears, and the fragrance of the direct experience just preceding it / pervading it is apparent to the witnessing self.

- Look for this witnessing self. Do you see it?
- If so, describe it to me.
- Focus on the image of the witnessing self, the separate individual entity, is it an image or an actual entity?

How long will you identify with "the witnesser - the True me"?
Until identification drops. However 'i am' seeing more and more the witnesser has no identity - there is just pure witnessing / awareness.

- If you're seeing more and more the witnesser has no identity, does that mean you currently see 'the witnesser' has some identity?
- Why do you feel there's still some holding onto "the witnesser" belief?
- Is there a fear of what may or may not happen if it is recognized for what it is/fully dropped?

Then pure being when even witnessing drops away.

- Do/did you see this now or is this speculation?

If so, look for what is wanting.
there is a longing / yearning - for freedom / spiritual truth. Not sure where is located - possibly in the heart/mind.

- Does longing / yearning need a location to happen?
- If I cut open your heart/mind, would I see longing / yearning there?

- Is spiritual truth different from truth?
- If so, how?

[flux3000]

So how did you see that there is no spoon?
when opened eyes, spoon was not there.

- "when opened eyes" or "when eyes opened"?

when the eyes opened :)

- Is a seer, witnesser, noticer, looker, experiencer, focuser, whatever -er still there?
A witnesser, knower, writer, seer of the illusion of separation etc. is still there a lot of the time.
- In what form?
Formless.

- So how can it be there?

It's not in a location and nobody is doing the focusing, experiencing. The witness is the witnessing.

- Have you seen it?

No. It is the seeing.

- And how can it do the witnessing, do the knowing, do the writing, do the seeing of the illusion of separation etc?

It doesn't do them - it is the witnessing, seeing, writing.

- Is it you?
There is no 'me' there is just this and a process of witnessing / seeing of this.

- So you see two things happening?

It's very difficult to describe. But in a way there are two levels - the silent witnessing process happening and the form moving.

- Is "Unknowingness" something to be rectified?
Lol. No, it can be just allowed to be

- Who could allow it to be?

Nobody. All by itself. Like a snake uncoiling itself. It's just there. Or it isn't.

- What does Pure Experience mean to you?

No separation.

- Knowing what?

Just knowing happening. without an object of knowing. Like the process of seeing without a separate subject / object.

- Look for this witnessing self. Do you see it? - If so, describe it to me.

There is no witnessing self to be found. There is just the process of witnessing / seeing. When the sense of me arises it splits things up into this and that.

- Focus on the image of the witnessing self, the separate individual entity, is it an image or an actual entity?

Generally when i refer to the witness, i am referring to the witnessing process / the stillness / silence /spaciousness - no subject or object. The witnessing beyond the little me / sense of me. The sense of me is seen in the witnessing process, arises and passes back within the witnessing process / awareness.

- If you're seeing more and more the witnesser has no identity, does that mean you currently see 'the witnesser' has some identity?

The witnessing has no identity, but the small me, adds a label and identifies with it.

- Why do you feel there's still some holding onto "the witnesser" belief?

The witnessing / silent witness with no voice or label feels like it is the 'True Self / Real Self / Unchanging I' whereas the little sense of me comes and goes / reacts / has conditioning / memories / points of view - so that small part feels like the illusion.

I don't believe there is a solid separate witnesser though. If anything - Witnessing / Awareness is all there is.
I wonder if this is just an area where it's easy to misunderstand language / terms / definitions.

For instance - Eckhart Tolle talks about presence / witness - but he does clarify strictly speaking it is consciousness experiencing itself - there is no I there strictly speaking. Just we talk of it conventionally - so resonate with that.
But i see a clear difference between the small sense of me, and the witnessing / awareness.

- Is there a fear of what may or may not happen if it is recognized for what it is/fully dropped?

Hmm...possibly but less and less....very slight now...its more a force of habit that the little sense of me appears.

Then pure being when even witnessing drops away.

- Do/did you see this now or is this speculation?

If so, look for what is wanting.
there is a longing / yearning - for freedom / spiritual truth. Not sure where is located - possibly in the heart/mind.

- Does longing / yearning need a location to happen?

No.

- If I cut open your heart/mind, would I see longing / yearning there?

No.

- Is spiritual truth different from truth?
- If so, how?

Everyday truth that most regular people talk about is facts (and points of view).

Spiritual truth is actually dropping away of points of view and facts. Not this, not that.

Seeing things as they are without any overlay / commentary.

In a sense that is the same truth....'elementary dear Watson'

(eliminate what is unreal to leave what is real :)