hide and seek

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,

Is there an ‘I’ that is not needed?

Not really, however it does appear as a thought at times, and when looked at, evaporates.

The ‘I’ is not needed for what/who?

Sensation is enough. It can stand on its own without a subject to claim it.

So for the next few days, I would like to ask you to focus your attention to this sensation as often as you can during the day (hundreds of times).

Reaction is greatly lessened. Nothing to get excited about, pleasure and pain is noticed and accepted.
Am I still meant to be posting every day?
I appreciate your comments.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Reaction is greatly lessened. Nothing to get excited about, pleasure and pain is noticed and accepted.
Am I still meant to be posting every day?

Here are some questions to see if is there anything that is not completely clear. Please answer what's true for you right now, rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.

Has it been seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?
Is there an ‘experiencer’?
Is there a ‘thinker’?

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?
Do others have responsibilities?

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?
Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,
Reaction is greatly lessened. Nothing to get excited about, pleasure and pain is noticed and accepted.
Am I still meant to be posting every day?

Here are some questions to see if is there anything that is not completely clear. Please answer what's true for you right now, rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.

Has it been seen that there has never been an ‘I’ that could control or own life or anything?

Yes

Is there any chooser or decider of any kind?

No, chooser and decider are not real.

Is there an ‘experiencer’?

There is no experiencer. It keeps appearing in thought saying, “I see, I am, I do, and it is noticed that “I” is not real, seeing, being are just happening, and doing is not even possible..

Is there a ‘thinker’?

No thinker can be found, but the thought, “I think” comes up and is also spoken. So that thought is questioned and found empty. There is really no thinker, only thought. The thinking has barely changed, but the believing has nearly stopped.

Is there a ‘doer’ of any kind which performs activities and movements?

There are sensations labeled by thought as a body and other bodies that get labeled as the doers of myriad activities. Blames and praises come up labeling the sensations that appear. These are thought forms making ‘someone’ responsible for what comes up. It’s a big part of human interaction and it continues. It can be seen that there is no doer while at the same time the human interaction goes on and on speaking of this doer or that one.

Is there an 'I' of any kind whatsoever that could be responsible for anything at all?

The ‘I’ is only and idea. It can’t be responsible for anything, while at the same time it is continually referred to as responsible for countless daily affairs in thinking and in speech.

Do others have responsibilities?

For example. My great grandson is staying here. He has a camping bed where he sleeps in the middle of the office. He has been asked to put the bed away each morning so that we can walk across the room. Many other things are required of each of us here so that the household can function. The needs are identified and negotiated. No 'self' needs to do anything. The negotiations and responses are pleasant and unpleasant and arise and resolve quite naturally. No need to pin it on individual ‘I’s.

Is there a self that is inside the body, perceiving a world that is outside?

There's perception of a world, but where does the edge begin or end? A dividing line is an idea. Ideas of self
come up, but are not believed.

Is there a 'you' that started this investigation?

No. It was one thing that led to another.

Has there ever been a 'you' doing anything?

Thankfully not. But to be honest, a big sludge pile of guilt and regret thoughts steam and wail and plead to be acknowledged. Just thoughts. And memories?

Any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

I Googled condtioning. It pretty much said it is everything. So there's lots to be seen through.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Here are some final questions. Please answer the following questions with some detail please, and answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer. Also please provide examples where asked.

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

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

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

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

6) Anything to add?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,

Here are some final questions. Please answer the following questions with some detail please, and answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer. Also please provide examples where asked.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience.
Describe it fully as you see it now.

There never was a separate self. The separate self is imaginary. It exists only in thought. It is also a component of language whereas all actions, including thought and sensation are ascribed to a separate self with the words ‘I’, and ‘me’ and ‘you’. We begin to believe in the separate self as we learn language. We are taught through the language we learn from others to believe that we are separate selves, ‘I’s, that do things, feel things and are responsible for things. Life is actively unfolding and being perceived. I and you are word/thoughts that piggy back on actions and perceptions that are happening completely without an ‘I’ or ‘you’. But the thought/words piggy back as ‘I’ or ‘you’ are doing, ‘I’ or ‘you’ are seeing/feeling. Babies and small children just respond to life. They don’t employ and ‘I’ or ‘you’ as an added on separate layer of experience that owns action.

This situation causes suffering because a fixed story is formed about the ‘I’. I am this, I am that, this bad thing happened to me, this good thing happened to me, I am happy, I am in pain. This shouldn’t happen to me, this should happen to me. Without the ‘I’ the flow of life goes on without forming fixed definitions. Change is free to happen when as as it does. The senses of the moment that might cause suffering are accepted because there is no fixed point to reject them as in, “This should not be happening to me.”

At this point the ‘I’ (and ‘you’ as well) has been seen as a thought concept without reality. These concepts continue in thought and in speech and it is seen how they make the flow of life sticky and choppy by fixation of attention on falsehood. Waking hours are calm and peaceful punctuated by ‘I’ thoughts popping in and being examined.

3) How does it feel to see this?

Seeing this feels peaceful and calm. There is a blankness rather than a presence where the self used to dwell, and the colors and sounds of the world are more pronounced.

What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

Responses have shifted toward quiet curiosity , watching and waiting instead of planning, controlling or convincing. It’s a shift, not a complete changeover. The old dramas can still arise, but are very transparent in retrospect. Panic attacks have lessened in frequency, intensity, and credibility. Body sensations are all very similar when looked at closely, whether accompanied by thoughts of upset or happiness.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?

The whole wave, the insistence and the repetition, and then the groping for the ‘right’ answer. I was cornered into to convincing myself. In fact, it’s still happening, the conviction is still expanding.

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control.

Movement happens in life. Early training as a human taught ‘me’ to imagine making decisions, intend outcomes, believe that ‘I’ had free will, that ‘I’ could, even must make choices and had better control things to ensure safety and happiness.
Early training as a human taught ‘me’ to believe that ‘I’ was a distinct entity, responsible for ‘my’ progress or lack thereof. Whatever happened or was felt was ascribed in some way to a fictitious entity named ‘I/me’, an increasingly complicated imaginary being that appeared in thought and took credit for whatever sensation or activity appeared. This put a smoke screen over actual happenings because they were attributed to or judged by a being that did not exist except in imagination, an imagination that was complicated, confused, and riddled with shifting opinions.

What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

I really don’t know what makes things happen. Countless ideas appear in thought but there is no knowing. Any answer leads to another question. Things happen, responses happen. In recent experience there is watching of what happens, accepting what happens, thoughts about what has happened, noticing that attempts to fix or control are not useful, noticing that decisions are automatic, reasons are afterthought. Feeling Kindly and curious, but not for why, but interested in what will happen next.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

I’m not responsible for anything. ‘I’ can’t be, because ‘I’ am just an idea.
Interestingly this hasn’t stopped thought, action and talk. It appears. Things happen both positive and negative and neutral, but no one is making them happen. There is response. One thing/action responds to another and there is order and even harmony. This is my recent experience. Generally very soft with occasional perturbation, going back to softness. General pleasant surprise that so little effort is needed, just things come up and responses happen and are often surprising. ‘I’ am not responsible. It just happens, and it’s okay.

6) Anything to add?

So nothing has changed, because ‘I’ was never real to begin with so there is really nothing to change. Life goes on just as before, but it’s a relief to see the ‘I’ as false. Thinking is simpler, and burdens are lighter. Thank you so much for your guidance and patience.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Thank you for answering the questions. I have some more clarifying questions if you don't mind.

I was cornered into to convincing myself. In fact, it’s still happening, the conviction is still expanding.

What do you mean by this exactly?
Do you mean that you convinced yourself and still convincing yourself into seeing/believing of no self?

V: What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

F: I really don’t know what makes things happen. Countless ideas appear in thought but there is no knowing. Any answer leads to another question. Things happen, responses happen. In recent experience there is watching of what happens, accepting what happens, thoughts about what has happened, noticing that attempts to fix or control are not useful, noticing that decisions are automatic, reasons are afterthought. Feeling Kindly and curious, but not for why, but interested in what will happen next.

Could you please give a more concrete example from your recent experiences about how things happen?

V: b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

F: I’m not responsible for anything. ‘I’ can’t be, because ‘I’ am just an idea.
Interestingly this hasn’t stopped thought, action and talk. It appears. Things happen both positive and negative and neutral, but no one is making them happen. There is response. One thing/action responds to another and there is order and even harmony. This is my recent experience. Generally very soft with occasional perturbation, going back to softness. General pleasant surprise that so little effort is needed, just things come up and responses happen and are often surprising. ‘I’ am not responsible. It just happens, and it’s okay.

Could you please give a more concrete example form your recent experiences about the notion of responsibility?

So nothing has changed, because ‘I’ was never real to begin with so there is really nothing to change. Life goes on just as before, but it’s a relief to see the ‘I’ as false.

“Life goes on just as before, but it’s a relief to see that ‘I’ as false” – it’s a relief for what?
What is it that is feeling relief?

Thank you so much for your guidance and patience.

You are very welcome :)

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

I was cornered into to convincing myself. In fact, it’s still happening, the conviction is still expanding.

What do you mean by this exactly?
Do you mean that you convinced yourself and still convincing yourself into seeing/believing of no self?

Yes, trying to answer these questions from some other viewpoint than the self is mind twisting. In answering the questions I have to look behind the ‘self’. Seeing anything without the overlay of the idea of self does not come without—I want to say continual effort, but there is no effort, it is just that there is the continual appearance of the ownership of self and the continual noticing of the idea. There is no self to convince, and yet there is the frozen nailed down concept of the self to be put aside over and over and over.

Could you please give a more concrete example from your recent experiences about how things happen?

Things happen by themselves. One thing melts into another, I don’t know why or how. I don’t have any recent experience of how things happen because I have no idea how things happen. I’m completely stumped what to say about this.

Could you please give a more concrete example from your recent experiences about the notion of responsibility?

If ‘I’ is just an idea, and a false one, how can there be responsibility except for an imagined self?
I asked my husband to make a double recipe of humus. It was too much for the blender and it shut down. I started apologizing and feeling guilty for asking him to double the recipe. I don’t like to put people to extra trouble. I felt responsible for causing him trouble. I badgered my grand daughter for telling me she was dropping off her son early in the morning after a night out and then not showing up with him. She was irresponsible in my opinion. Those are thoughts of the self. They come up, they get expressed, they are seen as false sooner or later.

What is it that is feeling relief?

The seeking ‘I’ that wants escape from suffering and bother had a fleeting moment of relief. The suffering soon returned. The self overlay creeps in over and over even when answering these questions.



Repeating: Thank you so much for your guidance and patience.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

F: I was cornered into to convincing myself. In fact, it’s still happening, the conviction is still expanding.

V: What do you mean by this exactly?
Do you mean that you convinced yourself and still convincing yourself into seeing/believing of no self?

F: Yes, trying to answer these questions from some other viewpoint than the self is mind twisting. In answering the questions I have to look behind the ‘self’. Seeing anything without the overlay of the idea of self does not come without—I want to say continual effort, but there is no effort, it is just that there is the continual appearance of the ownership of self and the continual noticing of the idea. There is no self to convince, and yet there is the frozen nailed down concept of the self to be put aside over and over and over.

In my interpretation, convincing means that there is still a belief in the existence of a separate self, but there is a trying to replace this belief (or overlay this belief) with another belief of no-self. Is this how for you?

So the whole thing happens intellectually, on the level of thoughts. When thoughts about I/me arise, there is a pushing aside of these thoughts, and replacing it with another thought ‘there is no me/self” Is this how for you?

There is no self to convince, and yet there is the frozen nailed down concept of the self to be put aside over and over and over.

And what is it exactly that is putting aside the concept of the self?
And what do you mean by ‘nailed down concept of the self’? Nailed down where and how?

V: What is it that is feeling relief?

F: The seeking ‘I’ that wants escape from suffering and bother had a fleeting moment of relief. The suffering soon returned. The self overlay creeps in over and over even when answering these questions.

Can the ‘I’ ACTUALLY feeling relief? How?
If not, then what is it exactly that is feeling relief?

Can the ‘I’ actually seek to escape from suffering? How?
If not, that what is it that is seeking escape from suffering?

And what is it that suffers?
Where is the sufferer?
And how suffering as such is experienced?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,
So much happening today I haven't had a quiet moment
to sit down and respond to the questions. I'll do it tomorrow.
Be well.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,

In my interpretation, convincing means that there is still a belief in the existence of a separate self, but there is a trying to replace this belief (or overlay this belief) with another belief of no-self. Is this how for you?

Yes, that is a familiar pattern for me. Any insight is claimed by ‘seeker self’ saying, “I’ve got this!” (Actually there is no ‘seeker self’ outside the idea/thought of ‘seeker self’.)

So the whole thing happens intellectually, on the level of thoughts. When thoughts about I/me arise, there is a pushing aside of these thoughts, and replacing it with another thought ‘there is no me/self” Is this how for you?

Yes, ‘seeker self’ comes in with the right answer to all events.
That is there are thoughts about the seeker in possession of answers.

And what is it exactly that is putting aside the concept of the self?
And what do you mean by ‘nailed down concept of the self’? Nailed down where and how?

‘Seeker self’ cannot ever really find, or it would cease to be ‘seeker self’ so any obstacle to finding must be firmly entrenched so that it cannot be overcome.

Can the ‘I’ ACTUALLY feeling relief? How?
If not, then what is it exactly that is feeling relief?

‘Seeker self’ claims many moments of realization and epiphany (relief), but since a self is not real, it can’t really possess anything and so it cycles back into suffering. Only a self idea can believe it’s achieved or failed at anything. (Why does it seem the self is able to believe?)

Can the ‘I’ actually seek to escape from suffering? How?

No, the I can only experience pleasure and pain, one following the other. (so here the I is made real again)
No. The I, being only a thought or belief cannot really do anything. But thought can appear about an I doing something and that thought can be believed. (Who or what is capable of believing?). No one, belief and non belief are also thoughts.

If not, that what is it that is seeking escape from suffering?

It’s an idea (thought content) that there is suffering to be escaped, and that there is a ‘self’ to improve.

And what is it that suffers?

Thoughts about suffering think about suffering.
(Thoughts can’t do anything but make images of suffering)

Where is the sufferer?

Sufferer is a form of self who is not real and is nowhere.
(Sufferer is a thought image only, not a form of self. Self has no form other than thought.)

And how suffering as such is experienced?

Suffering is experienced in thought and attached to body sensations labeled as contraction or pain.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,
I find your replies quite confusing and contradictory. Sometimes you write as if you could clearly seen that there is no such thing as self/me/I, but at the same time you say that you are just trying to convince yourself intellectually.

V: In my interpretation, convincing means that there is still a belief in the existence of a separate self, but there is a trying to replace this belief (or overlay this belief) with another belief of no-self. Is this how for you?

F: Yes, that is a familiar pattern for me. Any insight is claimed by ‘seeker self’ saying, “I’ve got this!” (Actually there is no ‘seeker self’ outside the idea/thought of ‘seeker self’.)

This reply is contradictory. At first you say that you are just trying to convinced yourself intellectually of no-self by trying overlay this new belief on the old one (there is the self), but then you are making the statement that there is no actual ‘seeker self’, since it’s just an idea, which would mean that you can clearly see that there is no-self and not just believing in.

So which one is the true? Since both of them cannot be true at the same time.

Can you really SEE it EXPERIENTIALLY that there is no ‘seeker self’ or any self in any shape or form?

V: So the whole thing happens intellectually, on the level of thoughts. When thoughts about I/me arise, there is a pushing aside of these thoughts, and replacing it with another thought ‘there is no me/self” Is this how for you?

F: Yes, ‘seeker self’ comes in with the right answer to all events.
That is there are thoughts about the seeker in possession of answers.

Again, this a very confusing reply.

You say yes, that this is just intellectual, but at the same time you describe it as if you were able to see that all these happens only in thoughts.

So either your understanding is only intellectual
or
you are misinterpreting what intellectual and experiential means
or
you have unrealistic expectations about how seeing through the self should be like.
Which one?

Let me ask you, what do you think, how seeing through the self be like or feel like?
What is missing for you?

Sufferer is a form of self who is not real and is nowhere.
(Sufferer is a thought image only, not a form of self. Self has no form other than thought.)

Can you see this clearly on the experiential level?
If you can, then why do say that your understanding is intellectual and you are just trying to convince yourself?

V: And how suffering as such is experienced?

F: Suffering is experienced in thought and attached to body sensations labeled as contraction or pain.

Suffering CANNOT be experienced in thought, since NOHTING can be experienced in thought.

If the contents of thoughts would be experienced, then the thought ‘sweet’ could be tasted, and the thought “It’s hot” could be felt. But is this possible?

Can suffering be experienced in thought?
Can suffering be experienced at all?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,

I find your replies quite confusing and contradictory. Sometimes you write as if you could clearly seen that there is no such thing as self/me/I, but at the same time you say that you are just trying to convince yourself intellectually.
So which one is the true? Since both of them cannot be true at the same time.

I’m trying to be honest by describing the image of the self that still appears in thought even though it has been seen to be unreal. It is seen to be unreal when the image appears, and yet it does still appear.

Can you really SEE it EXPERIENTIALLY that there is no ‘seeker self’ or any self in any shape or form?

No. ‘I’ don’t exist to experience anything. Experience is just happening. Where ‘I’ come in is as some sort of interpretation.

Let me ask you, what do you think, how seeing through the self be like or feel like?

Seeing through the self would be like this: All self referent things disappear like pleasure, pain, anger, fear, pride, shame. No self idea is there to be a subject for stories about these concepts. Just the bliss of conscious existence.

What is missing for you?

Nothing really. The thoughts about how it could or should be are just that, thoughts.

Sufferer is a thought image only, not a form of self. Self has no form other than thought.
Can you see this clearly on the experiential level?

It can be seen, but ’I’ can’t see anything. The moment there is a thought about an ‘I’ that sees truth is the moment a step is taken away from simple experience.

If you can, then why do say that your understanding is intellectual and you are just trying to convince yourself?

Because the minute ‘I’ start to talk about it ‘I’ am in intellect.

If the contents of thoughts would be experienced, then the thought ‘sweet’ could be tasted, and the thought “It’s hot” could be felt. But is this possible?
Can suffering be experienced in thought?

No, that’s a good point, “Nothing can be experienced in thought, (suffering included).” Thought is not experience, but suffering is thought riding on sensation, telling a story about something that is going wrong. When sensation is looked at closely and the thought passes, there is no suffering.

Can suffering be experienced at all?

Suffering is not an actual experience. It’s an idea about something.

Thank you

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

I’m trying to be honest by describing the image of the self that still appears in thought even though it has been seen to be unreal. It is seen to be unreal when the image appears, and yet it does still appear.

Oh, here is a big and unrealistic expectation that the illusion of the self should stop appearing.

But just because the self is seen through, it doesn’t mean it will stop appearing. It WON’T!

Thought doesn't stop ‘saying’ that it's your car, your job, your body, your craving, your preference, your pain, your happiness, your this and your that. It's never been any other way. So it is only an expectation (an unrealistic expectation) that thought will suddenly change its tune.

Seeing through the self would be like this: All self referent things disappear like pleasure, pain, anger, fear, pride, shame. No self idea is there to be a subject for stories about these concepts. Just the bliss of conscious existence.

These are VERY UNREALISTIC expectations and they have nothing to do with seeing through the self.

Self-referencing thoughts DEFINITELY WON’T STOP APPEARING. thought of “I am” and “I do” definitely won’t stop appearing at all. Expecting this just would lead to big disappointment. We are not after a special state where there are no more thoughts about me, and everything seems to flow autopilot. This might happen to some for a period of time, but this state will definitely end, and this is not the aim of this investigation. These states are valued a lot by some, but actually they don’t matter to much. Since states come and go. But seeing through the self don’t come and go.

This exploration is just a beginning and not an ending. The core belief of being a separate self is seen through but there will still be beliefs and patterns that are rooted in the idea of being a separate self that will need clearing, as not everything gets rewritten in one big hit. It SEEMS that identifying as the separate self shows up again and again along with feelings of resistance, doubt, frustration and confusion. This is known as yo-yoing and happens to everyone and is normal. Knowing that the ‘conditioning’ is not something that you own makes it easier to clear. Continuing to LOOK after the realisation is very much the key.

Pleasure, pain, anger, fear, pride, shame – these WILL NOT stop appearing just because the self has seen through.

Suffering happens when being lost in thoughts happens. It means that the thoughts in that moment are not seen only as arising thoughts (only as ‘containers’ coming and going), but rather their ‘content’, what they are about is taken as reality. And of course, since each thought is about the self, the self is taken as something real. And this, let’s call ‘delusion’ still can happen even after seeing the illusion of the self. But when it’s investigated, it can be seen for what it is. But there is no guaranty that in the next moment the story of a self won’t reassert itself. It’s a habit of the mind. It’s a conditioned pattern of thinking. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker.

Also, personality problems, traumas, emotional pains don’t dissolve just because of seeing no self. So all the conditioned reactions that stem from them still can arise. However, if someone decides to work on these, it’s usually much easier after seeing no-self.

Falling for the illusion can happen much more often than one might expect. It can last for even hours several times during the day. And why? It’s because every time an emotion is triggered (by some circumstances or because of certain thoughts coming up), the self is activated. So whenever there is frustration, wanting or not wanting something, expecting something, having anger, resentment, feeling hurt, disliking something / somebody, etc. the self is there immediately. Since all these emotions are on behalf of the self. And after seeing no-self, all these conditioned issues need to be worked through, otherwise whenever these emotions arise the self comes with them. Humans are very often triggered (many-many times a day) and those triggered reactions can last from minutes to hours, meaning that the self is there and believed to be real for minutes or hours while those triggered reactions are functioning.

Taking the self as a seemingly real ‘thing’, is also a conditioned habit of thinking. It’s a habit of the ‘mind’. It’s the result of a life-long conditioning. But upon each looking it gets a little bit weaker and weaker. So further looking is the key.

Just the bliss of conscious existence.

This is the MOST UNREALISTIC expectations of all.

Bliss or happiness state, and no states are permanent, they are all subject to change. Seeing through the separate individual is not about not having any ‘bad’ or uncomfortable feelings any more. Rather it’s about encompassing all emotions, accepting WHATEVER is arising in this moment (even the so called negative emotions).

Many seekers believe that seeing through the separate individual is a completely different state that they are currently having, with some special qualities (happiness, bliss, constant peace or whatever). However, this is not the case. Seeing through the illusion that there is a separate entity (self) is not a state. When it is SEEN it, the knowledge becomes factual. Many seekers have the impression that seeing there is no self is a state to ‘abide in’. It's not.

Realising that there is no inherent self is just a beginning and not an ending. There are still many beliefs, patterns and emotions that will need clearing as not everything is rewritten in one fowl swoop. So please put aside all expectations that by the end of this exploration you should be feeling bliss with no more self-referencing thoughts. There has never been a separate self….ever…so things aren’t going to change. The only thing that changes is how life and the idea of a separate self are perceived.

V: If you can, then why do say that your understanding is intellectual and you are just trying to convince yourself?

F: Because the minute ‘I’ start to talk about it ‘I’ am in intellect.

But then how could we be able to talk about it?

Thoughts are needed to have a conversation about it.
But just because there are thoughts about it, it doesn’t mean that the thoughts are not based on what has been seen.

Do you expect something else here?
Do you expect that you should be able to talk about it without having intellectual thoughts about it?

Or what do you expect to be different than how it is now?

No, that’s a good point, “Nothing can be experienced in thought, (suffering included).” Thought is not experience, but suffering is thought riding on sensation, telling a story about something that is going wrong. When sensation is looked at closely and the thought passes, there is no suffering.

Yes, nice looking.

It seems that you have unrealistic expectations ( = beliefs) about how seeing through the self should be like, which has nothing to do with how it actually is.

And since you have all sorts of beliefs how it should be like or feel like, you compare the experience with those beliefs with the result that “This is not IT.”

What is it that has the expectation of all self-referrencing thoughts to go away?

What is it that wants pleasure, pain, anger, fear, pride and shame to never appear again?

What is it that would like to be in a state of bliss?

What is it that has the problem with illusion of the self appearing?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien, thank you for clarification.

V: If you can, then why do say that your understanding is intellectual and you are just trying to convince yourself?
F: Because the minute ‘I’ start to talk about it ‘I’ am in intellect.
But then how could we be able to talk about it?

We wouldn’t. You are right, thoughts can point to actual happenings sometimes.

But just because there are thoughts about it, it doesn’t mean that the thoughts are not based on what has been seen. Do you expect something else here?

No.

Do you expect that you should be able to talk about it without having intellectual thoughts about it?

No. I really don’t think that is possible. Anything that requires words uses intellect.

Or what do you expect to be different than how it is now?

Nothing really. Seeking after ‘states’ is a fierce habit of mine and I’m not surprised those ideas are still appearing.

You have all sorts of beliefs how it should be like or feel like, you compare the experience with those beliefs with the result that “This is not IT.”

Yes, that is what happens.

What is it that has the expectation of all self-referrencing thoughts to go away?

That is the thoughts about the self and its future and what it might enjoy.

What is it that wants pleasure, pain, anger, fear, pride and shame to never appear again?

Thoughts that refer to the self.

What is it that would like to be in a state of bliss?

Thoughts that refer to the self.

What is it that has the problem with illusion of the self appearing?

Thoughts that refer to the self.