It is more clearer that there is 'no self' in this living experience as has been believed to, since childhood. This clarity gives a lot more confidence that this whole discussion of 'no-self' in not mumbo-jumbo and can be cross checked again and again.
Good. Let's try to get this even clearer so that perhaps you don't have to doubt anymore. The questions might seem a little repetitive, but there seems to be a little left, so a little hunting might be beneficial.
Ps before starting to write answers this time, please read my last message
I would not say that for me the experience has become much more lighter as lot of people before have reported.
Oh that's fine, everyone's experience will be a little different.
Still a lot of times when there is self talk, attention is being sucked to personhood. And it is only later that I try to cross question who is this entity doing self talk ? Who is this entity talking to ? If it is talking to itself is there a self? If a self is not found was it mind talking to itself? It becomes very difficult that over all this experience it was just my mind talking to itself. And thus there is still this understanding that I have not completely dissolved the 'self', if any. I leave the thoughts at that and not engage too much in them. I think there is still attachment to the story of a boy, of a son, of a husband etc.
Yes the self talk will go on, although it will loosen up the more identification gets pulled out of all ideas. But that won't likely happen overnight
These questions are just trying to draw some attention to some aspects that perhaps could hide some identity or assumptions:
- is there such a thing as a mind?
- Where does the mind (or thought/thinking) belong to exactly?
- Does the body belong to anything?
- what or who did not completely dissolve the self yet, and who leaves the thoughts and that and doesn't engage too much in them?
Having said that this looking and questioning has become an important part of the living experience. And ensuring that nothing is assumed to be true, instead checking the truth each time. One more visible change I can see, there is a strong understanding of non-doership that has arisen. Earlier it would have been easy to think 'self' as a doer and give too much importance to this fiction. Also, there is a strong understanding that this imagined 'self' is not found in the dream state, and thus clarifying it even more that this 'self' is not true.
that sounds very good:)
I don't know what makes things happen. Things are happening, there is a strong feeling that there is no controller. Things are just happening. There is also a strong feeling that by thinking that I am controlling my life, I am just creating a roadblock to let life flow. I have never been in control of things. Things happened and then they were labelled. In the heart it is known that whatever received was a gift, whether that made me feel good or bad. There is a strong sense of self.
Good, no need to know how things happen, that answer is perfect.
can you hang your hat (where the words 'I' should refer to as used in the story above) anywhere 'in' experience? Is there still a sort of subtle belief that these words refer to some kind of entity/thing, that there might be such a thing?
Oh and btw, who's life is it?:)
There are a few questions which needs to be resolved. How does this sense of self originates? How to dissolve this ? What is this voice in the head, if it is mostly a fiction of brain why has many a times it has been felt to be so wise?
If wiggling fingers don't require a wiggler in order to properly wiggle, why should thinking require a thinker in order for proper thinking?
Your usage of the words 'I' and 'me' are fine, keep using them. I've just poked at it because it felt some subtle unlooked assumptions could be there.
For your next answers/responses, why don't you try writing without using the words I, me or mine? See how that feels
Wishing you the best,
Floris
