A jump to truth.

[s-p-a-c-e]

I have been looking at the question of self today.

I don´t find a concrete self to identify.

A kind of fluid sensation / assumption changing with circumstances and enforced by language requirements.

You mention 'concrete self', so for you, the word/idea 'self' refers to something of substance.
Would that be fair?

Right now, am not bothered about whether there is or isn't a self, because until we know to what 'self' refers for you, the existence of it is a moot point.

Many thanks,
John

[Nigeluzito]

This morning looking again at the idea of self there seems to be always an experiencer or observer.

There is no sense of substance in the experiencer.

The sense of greater solidity only comes when this experiencer is associated with something such as my body, mind story etc.

The body produces a great sense of self , pain for example produces a very powerful stimuli and everything is sensed normally through the body.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi Nigel,

This morning looking again at the idea of self there seems to be always an experiencer or observer.

There is no sense of substance in the experiencer.

The sense of greater solidity only comes when this experiencer is associated with something such as my body, mind story etc.

The body produces a great sense of self , pain for example produces a very powerful stimuli and everything is sensed normally through the body.

Ok, good.
So, any 'concrete self' would likely be the body.
And last time I looked, my left leg didn't want the job. :)

And now, to the experiencer - there's no sense of substance, and yet there is something to which we refer as 'experiencer or observer'.

Pin down the subtle sensations referred to as 'experiencer or observer'.
And then, identify the seeming location - general or specific - of these sensations.
Are they in my right little finger, for example. Probably not.
So where do they seem to show up?

With kind thanks,
John

[Nigeluzito]

As we looked at before any concrete location would be the head, here behind the eyes as the visual perception is dominanat here.

What I refer to as the observer is a completely different order. Some years ago I was in that position for a short time, I cannot really comment much there due to its radically different nature. It was not a heightening of everyday reality more a breaking down of that.

That observer which is much more fundamental, still had connection with the body.

I am forced to use the mind as the only instrument of investigation. It would be clearer for me to say that the experiencer is the observer assosiated with the filter of ideas, emotions, conditioning producing a sense of self. Here I see it´s illusuory nature based on learnt ideas etc..

If you wished me to comment on my true self I would say it is a mystery here, radically different; that event mentioned was probably only a glimpse of many different possible stepping stones. But when honoured undermines the "habitual preprogrammed separate self" idea.

[Nigeluzito]

As we looked at before any concrete location would be the head, here behind the eyes as the visual perception is dominanat here.

What I refer to as the observer is a completely different order. Some years ago I was in that position for a short time, I cannot really comment much there due to its radically different nature. It was not a heightening of everyday reality more a breaking down of that.

That observer which is much more fundamental, still had connection with the body.

I am forced to use the mind as the only instrument of investigation. It would be clearer for me to say that the experiencer is the observer assosiated with the filter of ideas, emotions, conditioning producing a sense of self. Here I see it´s illusuory nature based on learnt ideas etc..

If you wished me to comment on my true self I would say it is a mystery here, radically different; that event mentioned was probably only a glimpse of many different possible stepping stones. But when honoured undermines the "habitual preprogrammed separate self" idea.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi Nigel,

As we looked at before any concrete location would be the head, here behind the eyes as the visual perception is dominanat here.

ok.

What I refer to as the observer is a completely different order. Some years ago I was in that position for a short time, I cannot really comment much there due to its radically different nature. It was not a heightening of everyday reality more a breaking down of that.

Ok, I get that. :)

That observer which is much more fundamental, still had connection with the body.

I see.

I am forced to use the mind as the only instrument of investigation. It would be clearer for me to say that the experiencer is the observer assosiated with the filter of ideas, emotions, conditioning producing a sense of self. Here I see it´s illusuory nature based on learnt ideas etc..

Yes, the point is not whether a self exists or not, as clearly that depends on what we refer to when saying 'self'.
If 'self' is the personalised construct etc you mention above, then is that sense, it does have an existence.
And then, at some point we identified with it, which gave the impression that this 'self' has life, autonomy.
Which we can see is not the case.
I think you see that. Yes?

If you wished me to comment on my true self I would say it is a mystery here, radically different; that event mentioned was probably only a glimpse of many different possible stepping stones. But when honoured undermines the "habitual preprogrammed separate self" idea.

And so, without identifying as this self/me/Nigel/John, something else is going on, something that is here.

Does this ring true?

Best wishes,
John

[Nigeluzito]

When there are times when the ideas emotions etc are not present or given attention everything continues.

There is no identification with the self built on ideas.

Then a " empty space " a no thing is noticed.

I think this is what you are refering to as... something else is going on, something that is here.

This certainly rings true.

[Nigeluzito]

When there are times when the ideas emotions etc are not present or given attention everything continues.

There is no identification with the self built on ideas.

Then a " empty space " a no thing is noticed.

I think this is what you are refering to as... something else is going on, something that is here.

This certainly rings true.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi Nigel,

When there are times when the ideas emotions etc are not present or given attention everything continues.

There is no identification with the self built on ideas.

Then a " empty space " a no thing is noticed.

I think this is what you are refering to as... something else is going on, something that is here.

This certainly rings true.

Ok, cool. Is there anything further you'd like to explore with respect to identification with a 'self'?

Best wishes,
John

[Nigeluzito]

When this fundamental "no-thing-ness" is attended to, it seems here to act as a very efficent means of removing/lightening the sense of self which is built on ideas etc.

Here there is a sense that these constricting emotions and ideas are contained in the body as blockages both physical ( muscular contractions for example) and energetic. The dipping into the fundamental field loosens this up and parts of the limiting mental etc self seems to be removed.

This is important here as then attending to the fundamental "no-thing-ness" is easier and the process accelerates.

My sense is that this attending to the more fundamental field here is still probably through the created self and not direct. I would imagine a withdrawing from the filter would be akin to the experience previously mentioned, that is of a quite radically different nature.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi Nigel,

When this fundamental "no-thing-ness" is attended to, it seems here to act as a very efficent means of removing/lightening the sense of self which is built on ideas etc.

Here there is a sense that these constricting emotions and ideas are contained in the body as blockages both physical ( muscular contractions for example) and energetic. The dipping into the fundamental field loosens this up and parts of the limiting mental etc self seems to be removed.

This is important here as then attending to the fundamental "no-thing-ness" is easier and the process accelerates.

My sense is that this attending to the more fundamental field here is still probably through the created self and not direct. I would imagine a withdrawing from the filter would be akin to the experience previously mentioned, that is of a quite radically different nature.

The way we formulate what's happening can help or hinder perception.

For example, "this fundamental "no-thing-ness" is attended to" lays out a state: fundamental "no-thing-ness", to which attendance is required, wanted, needed; and that this is the aim of this kind of work, to achieve some state of persistence, to which our present state is typically perceived in contrast as being not so good. That we're aiming for a direct at-one-ness if you will with some fundamental "no-thing-ness".

When this fundamental "no-thing-ness" is attended to, it seems here to act as a very efficent means of removing/lightening the sense of self which is built on ideas etc.

What if there was no need for "removing/lightening the sense of self which is built on ideas etc"?

What if you saw the sense of self which is built on ideas etc as a perception, neither true or false.
A perception. A mere perception, a view.

Being a mere perception, and thereby not true, are you subject to it in any way shape or form?

Does this 'sense of self' have autonomy?
So why rush about trying to remove and lighten it.

Let's give this trying to remove and lighten it a day off.

Share as and when.

Many thanks,
John

[Nigeluzito]

I wrote a longer reply but it got timed out and lost so I´ll keep to the point.

What if you saw the sense of self which is built on ideas etc as a perception, neither true or false.
A perception. A mere perception, a view.

I like this point of seeing it as a perception a view. Fortunately here I don´t feel too conditioned by this view (sense of self) lets say it is generally held lightly. As a result there is little rushing around trying to remove / lighten it, a more relaxed movement!!!

Thanks John, I shall reflect more on your above statement, it´s certainly a good way to further reduce it´s importance.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hiya Nigel,

I wrote a longer reply but it got timed out and lost so I´ll keep to the point.

Yes, there's some web issues at the mo, but it's being resolved.

I like this point of seeing it as a perception a view. Fortunately here I don´t feel too conditioned by this view (sense of self) lets say it is generally held lightly. As a result there is little rushing around trying to remove / lighten it, a more relaxed movement!!!

Ok, cool. Typically, the focus is on the content of perception. In this case, the content termed 'sense of self'. And you know, it's more that just the content, it's the identification as. But then again, this identification as presupposes a perception of myself as an autonomous personality, Nigel, or John. In addition, this perception of myself is deemed true. After all, we'd be unlikely to identify as what we deemed a false Nigel or John. :D

Now all of that is content.

So what we're doing is stepping back and observing the perception itself, and going, wait a minute, this perception that I'd been taking the content of as true or whatever, is a perception, it is literally that, a perception. Has no basis of true of false. It is simply a perception. Why would I ever identify as some will-o-the-wisp perception?

Thanks John, I shall reflect more on your above statement, it´s certainly a good way to further reduce it´s importance.

Yes, we're not bothered about content, but about realising that this IS A PERCEPTION.

Which has many implications for everything else in our life to which we identify, see as true etc etc.

With best wishes,
John

[Nigeluzito]

Hi John
I couldn´t write yesterday as the site was down.

Yes, we're not bothered about content, but about realising that this IS A PERCEPTION.

I´ve been looking at this, concentrating on the ....this IS A PERCEPTION.... part especially.

I´m finding this useful, thank you John.

With gratitude
Nigel.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hiya Nigel,

I couldn´t write yesterday as the site was down.

Yeah, we're back up now. Just write when you want to write.

I´ve been looking at this, concentrating on the ....this IS A PERCEPTION.... part especially.

I´m finding this useful, thank you John.

Cool. It's interesting because perceptions present in a range of ways and intensities, some are quite strong and hang around, most are barely noticed and slide in and away.

Which is why the more obvious perceptions are useful, typically, our perception of ourselves, or to put another way: how do I see myself? Or do I like myself?

We tend to have a regular perception of ourselves but in the past we only had eyes for the content and got hooked to that, judging it, changing it etc, etc.

So let's say we bring up how we see ourselves, maybe our relationship to ourselves (I know it's odd on a forum about 'no self etc but go with it :D )

And we notice this perception as it shows up in our experience. Now often, we just know the perception is here, and we know the content, but it's hard to pin down how we know we know, but right now, that doesn't matter. We want to know our perception of ourselves is here - we feel it, we know the content, it's held for us to examine.

Then we go, ok, but isn't this a perception?

Now, this can ROCK THE WHOLE BOAT - cos' there's this ocean of content we're supposed to swim in. And now, we have shifted focus, not interested in the content for now, just in the delivery system, the medium through which 'content' arrives.

We start to notice that we see the world and ourselves as PERCEPTIONS.

And we make no judgements about that, but we notice it, sit with it, take it inside as much as we dare.

Just share when you're ready.

Best wishes,
John