guide request

[Pathfinder]

I want to completely obliterate the illusion of an "I" that is separate from the rest of the universe.
After that I would assume that being lived without a parasitical "I" would at least allow for a more
meaningful life in which the world is allowed to be what it is instead of what the "I" wants it to be.

Sorry to break it to you Marc, but this is an unrealistic expectation (bolded). Our minds are hardwired for dualistic consciousness. Realizing that the "I" we carry around in our head is fictional does not obliterate it. This mental shift that happens does seem to quiet it down to a great degree, but the old mind patterns will probably be with you to some degree for as long as you live.

I'm addressing this point forcefully because I hope it will keep you from looking in the wrong places. A close friend of mine took months to "see" because in his mind he had built up "Awakening" into this magical state of mind that was going to turn him into a great spiritual teacher. What we're really talking about is a single genuine moment of looking at the experience of self and reaching a new understanding. That's pretty much it. Where you take it from there is up to you.

For me, it was reading Ciaran's post that I linked you for the second time. It was in the conversation with "Guest" where he was comparing "looking" to seeing a pattern in a rug. Once the pattern is identified you can't unsee it. That is liberation.

Look at the threads of your experience and tell me where you can find Marc.

[freefall322]

Sorry for the long delay Eric, but because of all the thinking I've been doing about this, I seem to be dropping ill-conceived unquestioned assumptions about the "I" and I can't simultaneously deconstruct myself and respond to your questions at the same time. This deconstruction is a result of constant obsessive inquiry into the self. Deep down I can sense that something stinks and my mind follows the scent for hours or days like a bloodhound until it realizes that there is nothing there (it never finds anything tangible).

If you want to convince me that something is not true Eric, then you just have to do the following:
(1) Make me notice an unchallenged assumption.
(2) Tell me that it's a false assumption.
(3) If I don't believe that it's a false assumption, make me write that down and make me supply evidence to support my belief.
(4) Patiently stand back while I quietly ruminate on the question more and obsess about my "evidence" furiously.
(5) After a few days I will come back and announce that I've changed my mind and that indeed the unchallenged assumption was false.

I've never inquired into the self-as-illusion question before and as a result of thinking about it, I can sometimes sense underground seismic shifts in my mind in the form of new never-thought-before thoughts and radical changes in perspective. For example, do you remember this previous response on my part?

Do you find it interesting that this "I" that you've spent your entire life believing in is so hard to find? To pin down?

Yes, but I've looked over my previous posts and can find at least one solid definition for the sense of "I": it is the the one who makes innumerable decisions like lifting the arm, or what to buy in the store, or when to go for a walk (I should have written that in my previous post, but I did not think of it). I know you're going to repeat that there is no "I" that makes these decisions and that ' an "I" label gets applied to them retroactively'; I sincerely hope to experience this retroactive labeling someday, but I can't see that now.

This "retroactive labeling" is a lot more plausible now now. Maybe I'm just burnt out because I've been thinking about it, but this previously unchallenged assumption of an "I" that makes decisions is not as strong as before. This proof of the existence of a "decision-maker personal I" was very self-evident to me a few days ago, but it did not survive the slow erosion of inquiry and now I'm back to square one. I want to ask to to start this conversation all over again from the first post, but we seem to be doing that anyway.

Anyway, all this just to say that my thinking can be slow and please be patient.

[freefall322]

Look at the threads of your experience and tell me where you can find Marc.

My experience currently consists of typing at the computer, getting up to walk around the apartment, look out the window at the sky, clouds, trees, people, dogs, ... . I don't make any effort to be aware of any of these things so why would need a "Marc" to presence the world? And as far as a sense of "Marc" anywhere, your "... Our minds are hardwired for dualistic consciousness ..." is sufficient to explain the "Marc" illusion. It's just one of the incredible unexplainable things that the brain does, no big deal. I'll never understand the exact mechanism, but I'll still believe it happens.

Now every time look for a personal "I" in the present moment I find it easier to assume an impersonal "I" that get's retroactively labelled than to assume the existence of a tangible personal "I". It just makes more sense when I consider life, my position in life that started with my birth, and my experience now of the present moment. I wouldn't say that I've "awakened" or that I'm "liberated" since I'm just having new thoughts that are of course just thoughts. But at least these are new fresh thoughts, as opposed to the old stale ones.

I'm still in the early stages of this, I need to go much further. If I stop here, I'll just revert back to a solid "Marc" in a few months.

[Pathfinder]

Here's some more tinder for the bonfire my friend. Enjoy.

. This deconstruction is a result of constant obsessive inquiry into the self. Deep down I can sense that something stinks and my mind follows the scent for hours or days like a bloodhound until it realizes that there is nothing there (it never finds anything tangible).

What is the point of deconstructing something that doesn't exist? You don't need to disassemble your mind to see this shit. What I'm getting at is that "you" are not a thing. "That which perceives" is all that there is. The incessant chatter of your mind-noise that you consider "yourself" does not actually exist in reality. There is a just a human being called "Marc" that writes and says a bunch of words, thinks a bunch of random thoughts , walks around and does things, then slaps it together with theme music and calls it "me". Just because you can remember all of these things in sequence does not equal a person. They are just memories.

Stop this deconstruction bullshit and look. Re-read this a few times if you have to.

[freefall322]

What I'm getting at is that "you" are not a thing. "That which perceives" is all that there is. The incessant chatter of your mind-noise that you consider "yourself" does not actually exist in reality. There is a just a human being called "Marc" that writes and says a bunch of words, thinks a bunch of random thoughts , walks around and does things, then slaps it together with theme music and calls it "me". Just because you can remember all of these things in sequence does not equal a person. They are just memories.

Yes, I understand that. What now? How do I go from an understanding to something deeper?
It would really help if you could perhaps provide me with a single text or reference that best describes what it is you want me to do or look at. Ciaran's post was good but he's a little too passionate; is there something else I could read to establish exactly what it is I should be looking for and how to move forward.

[Pathfinder]

is there something else I could read to establish exactly what it is I should be looking for and how to move forward.

Definitely. Let's go back to one of your earlier posts that has a great example to look at.

"...Like I said in the previous post: 'the "I" goes into that activity'. I should not have used the word "disappears", I should have said it moves from between the ears to the activity which could be for example the tying of the shoe laces. In this sense I am defining the "I" as whatever is aware of sensations. In addition, there could also be another sense "I" as the subject that made the decision to tie the shoe laces. Great, now I have 2 "I"'s;..."

You are clearly (retroactively) applying the "I" label to the activity of tying shoelaces. Please take a closer look at this "awareness" or "silent observer" that is tying your shoe laces. Is "Marc" really necessary for shoe laces to be tied? Is "Marc" actually there tying them?

Does the "I" in fact go into the activity, or is it just part of the labeling process you discovered earlier?

[freefall322]

Is "Marc" really necessary for shoe laces to be tied?

If I concentrate on tying shoelaces, then all my attention can go into that activity.
But that could also be stated as "shoelace tying is and the illusion of a subject doing the tying are
occuring", which does not need a "Marc".

Is "Marc" actually there tying them?

In the conventional use of the words, yes.
I would accept that in reality the present moment is presenting itself as
the activity and the illusion of a doer of the activity.

Does the "I" in fact go into the activity, or is it just part of the labeling process you discovered earlier?

The need for the shoe laces to be tied arises, the decision to tie them arises, the activity of tying occurs and the and the labeling of a doer arises with all of these since the knee-jerk reaction of the mind to any activity is to postulate a subject that is causing the activity.

I can understand this but I'm not above falling for the labeling all the time.

[Pathfinder]

If I concentrate on tying shoelaces, then all my attention can go into that activity.
But that could also be stated as "shoelace tying is and the illusion of a subject doing the tying are
occuring", which does not need a "Marc".

Your understanding is solid. The trick now is for you to see the truth/reality of this in your own experience.

In the conventional use of the words, yes.
I would accept that in reality the present moment is presenting itself as
the activity and the illusion of a doer of the activity.

Pretty much. This is just a description though. It's not the thing.

I can understand this but I'm not above falling for the labeling all the time.

At present, the "labeling" perspective is still reality for you. Your writing still assumes it.

So Marc... Is there any more room for Marc to exist? Can you see this directly in your experience?

Please feel free to take some time to look.

It's time to ask again... What is your reaction when I say that there is no real person called Marc in real life at all?

[freefall322]

So Marc... Is there any more room for Marc to exist?

In reality, Marc is either real or an illusion. I'm not sure I know which is true based on my experience. I don't even know if I will ever determine for sure which case is true. I just understand that it is possible that "Marc" is an illusion and that if I had to chose which case is true, I would probably pick "Marc is an illusion".

Can you see this directly in your experience?

No, I don't directly see the illusion of a Marc based on my experience.

It's time to ask again... What is your reaction when I say that there is no real person called Marc in real life at all?

In reality there is either no real person called Marc in real life, or there is. But my believing in one case or the other won't change reality, so on that basis, if I'm honest with myself, it does not matter to me.
How does one see this? When you say "see" do you literally mean seeing with ones eyes? Or with the "minds eye"? With some other way of experiencing?

[Andrew1]

Hey Marc,
do you remember when you were 2 years old?.No?.Do you remember your first thought?No?.That's because you had'nt been conditioned yet.There was no "Marc" then was there.Do you remember when you first thought of yourself as a "ME".Your thoughts are just conditioning you have picked up over the years.All "your" thoughts are basically some one else's thoughts and conditions.You've just adopted them for your own and called them "ME".You say you can control your thoughts,ok,then just think happy thoughts all the time.Can't be done.Don't get me wrong,you do think but your thoughts are not you.Next thought you have trace it back and see where it comes from?.
Tying shoelaces?.Do you remember who showed you how to tie a shoelace?.It was shown to you.You just kept it in your memory and now you think it's "Marc" tying shoe laces.It's not.All it is is just tying shoelaces.When you read this it is not a "Marc" reading.It is just reading.Can you imagine for a moment if you had no human contact at all throughout your life.No Marc...no me...just living.Next time your outside check out the birds.No "I's" there just birding.You're no different.Just more intelligent which is what is getting in the way.Your over anylizing a simple thing.You're trying to justify a Marc.Go for a walk and look down at your legs and honestly tell me that you are making one leg move in front of the next.Honestly.You think "I'm going for a walk" and you go...right?.
Everything you do now is just a response to something you have picked up through life or what is happening around you.All you are are your thoughts mate but you claim them as you.Stop fighting it just for a minute and you will see reality.

Cheers
Andrew

[freefall322]

Thanks for the comments Andrew. I'm busy now applying for employment and I also seem to have run out of steam as far as this conversation is concerned.
Erik, I've benefited a lot from our conversation, but I'm going through significant changes and I'm going to have to this site put it on hold until things stabilize.
Thanks Erik and Andrew for your help.
Bye, Marc