Seeing Through the Self Illusion

[Florisness]

I don't know what this means. I suspect it MUST be true, but I don't yet see it as true. But it has a powerful resonance. I will keep trying to feel into it.

Oh yes, that's good. It's not really efficient to see that there is no self, but: what I sometimes did and still do is to imagine a line, from behind the body, going through the body and going to a good distance in front of the body. That helps for me to recenter in a way, to increase the sense of it all being one uninterrupted space, no in- or outside, alleviating, for a degree, the sense of personhood.

I will say that you have been the most patient guide I have ever known. I'm very grateful for how long you have put up with me. It's hard for me to believe that another guide could be as patient and as insightful. My belief is that it is not your lack of skill, but my stupidity which is keeping me from seeing that I identify with thinking and the bodyappearance.
However, you are the expert, and I must trust your judgement. If you think it's worthwhile for us to continue, you have my promise that I will try my hardest to follow instructions. But if you know that another guide is better, then I will trust you on that. (There's even a greedy part of me which says "why not both?")

You had me laugh at 'why not both?', I doubt that would work very well though. Well, thank you for your kind words, I'm grateful for the talk we had. I wish for you to experience your conversation on this forum to be easy and give satisfying results, and as I'm big on following the path of least resistance, I think if a dear friend and guide, Vince, would take over it may allow for that. His style is different and maybe its more suitable with you. I wouldn't want you to struggle with this and because of that struggle give it up later. He'll respond in this thread after this message of mine.

So.. thank you very much. I might follow the conversation a bit even though I may not respond. I wish you and Vince all the best.

Floris

[Griselda]

Oh yes, that's good. It's not really efficient to see that there is no self, but: what I sometimes did and still do is to imagine a line, from behind the body, going through the body and going to a good distance in front of the body. That helps for me to recenter in a way, to increase the sense of it all being one uninterrupted space, no in- or outside, alleviating, for a degree, the sense of personhood.

I like your 'line' metaphor (or picture, or projection, or experiment, or whatever it is). It allows me to escape for a moment from the usual Nondual terminology like 'no self', which, even though it may be accurate, can get attached to all sorts of thoughts and beliefs in the same way that words like 'God' and 'Awareness' can. But using your 'line' allows me to get underneath the thoughts, in a way, and be with what's actually happening. I've been 'test driving your metaphor all morning, the way one test drives a car.

ou had me laugh at 'why not both?', I doubt that would work very well though. Well, thank you for your kind words, I'm grateful for the talk we had. I wish for you to experience your conversation on this forum to be easy and give satisfying results, and as I'm big on following the path of least resistance, I think if a dear friend and guide, Vince, would take over it may allow for that. His style is different and maybe its more suitable with you. I wouldn't want you to struggle with this and because of that struggle give it up later. He'll respond in this thread after this message of mine.

Thanks! I look forward to meeting Vince. And thanks so much for all you have done.

[vinceschubert]

Good morning (from Australia) Griselda, vince here.
i read your last couple of posts (when Floris asked if i would be interested in contributing) and had an instant good feeling about you.
i won't read the whole thread as i prefer to have no preconceptions. Instead, i will start from your last post or two.

It allows me to escape for a moment from the usual Nondual terminology like 'no self', which, even though it may be accurate, can get attached to all sorts of thoughts and beliefs in the same way that words like 'God' and 'Awareness' can.

Oh, i very much agree with you on this. (let's include the word Enlightenment too) These are not things. They are concepts that are unique to every body, and getting attached is a way of forming an identity. Our aim here is to be aware of anything that we use to do this.

using your 'line' allows me to get underneath the thoughts, in a way, and be with what's actually happening.

This is a great place to start. Using metaphor, i would call it ground level. As we 'work', we are going to take an elevator down to deeper levels. To more subtle levels.
Today, we'll just go down one level of subtlety.
When you say "get underneath the thoughts", i assume that they are still there, but you are ignoring (most of) them. Is this accurate? (Oh, a caveat here. Please don't accept anything that i say without checking it's validity with your own experience.)
Now, from this first level down, can you see that you are using thoughts to imagine that line exercise?
If so, what you are actually doing is to withdraw attention to a certain section of thoughts and focus on another. Is this accurate?
Do you have control over the flow of thoughts?
Can you stop your thoughts?
Do you know what the next thought to arise will be?
Can you not think of the sun when a beautiful sunrise is described?

with love

vince

[Griselda]

When you say "get underneath the thoughts", i assume that they are still there, but you are ignoring (most of) them. Is this accurate? (Oh, a caveat here. Please don't accept anything that i say without checking it's validity with your own experience.)
Now, from this first level down, can you see that you are using thoughts to imagine that line exercise?
If so, what you are actually doing is to withdraw attention to a certain section of thoughts and focus on another. Is this accurate?
Do you have control over the flow of thoughts?
Can you stop your thoughts?
Do you know what the next thought to arise will be?
Can you not think of the sun when a beautiful sunrise is described?

Am I 'ignoring' thoughts? Hmmmm.... I wouldn't say that. They are running concurrently with the 'line'.
Yes, I can see I'm using thought to imagine the 'line'. Yes, I'm focusing on another section of thoughts.
Do I have control over the flow of thoughts? For the most part No, although I can choose at times to think a thought.
Can I stop thoughts? At times I've been involved in meditative practices where thoughts stop, or at least slow down greatly.
Do I know what the next thought will be? No, but for the most part the same thoughts reoccur over and over.
No I can't not think of the sun when a sunrise is described.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda,

Am I 'ignoring' thoughts? Hmmmm.... I wouldn't say that. They are running concurrently with the 'line'.

Language is tricky. i didn't say "ignoring" thoughts, although i can see how "withdrawing attention from certain thought" could be taken as that. ..but i imagine that you are still aware that those thoughts still flowed, even if they were in the background.
You actually said "get underneath the thoughts", which i took to say that you weren't focussing on those particular ones. ..and it get's even trickier here because you were using thoughts about the line to access something other than thought content. Something that was actually happening. What was that something? Was it sensations? ..or something 'out there'?

although I can choose at times to think a thought.

Where does the idea come from to choose that thought?

Can I stop thoughts? At times I've been involved in meditative practices where thoughts stop, or at least slow down greatly.

Ah yes. Have you noticed the experience of thoughts flowing in the background? You know that they are there, but you are paying no attention to what they are about?

for the most part the same thoughts reoccur over and over.

Ah yes, they certainly do this. It's like they run out of original material, so they just repeat and repeat.
Do your repeating thoughts demand attention?

vince

[Griselda]

Something that was actually happening. What was that something? Was it sensations? ..or something 'out there'?

It was a sensation, in the center of my head.

Where does the idea come from to choose that thought?

From me. I can say "I think I'll think about a pink elephant. OK, now I'll think about a brown elephant. I see a computer screen in front of me. I'll think about that."

Ah yes. Have you noticed the experience of thoughts flowing in the background? You know that they are there, but you are paying no attention to what they are about?

No, I can't say that experience is familiar to me.

Do your repeating thoughts demand attention?

They just show up. Do they 'demand attention'? No, they don't.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda,

From me. I can say "I think I'll think about a pink elephant. OK, now I'll think about a brown elephant.

This is the illusion of choice. Because you think the thoughts "I think that I'll think about...", you think that you are choosing what thoughts to think. So tell me, where did the idea come from to think about what to think about. ..and where did the idea of a pink elephant (or whatever) come from?
Apparent choice can only exist in hindsight. It happens when a thought arises saying "I could have chosen to think something different."

I see a computer screen in front of me. I'll think about that."

This one is more obvious. Do you think that seeing the computer screen might have triggered the idea to think about that?

They just show up.

If this is the case for repeating thoughts, why isn't it the case for all thoughts?

vince

[Griselda]

This one is more obvious. Do you think that seeing the computer screen might have triggered the idea to think about that?

Yes, I see what you mean.

If this is the case for repeating thoughts, why isn't it the case for all thoughts?

Yes, I guess you're right. But I still feel I am a separate self.

[vinceschubert]

'evening Griselda,

But I still feel I am a separate self.

Ok, we need to unpack this.
Do you feel it, or do you think it?
What are you separate from?
Who/what is this "I" that you refer to?
When you say "still", i imagine that you are saying that you continue to feel this. Does that continuity include when you are asleep? What about when your attention is totally focused on some activity?
Is there ever a time when you don't feel this?

with love

vince

[Griselda]

Ok, we need to unpack this.
Do you feel it, or do you think it?

I feel it. It's there when I wake up and throughout the day.

What are you separate from?

I'm separate from everything that is outside
this sense of Self inside my head.

Who/what is this "I" that you refer to?

It's a concentration of energy inside my skull. I know that doesn't really
describe it accurately, but it can't be described in words.

When you say "still", i imagine that you are saying that you continue to feel this. Does that continuity include when you are asleep? What about when your attention is totally focused on some activity?

It's not there in deep sleep. Some form of it is there during dream sleep.
I know people say that their sense of self disappears when they're immersed in some activity,
but I've never noticed that.

Is there ever a time when you don't feel this?

Yes, during deep sleep.

Thanks, G

[vinceschubert]

Hi G, Hmm, ok. This sense of 'energy' that you feel inside your head, you feel it and it feels like it is your self. Is that accurate?
If you bring your attention to the pressure on your buttocks from sitting, i imagine that you don't call that your self. ..or if you were to be under a fan or in the wind, the feeling of air moving over your skin wouldn't be labelled as a self, would it?
What is different about the feeling in your head that entitles it to be called a self?

Some form of it is there during dream sleep.

You say "some form of it", how is it different to the waking one?
Why is the waking one not a form of the dreaming one, rather than the other way around?

I know people say that their sense of self disappears when they're immersed in some activity,
but I've never noticed that.

Are you saying that you never get so immersed in something that you become unaware of your identity?

Is there ever a time when you don't feel this?

Yes, during deep sleep.

What do you think happens to it in deep sleep?

with love

vince

[Griselda]

What is different about the feeling in your head that entitles it to be called a self?

That is an excellent question. It does seem rather silly that this feeling behind my eyes convinces me that
it's a self, whereas the pressure of the chair on the buttocks does not.

But that's 'logic'. All I can say is that it feels that way. I can't give you a reason.

You say "some form of it", how is it different to the waking one?
Why is the waking one not a form of the dreaming one, rather than the other way around?

During the actual dream, it feels real. But when I wake up, I can see it's not real. Freud said the way to tell the difference between dreams and wakefulness is the 'flying test'. During a dream, if you decide to fly, you can. When awake, you know that it's absurd to suppose you could fly. That's good enough for me.

Are you saying that you never get so immersed in something that you become unaware of your identity?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Such an experience is so foreign to me that I used to think people were lying when
they reported it. But so many make that claim that I now believe they are telling the truth. But so am I, to the best
of my ability.

What do you think happens to it in deep sleep?

I think it's like a light switch. When you turn off a light, it doesn't mean that the light bulb and the light emanating from it don't exist. It just means there is no current flowing through the circuit. Similarly, the brain circuitry that manifests the self is not operating during deep sleep.

[vinceschubert]

Good evenin Griselda,

All I can say is that it feels that way. I can't give you a reason.

..and all i can say is that it's perfectly reasonable (even without a reason) to feel that way.
..but if i have an imagined investigation into it, i would say that the feeling comes from a (perhaps long lost) story that was conditioned by early experience.
At school we are told repeatedly to use our minds. We are rewarded for clever thinking. We are encouraged to remember knowledge (information) Western society has long worshiped mental agility, whereas some indigenous societies would put the heart as the dwelling place. Anyway, that's my story as to why you imagine it is the head and not the buttocks (or anywhere else)
..but a question. Because it feels that way, does that make it actual, or might it only be a feeling?

During the actual dream, it feels real. But when I wake up, I can see it's not real.

Now this is a big one.
When I was a kid, I had an experience that only years later did I get meaning from it.
Because I read a lot of books, I usually read into the early hours of the morning. (By torchlight under the covers) This meant that I was usually tired in the morning. My mother always had a job to wake me for school. It was a drag to get moving each morning.
Well, this particular morning she woke me and I dragged myself out of bed and dressed for school and was heading out of the bedroom door to get breakfast when my mother woke me for school. What a bummer. I had to go through the whole getting up and getting dressed thing again.
It was so real, but waking up the second time was when I realized that the first time was a dream.

What I realised just a few years ago was that you can only know that you were dreaming after you wake up.
While you are in the dream, everything is real.
How do I know that I’m not dreaming now?
I can’t. I can only believe that I’m awake.
Hence the analogy of waking up (i don't like the term enlightenment)
When i woke up (in 2011) it was as if i had woken from a dream. i suddenly saw that many of the things that i had been responding to as though they were actual, were in fact not. They were concepts. Stories.
Certainly, they seemed real, but the illusions were seen through.
This allowed a different dynamic of responding to occur.

Freud said the way to tell the difference between dreams and wakefulness is the 'flying test'. During a dream, if you decide to fly, you can.

This supposes that we are able to enter a lucid dream at will... Has it worked for you?

Are you saying that you never get so immersed in something that you become unaware of your identity?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Ah well, clearly you have an extremely well developed sense of identity. ..and a very dexterous mental capacity that can remain active even when physical and emotional stimulation is heightened.

So it appears that you are saying that the self is a brain creation that only exists when you are not in deep sleep? Is this accurate?
Could you go as far as to say that the self isn't an inherent thing, but rather a result of the way the brain is wired? Trained?

with love

vince
Similarly, the brain circuitry that manifests the self is not operating during deep sleep.

[Griselda]

..but a question. Because it feels that way, does that make it actual, or might it only be a feeling?

That's a really good question. Can both be true? Why can't a feeling be 'actual'?

I have a friend who thinks that she absorbs 'energy' from Narcissists around her, and it makes her psychologically sick.
If I were to claim that there's no scientific evidence for such a thing, would it make any difference? She feels that
way, so it's true for her.

Similarly, it seems to me that if I 'feel' I'm a self, that's all the proof needed. It's true that I've tried and tried to find thoughts associated with that feeling, perhaps thoughts going way back to early childhood, but I can't.

When i woke up (in 2011) it was as if i had woken from a dream. i suddenly saw that many of the things that i had been responding to as though they were actual, were in fact not. They were concepts. Stories.
Certainly, they seemed real, but the illusions were seen through.
This allowed a different dynamic of responding to occur.

I love your story about waking up after dreaming you had already woken up!
And if you 'woke up' back in 2011, that was the very first year of LU, no? You must be like a Founding Member!
Did you wake up just a few minutes after Elena and Ilona?

This supposes that we are able to enter a lucid dream at will... Has it worked for you?

I guess it only 'works' for the so-called 'awake' self, which realizes it's impossible to fly. But I HAVE had moments halfway between dreaming and wakefulness, perhaps in the early morn as I'm waking up, where I'm HALF awake but not entirely, so that I might still be a character in a movie, yet I 'know' that it's Wednesday and that I live in Arcadia, California, US, and I know what my 'real' name is.

So it appears that you are saying that the self is a brain creation that only exists when you are not in deep sleep? Is this accurate?
Could you go as far as to say that the self isn't an inherent thing, but rather a result of the way the brain is wired? Trained?

I think the self exists in dormant form when I'm in deep sleep, it's just not active. When I turn off my computer at night,
there is nothing going on. If you examined every single atom in the computer with an electron microscope, you'd find no current moving anywhere, and no operations taking place. But you wouldn't therefore say that the computer doesn't 'exist'. Similarly, the 'meat' in my brain that represents conscious experience is temporarily 'dead', if you will, when I'm in deep sleep. But when I wake up, it'a active again.
As for the next question, I think the Self can be an inherent 'thing', and STILL be a result of the way the brain is wired, or trained. In fact I believe that is so, because people report that before one year of age the baby doesn't experience a sense of separation or selfhood. It must be 'trained' or re-wired, or something. But understanding that intellectually, or even observing a baby and seeing it has no sense of self, doesn't change my experience of Self.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda,

Why can't a feeling be 'actual'?

Oh, the feeling is actual (when felt) It's the idea of what the feeling means that is story. Your interpretation of that feeling. It's meaning that you ascribe to it.

If I were to claim that there's no scientific evidence for such a thing, would it make any difference? She feels that
way, so it's true for her.

i get what you mean. ..but if she were able to suspend disbelief and examine what is actually going on, she would see how her beliefs are creating what she describes as an energy transfer.

it seems to me that if I 'feel' I'm a self, that's all the proof needed.

Yes, and that is fine if you are happy. Most of the population of the world don't even question such a proposition.
It is a practical way to navigate daily existence, and for many it even promotes satisfaction with the status quo.
It begets the question of why you came to LU, but when i read your introduction, i see that you have been a seeker for years.
We have a metaphorical book that is filled with chapter after chapter of descriptions of characteristics about me.
Those that we believe, we respond to emotionally and behaviourally.
This is where the illusion of an inherently separate self originates.
Language has evolved to communicate and because we communicate so much about that story of me, it (language) enhances the illusion of an existent & separate self.

And if you 'woke up' back in 2011, that was the very first year of LU, no?

Yes, although i don't know how long that they had been active. i didn't actually wake up at LU. i stumbled upon it about a week after while looking for confirmation.

I think the self exists in dormant form when I'm in deep sleep, it's just not active. When I turn off my computer at night,
there is nothing going on. If you examined every single atom in the computer with an electron microscope, you'd find no current moving anywhere, and no operations taking place. But you wouldn't therefore say that the computer doesn't 'exist'

No, but you would say that the software isn't running, so the programs don't exist until powered up and executed.
You could say that the potential exists but not the actual.

I think the Self can be an inherent 'thing',

Would this presume that it could be found with surgery?

be a result of the way the brain is wired, or trained. In fact I believe that is so, because people report that before one year of age the baby doesn't experience a sense of separation or selfhood. It must be 'trained' or re-wired, or something. But understanding that intellectually, or even observing a baby and seeing it has no sense of self, doesn't change my experience of Self.

Yes, i believe this to be so. ..and that your sense of self is the result of training. Would it be different if you were raised by wolves (or in a different country with different parents?)

with love

vince