Stop Resisting

[JonathanR]

Hello Nuss

Good to hear from you.

. For many, it is clearly not possible to find an entity...but then it would seem, in spite of that, it is thought that "nothing changes"....

Correct. Or there are recurring thoughts inquiring about the true clarity of that moment: "how clear was that moment?" "did/when did mental impressions or reactionary thoughts happen?" "Are things really being seen for what they really are?"

Yes. All ideas about someone's inquiry. What an irony, if there's no way to create thoughts, or prevent thoughts from appearing?

. Absolutely-either based on past experiences of clarity or what has been read to generate expectations for what "should be."

Good to notice.

. I would agree that expectations have been present since the beginning of my meditation journey. Like everything else, they simply must be seen for what they are (and perhaps also let go if possible-as you have advised me). It would be easy to slide into another mental pattern of "I shouldn't be having expectations" or "I need to stop having having expectations." However, that will only further tie the knot.

Ha ha! Yes. Who (or what) is supposed to "do" the letting go? Indeed, since there never was actually a 'self' how can the absence of one be expected or required to 'let go' ?

. Perhaps another way to explain it is that thoughts are seeming more similar to other experiences such as sights, sounds, smells, etc. Arising and passing by, no me to create, control, or own them.

So true. Thoughts do actually appear, in the way that sensations also just happen That's true. But it can be very helpful to notice that each new thought seems to come with it's own 'content' , particular idea, concept or image, in other words, what the thought is ABOUT.

There was a great philosopher and mathematician called Alfred North Whitehead who once said a "for something to be considered real it must undergo the formality of actually occurring". Sensations stand up to this test as they really happen. But what about the content of thoughts?

. I suppose what it comes back to is what you've always said-see it for what it is, and don't buy into thoughts about why it is and if it "should" or "should not" be.

Yes . Very true. It's good to notice how language can create and sustain the 'self' illusion. But really, does a self 'buy in', as such? Or is it that one thought leads to another, and another...until that's seen for what it is?


Well done Nuss 😊

Jon

[Nuss]

Hello Jon!

Who (or what) is supposed to "do" the letting go? Indeed, since there never was actually a 'self' how can the absence of one be expected or required to 'let go' ?

Yes. All ideas about someone's inquiry. What an irony, if there's no way to create thoughts, or prevent thoughts from appearing?
Some inquisitive thoughts have been occurring lately about if there is an "I" who is "doing" something, or really anything. What causes "me" to "do" something? To answer your questions? To consider the advice you have given? Thoughts carry on as they do, followed by other thoughts, perhaps followed by actions or not. These actions preceded again by thoughts of "I will/will not do this or that." This leads to-"is there really any 'one' doing anything?"

I was recently on a flight for the holiday and noticed many inquisitive and observational thoughts about other "no selves" around me. It was interesting observing others' tendencies towards self-identification and seeing how I have done similar things as well. It felt as if we were all empty vessels, yet all connected.

There was a great philosopher and mathematician called Alfred North Whitehead who once said a "for something to be considered real it must undergo the formality of actually occurring". Sensations stand up to this test as they really happen. But what about the content of thoughts?

The content of thoughts never happen (or happened) exactly in the way they seem to be in thoughts. There is some type of distortion, dramatization, or prediction along with the thought. Usually it has to do with the preservation of self. Perhaps ruminating over something that was said in the past, "I shouldn't have said it in that way. This person doesn't approve of me any longer." Only then to find out in later that those thoughts were completely inaccurate.

The subject of thoughts about "future" MIGHT happen. For example: prior to eating a bite of food, looking at and smelling it, accompanied by thoughts imagining the taste and texture of that bite. Of course, this experience pales in comparison to the actual tasting and chewing of the food. I'm not sure if I mentioned this much earlier in our discussion, but I did an activity several months ago of imagining the taste and feel of each bite of a meal prior to eating each bite. It was noticed that while gathering the following bite on my fork, thoughts imagining the next bite were already occurring. The first bite hadn't even been fully chewed and swallowed yet! The "experience" of eating was done almost entirely on the impression of the first bite rather than from the taste and feel of each and every bite.

Yes . Very true. It's good to notice how language can create and sustain the 'self' illusion. But really, does a self 'buy in', as such? Or is it that one thought leads to another, and another...until that's seen for what it is?

Correct. It is one thought, followed by another thought-perhaps of approval/confirmation or denial/disbelief. These thoughts actually could continue to confirm the illusion of self, such as, "I agree with this," "I don't believe that."

I am not sure if this is something you celebrate, but Happy Thanksgiving! I am very grateful for all of your guidance, help, and of course, patience.

Talk to you soon,
Nuss

[JonathanR]

Hello Nuss

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, (even if this is a couple of days late).

Thank you for your replies and observations. Don't think that I am ignoring those. But I've been rereading parts of our conversation and want to ask you a couple if things that have struck me?

In your original request for guiding you mentioned a hope to move from 'intellectual understanding' to "experiencing no self".

You said:.

. I am looking for helpful guidance that will point me toward experiencing "no-self."

Is no self an experience? This is rather an important question.

Can no self be experienced?

. I also expect to not get the "answers" directly from my guide, as this would further my conceptual knowledge of "no-self," however not automatically allow me to directly experience it.

Quite right. I'm not here to give you answers.

However here is the idea again of "allowing you to directly experience no self".

But what if it isn't a case of directly experiencing no self?

Right now there is direct experience here of "cold hands" (to put a label to sensation). That is immediate experience.

But is there an experiencer of that experience?

It is 'seen' that although there is sensation there is no experiencer to be found.

Is there an experiencer of no self?


Best wishes

Jon

[Nuss]

Hello Jon,

Good idea! It is interesting to read back on the words that were written at the beginning of our conversation, to see the language that I used, and compare them to now.

Is no self an experience? This is rather an important question.
Can no self be experienced?
Is there an experiencer of no self?

No self is not an experience, and there is no experiencer of no self. No self is simply the truth that is and that always was. There are no true individual "selves," only the illusions of individual selves through thoughts and stories. One cannot experience no self. Just as there is not a "seer" or "hearer" when seeing and hearing are happening, there is not an experiencer. There simply is what is, and it is happening in the now, which includes the aspect of no self.

Talk to you soon,
Nuss

[JonathanR]

Hello Nuss

. No self is not an experience, and there is no experiencer of no self. No self is simply the truth that is and that always was. There are no true individual "selves," only the illusions of individual selves through thoughts and stories. One cannot experience no self. Just as there is not a "seer" or "hearer" when seeing and hearing are happening, there is not an experiencer. There simply is what is, and it is happening in the now, which includes the aspect of no self.

Great. That's a clear statement.

Is there any kind of disappointment felt in this change of perspective?

How do you feel about "simply what is". Is it enough or is something missing?

Love

Jon

[Nuss]

Hello Jon,

There is a story I once heard about awakening which is beginning to make more sense than it did prior to engaging with you. Thoughts occurring in reaction to various stimuli or clinging to a sense of self are starting to seem more like the kazoo player in this story. If you don't mind, I'd like to share a version of it below:
https://www.awakin.org/v2/read/view.php ... o&tid=2350

Is there any kind of disappointment felt in this change of perspective?

After going back through our conversation and reading many of my responses, it's very apparent just how much the stories of "myself" create such stress. Many of the perceived "problems" that were experienced during those times were in some way in relation to the sense of separate self. These "problems" still arise as transient thoughts, however the illusion reasserting itself is becoming ever more clear with each recurrence. I don't know if disappointment would describe the change in perspective. Perhaps the change in perspective could be characterized as: much simpler and closer than was originally expected. Even if the intentions were to find the answers within, the language that I used was very clearly searching for something that was not already there, or at least not fully convinced that it was already there at every moment.

How do you feel about "simply what is". Is it enough or is something missing?

I'm having some difficulty with this question. Can there really be anything missing from what is? There are thoughts which arise that say "there has to be something more. Something "I'm" not getting." However, that is based in an expectation of "experiencing no self" in a particular way. Thinking that something is missing implies a searching for something that was not experienced. There can only be what is, because that's all there is. Correct?

Talk to you soon,
Nuss

[JonathanR]

Hi Nuss

. There is a story I once heard about awakening which is beginning to make more sense than it did prior to engaging with you. Thoughts occurring in reaction to various stimuli or clinging to a sense of self are starting to seem more like the kazoo player in this story. If you don't mind, I'd like to share a version of it below:
https://www.awakin.org/v2/read/view.php ... o&tid=2350

Interesting analogy, given your profession. Glad to hear this kind of shift may be going on. It almost like a relaxing back into the already-happening music of life.

. it's very apparent just how much the stories of "myself" create such stress.

Bingo!

. These "problems" still arise as transient thoughts, however the illusion reasserting itself is becoming ever more clear with each recurrence.

Great.

. I'm having some difficulty with this question. Can there really be anything missing from what is? There are thoughts which arise that say "there has to be something more. Something "I'm" not getting." However, that is based in an expectation of "experiencing no self" in a particular way. Thinking that something is missing implies a searching for something that was not experienced. There can only be what is, because that's all there is. Correct?

Yes. But now that expectations and stories are
seen and, in s sense ,no longer hold sway, even the story that "things are humdrum" can also be recognised as false.

I've begun to feel that there is greater fluidity and relaxation in your approach.


Love

Jon

[Nuss]

Hello Jon,

Interesting analogy, given your profession. Glad to hear this kind of shift may be going on. It almost like a relaxing back into the already-happening music of life.

Yes! The music is already happening, there is no "I" that needs to "create" the music.

Yes. But now that expectations and stories are seen and, in s sense ,no longer hold sway, even the story that "things are humdrum" can also be recognised as false.

Correct.

I've begun to feel that there is greater fluidity and relaxation in your approach.

Things have begun to feel more fluid and more relaxed. The inquisitiveness carries on as it does. At times it feels as though there is a "watchman," checking the thoughts which pass by. However, these are also thoughts, validating and labeling each thought. They follow close behind in the stream of transient thoughts.


Talk to you soon,
Nuss

[JonathanR]

Hi Nuss

. Things have begun to feel more fluid and more relaxed. The inquisitiveness carries on as it does. At times it feels as though there is a "watchman," checking the thoughts which pass by. However, these are also thoughts, validating and labeling each thought. They follow close behind in the stream of transient thoughts.

Well this is all quite interesting. You're speaking with confidence and I notice that you are not adding on 'buts' or 'if onlys' to these statements.


Can you say with a big fat "yes" that the illusion of self is seen? So that there is no doubt about it ?


With love

Jon

[Nuss]

Jon,

Well this is all quite interesting. You're speaking with confidence and I notice that you are not adding on 'buts' or 'if onlys' to these statements.

Yes. Things are much simpler when doubts are seen for what they are, and not something for the illusion of self to latch on to.

Can you say with a big fat "yes" that the illusion of self is seen? So that there is no doubt about it ?

YES. Looking back, it was a very soft opening. Throughout our entire conversation, thoughts would arise about "Is THIS it?" "Did I do it?"

There was never an "I" to do anything, no "me" to pass through a gate which also did not exist. Nothing to achieve, only what is happening in the now.

Are there any more questions you would like to be answered or elaborated on?

With deep thanks,
Nuss

[JonathanR]

Dear Nuss

I'm so impressed! Delighted! How wonderful.

. Are there any more questions you would like to be answered or elaborated on?

Well, we have been fairly thorough but there are six final questions that we traditionally ask. I would like you to have a go at answering these?

Here are the six questions:


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

2) Give in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different 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?

Feel free to split the replies if that helps. Once you've answered them all we can take a look at what you have written.

With love

Jon

[Nuss]

Hello Jon, here is the first installment of replies to your questions:

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
2) Give in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different now?

No, there never was a separate entity, an "I" or "me." There were only thought stories telling the story of this "me." The stories of "me" were held on to and used to create an image of who "I" was, and all of the qualities of "me." Stories of the past were collected as "past experiences of me" which contributed to this illusion of who "I" was. These stories also only "existed" as transient thoughts. There was and only ever is right now, and that does not include a "me."

The illusion of self shows up as a doer, a knower, a controller, a victim. Mental impressions follow experiences and generate stories about those experiences and how they happen to "me." When certain things happen, the stories say "I did that." When something is seen, the story says "I saw that." The mental impression of experience pales in comparison to pure experience. Yet, when mental impressions are seen as truth, one cannot see anything for what it truly is. The illusion of separate self asserts after experience. It cannot happen at the same time as experience, otherwise it is not pure experience, or seeing what truly is.

Also, through your inquiry, what is different now?

Things are surprisingly similar, however experiences are different in a very subtle, yet powerful way. It is discernable in the difference between pure experience and mental impression. Mental impressions, thought stories, and "blinding thoughts" still occur, however they are seen for what they are, and do not encourage clinging to "I" statements such as: I am one who did that, I am one who experiences blinding thoughts, I am one who gets caught up in the past/future. The illusion will still attempt to assert itself, however it is seen for what it is. An illusion.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue?

It feels liberating. It feels as though a pair of dirty and cracked glasses have been taken off. There is a relaxation into the now. There is less emphasis on the past, on what is happening in the future, because those concepts are seen for what they are-stories and thoughts. There is a relaxation in that life carries on as it does. There is no need for "myself" to take control and "make" things happen. This relaxation allows for a more inquisitive nature to settle in and generate a newfound curiosity for what is happening now.

Many judgmental thoughts and stories dominated "the mind" in the beginning of this dialogue. Contrary to the expectations which were held at the beginning of this dialogue, those thoughts and stories still exist. However, when they are seen for what they are, they are allowed to arise and pass on their own. There is no need for them to be scooped out of the stream and held onto. They can float by and pass on their own.

The difference between pure experience and thinking disguised as experience is also much clearer. For example, when listening to music. There is a newfound clarity of the difference between simply hearing and "hearing," which is actually analysis about what was heard, which blocks true hearing from happening in that moment. Once again, the initial expectation that these thoughts would "disappear" has been shattered, and replaced with the simple clarity of seeing things for what they are.

I would like to continue to write more on other questions which were not replied to above. I will post again soon with more replies to your questions.

Talk to you soon,
Nuss

[JonathanR]

. I would like to continue to write more on other questions which were not replied to above. I will post again soon with more replies to your questions.

Great Nuss. Thanks for your answers so far. I will wait for the remaining ones.

Jon

[Nuss]

Hello Jon,

6) Anything to add?

Here is a reflection from this evening's meditation that I would like to share.

Thoughts in meditation have a different feel than before. They feel more like rain drops on a windshield. One focus on an individual raindrop, observing its path until it eventually joins into another drop. One can also look more broadly at the flow of multiple raindrops. Larger thoughts, or as I referred to as "blinders," also occur, and would be more like large pieces of snow/ice which may slide down from the roof of the car. They come and go, and are transient. Once they pass, they are gone, and only leaves what is. Thoughts have not felt like this before, and it further adds to the recent relaxed approach that I've had over the last week or so.


I will be sending another response tomorrow when I wake up.

Talk to you very soon,
Nuss

[Nuss]

Hello again! Here is another addition.

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

It is difficult to find a specific moment of crossing over, however the observation of thoughts, choices, and intentions seemed to be what illuminated the illusion. Starting with deep work into where the sense of self was held, it was seen how the illusion of what "I" was did not reside in anything tangible-all connected to thoughts. After that, it became an observation of the process of thoughts, of the idea of a "doer" or "controller," and an opening up into an inquisitive nature about the way things are. Without the inquisitiveness and curiosity, there would have been a continual loop of observing thoughts while also rooting in the illusion of a separate "watcher" of them. Checking expectations and anxieties was also an important step in relaxing into the process and allowing things to be seen as they are, rather than as they are intended or expected to be. That was a profound moment as well. Seeing that expectations are like clouds on experience for what is, and yet they can still be seen for what they are, allowing them to dissolve.

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?

Decisions arise as reactions or analysis in thoughts in response to some type of experience-seeing, hearing or some type of imagined choice. Perhaps from a response to a previous thought about the current time of day or what "needs to be done." The decision could be simpler, such as which drink to choose when given a choice between two. Thoughts occur about both drinks and their respective qualities. Intentions arise about which one to choose, however through observation, the decision has already been made from the beginning. Through experience in this exercise, it was seen that intentions on which drink to pick up were already occurring in thoughts before thoughts arose about "which one am I going to choose?" It was seen that the illusion of choice occurred after intention was already felt in thought and sensate experience. There was no choice to make.

Choice seems to imply a chooser, or a controller. Some "one" who is making that choice. Who is "deciding" which event will happen next. There is no control over what to choose, because those "decisions" already arise as transient thoughts, followed by more thoughts and sensations as intentions. If there is no choices to make, there is no choosing that needs to be done. If there is no choosing that needs to be done, there is no chooser.

Decisions and intentions arise on their own as do all other transient thoughts. These intents arise through what is experienced through senses-sight, sound, tough, smell, etc, as well as connecting to thoughts arising regarding previous experiences. Free will also implies that there is "one who wills" or "one who is making their own choices," further rooting in the illusion of a separate self. Free will implies that one makes their own choices, apart from anyone/anything who attempts to make decisions for them. However, decisions are not made by no-selves, they arise and pass completely on their own, as they are.

Still sitting with 5b. The topic of responsibilities has not been observed for a little while, and I would like to send something of recent experience. I will post again very soon.

Take care,
Nuss