Finding Me

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

It does feel like “I.”

Do you remember what we talked about ‘seems like’ and ‘feels like”?

Please go back and read it again.
We are not looking for a seeming I, or a ‘feels like’ I, we are looking for an ACTUAL, REAL I. A real person.


Well, HOW do you know that this sensation in the chest is an I? How?
Just because a thought says "I feels like an I"? that's all?

Is that sensation reading this sentence?

Can that sensation think?

Is that sensation feeling other sensations of the body?

Other than a thought saying so, what experiential proof do you have that this sensation is not just simply a familiar sensation in the chest, but much more than that, a person, an entity, a doer, a feeler, a thinker… the experiencer?

Vivien

[besposito]

Well, HOW do you know that this sensation in the chest is an I? How?
Just because a thought says "I feels like an I"? that's all?

Is that sensation reading this sentence?

Can that sensation think?

Is that sensation feeling other sensations of the body?

I see that it’s all just a thought. The feeling of “I” with no thought about it is just that - a feeling/sensation.

Other than a thought saying so, what experiential proof do you have that this sensation is not just simply a familiar sensation in the chest, but much more than that, a person, an entity, a doer, a feeler, a thinker… the experiencer?

Besides a thought saying so, there is nothing other than the familiar sensation in the chest.

I’ve been reading Be As You Are. As I try to abide in the “I thought,” my mind gets easily swept away on many journeys. Once I catch myself and return to the “I thought,” it actually amazes me how “lost” I became in thought and imagination. I’m not sure how to continuously maintain focus on the “I.”

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

I’ve been reading Be As You Are. As I try to abide in the “I thought,” my mind gets easily swept away on many journeys.
Once I catch myself and return to the “I thought,” it actually amazes me how “lost” I became in thought and imagination. I’m not sure how to continuously maintain focus on the “I.”

I haven’t read that book… but that doesn’t matter. Rather, let’s look at the hidden beliefs with the idea of ‘resting in the I thought’.

It’s assumes that there is someone separate from thoughts who could rest in them…. And also, thoughts are something special, they are more than just thoughts, since they are like some kind of space, where this separate entity could rest in. So this is story about duality, about a separate entity trying to get somewhere, to achieve something.

What happens if you inquire into this?

What is it that is trying to rest in an “I”?
What “I” is that?
Where is that “I”?
Is it actually somewhere?
Or is it totally made up?

What is there in experience, if you put aside ALL learned knowledge, including what you’ve read in that book?

What is it that is trying to focus on the 'I"?

And what 'I'?
What do you refer to with the word 'I' (as a resting place)?


Vivien

[besposito]

What is it that is trying to rest in an “I”?
What “I” is that?
Where is that “I”?
Is it actually somewhere?
Or is it totally made up?

What is there in experience, if you put aside ALL learned knowledge, including what you’ve read in that book?

What is it that is trying to focus on the 'I"?

And what 'I'?
What do you refer to with the word 'I' (as a resting place)?

I see that there is no entity called “I.” It’s just a stream of thoughts. In direct experience, there are just sensations, feelings, perceptions. So, yeah… there is no control, everything is just happening, like a script. There is no I, just thoughts that I mistook for an I. I see this. Yet I still feel an apparent separation between “me” and “others.” They have their own thoughts - their own universe in a way. And I have my own. Of course, I can ask myself who thinks these thoughts, which leads me back to the untruth of there being a separate “I.” But the doubt remains. Perhaps I am ahead of myself here, and maybe should hold these questions or doubts for now in favor of whatever guidance you want to show me.

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

We have to make sure that you not just have an intellectual understanding, but a deep experiential recognition of this being a fact. It’s very easy to mistake intellectual understanding with experiencing.

Yet I still feel an apparent separation between “me” and “others.” They have their own thoughts - their own universe in a way. And I have my own.

What is your assumption here? That non-separation would mean to be able to read or know other thoughts and feelings?
Does non-separation mean the merging or joining of bodies into one, and know and feel all as one?

What if non-separation is something very different?
What if it has nothing to do with bodies?

Just notice the idea of separation between me and others come from BELIEVING that I am THIS BODY, and others are OTHER BODIES. I live INSIDE this body, and others live inside other bodies.

Yes, bodies are separate. Just as a table is not a chair. They are two separate, distinct objects. And this will never change.

The question is: what makes THIS BODY ME?

Is there an entity inside this body, living inside, experiencing the world out there?

Is there a Bryan being housed somewhere inside the body, perhaps inside the chest or the head, as a central controller?

And are there other individuals living inside other bodies having their own lives?

Or…. There are just bodies, but totally empty of selves?

Note: Please try not to bulk-reply. Always reply to each question one-by-one (unless they are grouped together). Why? Because each question is a pointer for you where to look. And if you bulk-reply, it’s easy to miss some important pointers. With bulk reply you are just robbing yourself from the opportunity of investigating each pointer thoroughly.

Vivien

[besposito]

What is your assumption here? That non-separation would mean to be able to read or know other thoughts and feelings?

Not quite.

Does non-separation mean the merging or joining of bodies into one, and know and feel all as one?

Hmm, a little closer. More like experientially seeing that all is one, and not forgetting it because of mind activity. I see the ego in this body called Bryan, and I see other egos in other bodies in the world. Some I like, some I don't particularly like. I perhaps have thought that realization would alter this perception in some way.

What if non-separation is something very different?
What if it has nothing to do with bodies?

This is fine, I just don't see it now.

The question is: what makes THIS BODY ME?

It's difficult to say. Why AM I aware of this specific body's thoughts and perceptions, instead of another body's? This confuses me.

Is there an entity inside this body, living inside, experiencing the world out there?

There seems to just be this experience of a body and the world, simultaneously. The world rises with the waking of the body and disappears with sleep. No entity. Just experience.

Is there a Bryan being housed somewhere inside the body, perhaps inside the chest or the head, as a central controller?

I cannot find such a thing. Just sensations and thoughts.

And are there other individuals living inside other bodies having their own lives?

It seems this way = thoughts are making me think this is the case. I suppose this is not true. If there is no Bryan here, there is no Vivien out there. But you do seem to (there it is again) have your own thoughts and experiences, which are different from mine.

Or…. There are just bodies, but totally empty of selves?

Yes, if there is no "I" here, then there must be no "I" anywhere. But when you and I talk, I feel as though (thoughts again?) I'm talking to another, separate self.

[besposito]

Also...

Note: Please try not to bulk-reply.

Yes, my apologies. I sometimes reply from my phone and it's a little difficult to copy and paste line by line. But you are correct. It is helpful to do so.

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

It's difficult to say. Why AM I aware of this specific body's thoughts and perceptions, instead of another body's? This confuses me.

Going along this line is one of the biggest mind-traps regarding non-separation.

Do you notice that you can only ever THINK about this seeming problem?

Just notice that the seeking to find an answer happens on the intellectual level. You are trying to understand it by THINKING ABOUT it.

This is a sure way to keep the whole thing on the intellectual level. And yes, of course, the intellect won’t be satisfied with this reply. This is such a common issue that I wrote a blog post about it. Please read it:

https://fadingveiling.com/2020/09/12/is ... paration/

I see the ego in this body called Bryan, and I see other egos in other bodies in the world.

Now, let’s do a real inquiry.

Do you actually SEE an ego inside the body called Bryan?

How does this ego look like?
How big it is?
What colour?
Can you touch it? Taste it? Smell it?

In what way do you actually experience an ego INSIDE the body? You experience it as what?

Where is it exactly inside?

You also say that you see egos in other bodies.

Where do you see them? In their heads? Or in their chest? Or filling out the whole body?
Or in the words they speak? Is that possible?

Really look at this…. What is an ego in experience?

How does an ego being recognized as an ego?

How do you distinguish what is ego and what is not?

Please make sure that you don’t just brush aside these questions saying that it’s silly, of course I don’t see an ego, it’s not visible…. or something similar. Really dive deep, since you believe that there is an ego in each body… that’s the separate self…. So you really need to look at it… don’t just think about the answer, really look.

Vivien

[besposito]

Do you notice that you can only ever THINK about this seeming problem?

I see this. Is… everything a thought? Is “watching your thoughts” just a thought? “Resting as awareness” — a thought? “I am being an observer without thought” — another thought? Seems like it is.

Do you actually SEE an ego inside the body called Bryan?

How does this ego look like?
How big it is?
What colour?
Can you touch it? Taste it? Smell it?

It has no tangible qualities.

In what way do you actually experience an ego INSIDE the body? You experience it as what?

As a collection of thoughts

Where is it exactly inside?

It’s hard for me to determine what’s inside versus what’s outside

Where do you see them? In their heads? Or in their chest? Or filling out the whole body?
Or in the words they speak? Is that possible?

I experience it as a collection of thoughts about them

Really look at this…. What is an ego in experience?

How does an ego being recognized as an ego?

How do you distinguish what is ego and what is not?

Right now, the experience of an ego is in thoughts.

That’s a good question. If I have an ego, I experience all else through its filter. So everything I perceive through thought is flavored with my own ego.

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

V: In what way do you actually experience an ego INSIDE the body? You experience it as what?

B: As a collection of thoughts

Just notice that the experience of thoughts is NOT an ego. Thoughts are just thoughts. Just another thought makes a claim as an ADDED interpretation, or a label to certain other thoughts, as ‘ego’. Can you see that?

Can you see that ‘ego’ is just a thought story ADDED to certain thoughts, and nothing more?
Or is there more to an ego than a thought label?

Are thoughts inside the body?
Can you actually observe thoughts being inside the head? Or coming from the head?

I experience it as a collection of thoughts about them

Exactly! Other’s egos in nothing else than my thoughts about them… nothing else… can you see that?

Just as the label ‘ego’ is applied to ‘my thoughts’, similarly, the same label is applied to other bodies or what other bodies say. Or is there more to it?

Right now, the experience of an ego is in thoughts.

Well, can anything be IN thought actually experienced?
Is that possible?

Please think of Batman. Do you actually experience Batman, or what you are experiencing are mental images and verbal thoughts, but NOT Batman itself?

Seeing this is crucial. The whole illusion is created because we mistake our IMAGINATION for reality.
What we think is NOT real.
It’s not an experience. Can you see that?

If I have an ego, I experience all else through its filter. So everything I perceive through thought is flavored with my own ego.

Do you REALLY have an ego in reality?
Or ego is just an IMAGINED entity applied to certain self-referential thoughts, as a label or a tag?

Vivien

[besposito]

Just another thought makes a claim as an ADDED interpretation, or a label to certain other thoughts, as ‘ego’. Can you see that?

Yes, “ego” is an idea or a story. It’s just a thought that looks at a bunch of other thoughts and says, “that’s me, him, or her.”

Can you see that ‘ego’ is just a thought story ADDED to certain thoughts, and nothing more?
Or is there more to an ego than a thought label?

Yes, I can see that. It’s just a label on thoughts.

Are thoughts inside the body?
Can you actually observe thoughts being inside the head? Or coming from the head?

I don’t know where they come from. They just appear, and disappear. There’s a story about thoughts coming from a “brain” inside my skull, but I have no experience of that. In experience, thoughts just come. I am aware of them, and they are either followed or not. I have no control over which of those occurs.

Exactly! Other’s egos in nothing else than my thoughts about them… nothing else… can you see that?

Yes, I can see that. It’s just a story or a label attached to a collection of thoughts.

Just as the label ‘ego’ is applied to ‘my thoughts’, similarly, the same label is applied to other bodies or what other bodies say. Or is there more to it?

Yes, that’s it.

Well, can anything be IN thought actually experienced?
Is that possible?

Right… no, it’s not possible. They’re just thoughts. At most, I can *imagine* experiencing a thought — but that’s just a thought (mental images).

What we think is NOT real.
It’s not an experience. Can you see that?

So… “Real” = experience - touch, see, hear. Thoughts are not an experience, because they can only be imagined.

Why though? How do you know that experience is “real”? What makes a physical experience more real than imagining/hallucinating an experience? If I dream and have an imagined experience, it feels real at the time. If you asked me in the dream if I physically experienced, I would say “yes.” When I wake, it’s clear that it was not real; only imagined. Why is it that a physical experience is real here? I mean, we could be imagining this from another “level,” yeah?

Do you REALLY have an ego in reality?
Or ego is just an IMAGINED entity applied to certain self-referential thoughts, as a label or a tag?

Ego is imagined. Yes, just a thought about a collection of self-referential thoughts, labeled as “ego.” Just a thought.

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

I don’t know where they come from. They just appear, and disappear. There’s a story about thoughts coming from a “brain” inside my skull, but I have no experience of that. In experience, thoughts just come. I am aware of them, and they are either followed or not. I have no control over which of those occurs.

Exactly! Yet, we prefer to believe our theories about thoughts (coming from the brain / head), instead of our direct experience. How strange is that…

Why though? How do you know that experience is “real”? What makes a physical experience more real than imagining/hallucinating an experience?

What else could be real than experience?

That’s the whole point. We mistake imagination for experience / reality. That’s how the illusion of self and control is created.

If I dream and have an imagined experience, it feels real at the time. If you asked me in the dream if I physically experienced, I would say “yes.” When I wake, it’s clear that it was not real; only imagined.

So the same way there can be a ‘wake up’ from the daytime dream with open eyes to see that this thought or mental movie that is happening right now is not real.

Why is it that a physical experience is real here? I mean, we could be imagining this from another “level,” yeah?

Well, we need to use some tools to undo the belief in separation. And looking at experience directly is an excellent tool for that. And when a tool is fulfilled its usefulness, it can be put down.

So why looking at experience? Because experience is benevolent. It’s totally neutral. And yet we project all sorts of things onto it, first fragmenting it into parts, calling one part is me and the rest is not me. As soon as this base separation is believed, the not-me is a continuous threat to my existence. And that is suffering.

Here is a blogpost a wrote about this topic, please read it.

https://fadingveiling.com/2020/11/09/fo ... xperience/

When you’ve read it, please reply to the questions at the end of the post… make sure you are very honest with yourself.

Vivien

[besposito]

Is the idea that “direct experience” is a stepping stone to reality? Because the sages say that objects don’t exist. And experience is comprised of objects - seeing X, smelling Y, hearing Z.

I have some experience with psychedelics. The direct experience on psychedelics can be much different than while sober. Does that mean that my direct experience while in that state, is reality? I’d think not. It’s just as un-real as my direct experience right now. I admit that these are thoughts though. But it also seems to me that “observing direct experience” is just a thought as well.

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

Is the idea that “direct experience” is a stepping stone to reality? Because the sages say that objects don’t exist. And experience is comprised of objects - seeing X, smelling Y, hearing Z.

Yes, it is a stepping stone. But notice that you are replying on what others said, even if they were great sages, instead of trusting your own experience. What else could you trust?

And experience is comprised of objects - seeing X, smelling Y, hearing Z

Not really. In experience there is notseeing of X, there is no seeing of an object, there is just seeing. Only color / shape is experienced. The object itself is mentally ADDED as a thought. Making the direct experience of seeing into a thing, into an object.

I have some experience with psychedelics. The direct experience on psychedelics can be much different than while sober. Does that mean that my direct experience while in that state, is reality? I’d think not. It’s just as un-real as my direct experience right now. I admit that these are thoughts though. But it also seems to me that “observing direct experience” is just a thought as well.

Well… here comes a confusion… whatever is ‘experienced’ with psychedelics, that is NOT direct experience. Since those are all mentally created, fake replica of experience (which is not actually present, just imagined), but not experience itself. That’s the whole point. All those visions and thoughts are nothing else but THOUGHTS. And thought content is never ever a real experience. That’s the whole point.

How else would you realize that there is no separate self if you cannot see that the contents of thoughts are NOT real? They are not real experience?

Thought is creating the illusion.
And thought is mistaken for a real experience.

So if a thought says that I am doing this or that… when then it must be the truth! Since it’s not seen that that thought content is nothing, it’s not real… it’s just a mental fluff.

Well, you have to really consider this, since if you are not willing to put aside your THOUGHTS that tries to deny the validity of experience then I don’t know how to help.

Vivien

[besposito]

Well… here comes a confusion… whatever is ‘experienced’ with psychedelics, that is NOT direct experience.

But... isn't it the same for sober 'experience'? What's the difference, exactly? There is direct experience in both states. There's also direct experience in a dream state. These states only become less "real" in retrospect (e.g., when thinking about them). What's the difference?

I am following you and this has been helpful. However, there is a lot of confusion here on this point that I'd really like to work through.

As far as I can tell, you're saying:
Sober direct experience = direct experience = real
Psychedelic direct experience = not direct experience = not real
Dreaming direct experience = not direct experience = not real
Why?

"Seeing" exists the same in all 3 states. Why is it not direct experience in all 3 states?

if you are not willing to put aside your THOUGHTS that tries to deny the validity of experience then I don’t know how to help.

I'm not denying the validity of experience. I'm only wondering why only the sober, waking state is taken as a valid, direct experience of reality. In deep sleep there is no experience, does that mean reality ceases to exist? No, such a thing isn't possible.