Unsure what this is?

[ankitawho]

Lovely to read this. The sincerity and curiosity in enquiry is beautiful to witness.

First, some notes:

I just realised that probably the reason humans sense that their self is housed in their head and behind their eyes is because a voice needs a mouth - and a head has a mouth.

Yes! And identification is very often the strongest with the sense of sight, what 'i' see, 'my' unique perspective, and voice is seen as the first tool of the sense of control: what 'i' choose to speak, 'my' voice.
We will go deeper into this in our next exercise, to explore 'me' vs 'others'.
This brings me to:

Such as, there is still a sense of "me" and "you" though. How do I get rid of that?

Notice that there is an aversion here. As though the sense of 'me' and 'you' is inherently something to get rid of?
And even if it was, up until you haven't in your own direct experience seen that 'me' and 'you' are something that can be gotten rid of/dissolved in the first place, how would you know thats even possible? What if the books, and this forum, and I -- we are all deluded? Trust ONLY in your own direct experience.
There is beauty in trusting only DE. It makes even the sense of 'me' and 'you' beautiful. The fact that there is anything at all is a miracle, even if its a sense of separation.

So look at this aversion and tell me:
How does it FEEL in the body to sit with the feeling of not 'getting' it quite yet?
Can this feeling be broken down into just its raw sensation and the thought that is fuelling it?
Without the thought that it must be gone, what remains of the raw sensation?
Is the raw sensation that intolerable?
Is there a way to be at such peace with this raw sensation that even if we never 'got' it, it would be okay to live with this sensation?

You see, wherever there is aversion, there is the ego/self. Only the ego has opinions, reality just is. We can practise so many exercises, but will come back to laugh at how the ego was actually hiding underneath the very mission behind the exercises, it was hiding under the thought "we need to get rid of this!!! how do we get rid of this?! this is no good!" 🤗

Now the curious questions:

I just read the book "No self, no problem" where the author talks about the left brain being our interpreter of the world. And it does not stop jabbering in my case! Is that my ego?

Yes, thats very much the ego. The ego can be anything that justifies that something must be done about something, and someone must do it!!! It is a deep, underlying sense of unease with reality the way that it is, and this unease is expressed in thoughts, in sensations, in control, in ownership -- all of these are expressions of the ego. The ego itself is a tiny mad idea that kickstarts all this. The tiny mad idea is that there is something called the reality out there, and then there is a me in here, and we are two separate things, and I can exercise control on reality and reality can exercise control on me.

My husband and I have a very big decision to make about our future. As with all decisions, there are pros and cons either way. Are we fooling ourselves that "we" are deliberating, or will life just play out and we have no control of that, only the illusion of control?

There is deliberation happening, there are decisions being made, but no deliberator and decision-maker, they are indeed just life playing out.
What are decisions and pros-cons analyses anyway? Just games of thought. And what is a thought? Just an expression of life, happening through what you take to be yourselves. In all of this, where is the controller? Could you control not deciding?
Remember the canary :) An empty shell going about its business, and the business includes pretending to decide. hehe :)

[Stacyg888]

Thank you for answering my curious questions so patiently :)

There is a sense that we are starting to go deeper, that is thrilling.

How does it FEEL in the body to sit with the feeling of not 'getting' it quite yet?

There is a small amount of tightness, constriction.

Can this feeling be broken down into just its raw sensation and the thought that is fuelling it?

The raw sensation is constriction experienced, the thought would be "I must be so close, wht aren't I there yet" which is ridiculous since there is no me and nowhere to get to as such. I know that intellectually.

Without the thought that it must be gone, what remains of the raw sensation?

Nothing, it has vaporised, vanished into thin air.

Is the raw sensation that intolerable?

No, it's not intolerable at all.

Is there a way to be at such peace with this raw sensation that even if we never 'got' it, it would be okay to live with this sensation?

Probably but I'm not there yet 🤣 However, I always come back to everything is just a thought and I can be okay with thoughts. Thoughts can't hurt me.

Thanks Ankita. I look forward to hearing from you again ❤

[ankitawho]

Great seeing.

Lets explore 'me' vs 'others':

We should begin this by first enquiring for 'me', as we have many times now. We especially want to look at hesitation and doubt.
1. Can you find an inherent self anywhere, outside of thought?
Can you confidently say, with no doubt whatsoever, that there is no 'me'?
Is there any hesitation?
How does hesitation, or no hesitation, FEEL?

Next, is there an inside and an outside?
Are feelings felt inside or outside?
Are thoughts born inside or outside?
Are they inside something? Are they central to you, or are they peripheral?

Do thoughts about the 'body' come up when referencing inside and outside?
What is this body?

Look closely :)

[Stacyg888]

. Can you find an inherent self anywhere, outside of thought?
Can you confidently say, with no doubt whatsoever, that there is no 'me'?
Is there any hesitation? How does hesitation, or no hesitation, FEEL?

No self outside of thought. I can confidently say there is no me - me seems to be just an old, persistent habit of thought at this stage. There is some hesitation because mind keeps taking me back to thoughts of me that are so very persistent. When the thoughts are dropped, there is just peace. Hesitation feels frustrated.

Is there an inside and an outside?

Right now, yes, that's what I perceive.

Are feelings felt inside or outside?

Feelings still seem to be felt inside my chest area.

Are thoughts born inside or outside?

Thoughts arise and seem to be inside my head but more often lately they seem to just arise in or around my body.

Are they inside something? Are they central to you, or are they peripheral?

Thoughts are not tangible, they just arise from the ether.

Do thoughts about the 'body' come up when referencing inside and outside?

Yes, the body is still perceived as the container for thoughts and feelings. Thoughts and feelings largely come from inside this body, mainly just the chest and head.

What is this body?

Ugh. The body seems to be the container for thoughts, mind and feelings. Intellectually I know that isn't so but that's how I still perceive things to be working.

[Stacyg888]

Ankita, I looked again with my eyes closed. Inside and outside no longer exists. Feelings just are, but not anywhere in particular. Thoughts just are, they come and go, not born out of anywhere.

As for "what is this body" - it is just a thought. I come to that conclusion because it disappears when my eyes are closed and I trust what I see with my eyes closed more than I trust what I see with eyes open!

Yesterday I went to a movie. It occurred to me that all images in the movie are on a flat screen but they look 3D and "real". I sense that what my eyes show me is just a movie in my head too.

[ankitawho]

Writing to you shortly 🙏 Keep seeing!

[Stacyg888]

Looking forward to it ❤

Can you please clarify seeing. What to see or not see? How to see or not see?

[ankitawho]

Apologies for the delay 🙏🏼❤️

Now where were we...

Can you please clarify seeing. What to see or not see? How to see or not see?

Yes, very important!
Consider this:
If someone's eyes are open and functional, do they have the choice to not see what the eyes are seeing?
Must the eyes be taught to see?
Can the eyes see anything else except what is in their field of vision?
It's exactly this! When we say "seeing" on LU, we mean this experiencing that is happening choicelessly, effortlessly, all the time!
Spirituality often uses words like "awareness", "consciousness", while referring to the same thing, but this can make someone feel like these are states that will come in time with enough practice, but its all right here, available for all, no training required. So we call it "seeing", just look. Yes, with your eyes.

When seeing gets deepened, we "see" that even "eyes" are a concept, just like the rest of the body. Hehe.
Trippy :)

Synonyms: Noticing, observing

When you are encouraged to see, it simply means throw yourself into DE and report only what is found in DE. Only what is seen, not learned/assumed/made up.

I read your follow-up answer to the body questions, but there is still thought content here and there, so lets clarify and try to enquire deeper:

There is some hesitation because mind keeps taking me back to thoughts of me that are so very persistent.

Who is mind taking back to thoughts of "me"? Is there someone who needs to be stabilized in no-self?

Hesitation feels frustrated.

Great that a feeling was observed and called out. I invite you to look at feelings closer too, and see that they are just a sensation + a thought, every time, over and over. While reporting, report the sensation: heaviness/contraction, and the thought that is justifying it. See the thought as just another thought, and divorce it from the sensation. When the sensation is isolated, and the mind learns to not fear it, the mind will naturally allow an opening for more depth.

Right now, yes, that's what I perceive.

Where is the boundary? Is the skin the boundary? Can you see inside and outside the skin? Please SEE, yes, with your eyes. What makes you perceive that there is an "inside" and "outside" to the skin?

Feelings still seem to be felt inside my chest area.

And where is this chest area, exactly? Close your eyes for this one to not let the label of "chest" get in the way. With eyes closed, where is the chest? It is somewhere "downwards"? Downwards from what? Is it downwards from where the sense of self lives? :) The one we saw to be non-existent? Like the canary?

Only SEEING will set you free, so no convincing yourself in the mind -- just LOOK!

Thoughts are not tangible, they just arise from the ether.

What is the ether, please?

Thoughts arise and seem to be inside my head but more often lately they seem to just arise in or around my body.
Yes, the body is still perceived as the container for thoughts and feelings. Thoughts and feelings largely come from inside this body, mainly just the chest and head.

Regarding this, and this:

Ankita, I looked again with my eyes closed. Inside and outside no longer exists. Feelings just are, but not anywhere in particular. Thoughts just are, they come and go, not born out of anywhere.

Good!
BUT:

I come to that conclusion because it disappears when my eyes are closed and I trust what I see with my eyes closed more than I trust what I see with eyes open!

Why do you trust one experience more than the other? In fact, we don't want to trust at all! We simply see what there is, no reasoning from our end. This answer would mean that the body exists with eyes open, and doesn't exist with eyes closed! Yup, precisely and exactly so!!! Or in other words: the body is a visual experience, an image -- and that's all :)
Now, Stacy, is this visual experience/image a container? Again, LOOK. SEE. With your eyes, yes. Look at the image that the body is. Can this image contain anything?

If a scientist was to cut open a finger and show you that it "contains" nerves, blood, etc, what would you say?

Yesterday I went to a movie. It occurred to me that all images in the movie are on a flat screen but they look 3D and "real". I sense that what my eyes show me is just a movie in my head too.

We are getting there! 🥳 But also, what eyes, and what head? ;)

See if this helps?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajhflO8wAuQ

[Stacyg888]

Thanks Ankita. I am keen to get on with this but I appreciate that you get back to me when you can )

If someone's eyes are open and functional, do they have the choice to not see what the eyes are seeing? Must the eyes be taught to see? Can the eyes see anything else except what is in their field of vision?

This work has been making me question that things are not what they seem. That's why I asked. But your answer seems to say that the eyes will see what is in front of them so I'm still a bit confused.

Who is mind taking back to thoughts of "me"? Is there someone who needs to be stabilized in no-self?

Back to the illusion I have known to be me all these years. There seems to be a stubborn conditioning of the self here who isn't wanting to let go or change her perspective.

Where is the boundary? Is the skin the boundary? Can you see inside and outside the skin? Please SEE, yes, with your eyes. What makes you perceive that there is an "inside" and "outside" to the skin?

For 52 years, I have known my body as having an inside and outside, skin keeping the insides all neatly wrapped together. What makes me perceive it this way is years of conditioning, it's all I knew about my body until recently.

And where is this chest area, exactly? Close your eyes for this one to not let the label of "chest" get in the way. With eyes closed, where is the chest? It is somewhere "downwards"? Downwards from what? Is it downwards from where the sense of self lives? :) The one we saw to be non-existent? Like the canary?

I like the eyes closed way of perceiving my body, my chest disappears and boundaries do sometimes too. The body is a visual experience, you say. That is fascinating, and helpful.

What is the ether, please?

Air around and everywhere.

Now, Stacy, is this visual experience/image a container? Again, LOOK. SEE. With your eyes, yes. Look at the image that the body is. Can this image contain anything? If a scientist was to cut open a finger and show you that it "contains" nerves, blood, etc, what would you say?

A visual image can't contain anything - how funny. But if a scientist cut a finger open, I would say that the blood and anything else I could see with my eyes would look real. Would it in fact be real?

I watched the video a few times and had some success feeling formless but not always. This stuff is keeping me up at night because I lie in bed trying to feel formless or thinking about the videos I've watched.

Thanks your help as always, Ankita.

[ankitawho]

This work has been making me question that things are not what they seem. That's why I asked. But your answer seems to say that the eyes will see what is in front of them so I'm still a bit confused.

The eyes will see what is infront of them, and yet somehow, for years and years, we have been assuming, believing, imagining, inventing much much more than what the eyes saw. Seeing through the illusion of self isn't about seeing something new/different, but rather about dropping all noise and simply seeing whatever "is".

Is there any contradiction here for you?
Is there an expectation hiding in the confusion?

Back to the illusion I have known to be me all these years. There seems to be a stubborn conditioning of the self here who isn't wanting to let go or change her perspective.

Notice that all of this is thought:
- there is an illusion of self
- the mind takes the illusion of the self back to the illusion of the self
- all the stubborn conditioning

All of this is ONLY thought content. That means it has NO power.
Something that might help to recognise a thought as "just" a thought: Trace it back, what was its origin? Did it arise immediately as a response to the question? Read the question again, what would you respond with if it didn't arise? Can you be in that little gap, that little silence, before thinking begins?

Bursting thought bubbles doesn't have to be a frustrating exercise, its free entertainment :)

For 52 years, I have known my body as having an inside and outside, skin keeping the insides all neatly wrapped together. What makes me perceive it this way is years of conditioning, it's all I knew about my body until recently.

Indeed. And you find yourself here now with the apparent desire to undo this.

These questions are pointers, meant less for answering, and more for just sitting with. They replace rigid beliefs with temporary openings to consider a new perspective. Don't worry about what has been, what will be, how this changes things, etc, simply look, with neutral curiosity, in the now.

Please answer these for me again Stacy, I rephrase the questions now -- simply look at the skin of your arm, observe it against the backdrop of your keyboard as I am observing mine while writing this to you, and tell me:

- What about the skin of your hand suggests that this skin is 'yours', that it is a part of 'your' 'body', but the keyboard is not? Can you genuinely list any reason for me that is not past learning? In the PRESENT, when these learnings are dead and left behind, is there a reason you can see?

Look with your eyes, and see that there is nothing new about the visual you are looking at. It has always been this same skin-coloured hand, this keyboard-coloured keyboard, the eyes have always seen just this. But for all these years, the mind has been saying "I have control over this skin-coloured part", "I can feel sensations confined to the skin-coloured part", and wrapped an identity around it, including it as a part of 'body'.
These links were made and reinforced, but this is not what was ever seen.

Keep looking at the arm, the hand, the fingers, the keyboard, and further consider:

- Is there anything about the skin of your hand that suggests that there is anything 'inside' it? Or 'behind' it? Or 'infront' of it? Or that someone is observing it? :)

- Does the skin of the hand know it is being observed?

The eyes were only presented with this visual, and look at how many assumptions were derived from it.

A visual image can't contain anything - how funny. But if a scientist cut a finger open, I would say that the blood and anything else I could see with my eyes would look real. Would it in fact be real?

Of course!!!
We are not in the business of denying anything that is seen!
But what about act of the finger being cut, ie the image of the finger changing to the image of a finger with a cut, suggested to us that the blood, ie another image, was contained 'inside' the first image?
Has it not just been a progression of images, one after the other?

At the most fundamental level, even science will tell you that it is all just atoms dancing and rearranging themselves, that are then perceived as separate things like 'finger', 'blood', 'cuts' at the apparent/relative level.
Nothing wrong about either of these, its just that we are here to see through the apparent level and look at the fundamental.

Going back to your analogy of watching a movie, if the movie showed a finger being cut and blood pouring out, did the blood pour out from inside the screen? Or was it just a succession of quickly moving images? Is there something such as the finger, the blood etc or was it all just the screen the entire time?

I like the eyes closed way of perceiving my body, my chest disappears and boundaries do sometimes too. The body is a visual experience, you say. That is fascinating, and helpful.

Lovely, and lets do some exercises with eyes closed if they help, but remember: no trusting, only directly experiencing.

What is the ether, please?

Air around and everywhere.

Hmmm and thoughts come from this 'ether', you say? :) Are we sure? Is that directly experienced?

I watched the video a few times and had some success feeling formless but not always. This stuff is keeping me up at night because I lie in bed trying to feel formless or thinking about the videos I've watched.

Sending a hug with your consent. I feel you. Pls know that like all other activities, this activity too is being done on its own, naturally too. We can't rush it, or slow it down. ❤️

This reply got way too long, please let me know if lengthy responses are ok by you or you'd like me to split them from the next time onwards? :)

[Stacyg888]

Hug received thank you, and returned :) Long answers are fine, I am keen to SEE asap.

Seeing through the illusion of self isn't about seeing something new/different, but rather about dropping all noise and simply seeing whatever "is." Is there any contradiction here for you? Is there an expectation hiding in the confusion?

Aah that makes sense. Drop the thought overlays and just SEE. No expectation hiding.

Thought really messes things up, doestn't it! Thank you for pointing out that the questions are for sitting with, I actually thought I had to come up with an answer for every question posed in the posts.

What about the skin of your hand suggests that this skin is 'yours', that it is a part of 'your' 'body', but the keyboard is not? Can you genuinely list any reason for me that is not past learning? In the PRESENT, when these learnings are dead and left behind, is there a reason you can see?

No reasons at all.

Is there anything about the skin of your hand that suggests that there is anything 'inside' it? Or 'behind' it? Or 'infront' of it? Or that someone is observing it? :) Does the skin of the hand know it is being observed?

haha no, the skin doesn't know it is being observed. Just looking at it, I can't know there is a behind or anything inside it. [However, the question "does the hand know it is being observed" makes me think of the double slit experiment. Somehow the particles behaved differently when they were observed so maybe my skin does know?]

Another analogy came to me when I was driving. Can you please clarify this one for me? "I am in my car but I am not my car. I am in my body but I am not my body." Does that mean "I" actually am contained in my body in some way? Why does it always seem that I am looking out "my" eyes? If I touch "my" head, how come I can feel that as a sensation?

Thanks Ankita.

[ankitawho]

I actually thought I had to come up with an answer for every question posed in the posts.

Ohoh! Haha.
The responses that arise to questions do however indicate to me where the gaps could be and where the identity is the most sticky.

However, the question "does the hand know it is being observed" makes me think of the double slit experiment.

Yes!!!
The double slit experiment! Did the particles "know" they were being observed, or were the particles simply not separate from the observation and from the observer... hmmm :) We will get back to this, at some point.

Somehow the particles behaved differently when they were observed so maybe my skin does know?

Stacy, notice that this is thought content! Is this directly experienced? There is no room for "maybe"s in DE, we only report what is experienced. Doubt can only live in thoughts, not in DE.

Another analogy came to me when I was driving. Can you please clarify this one for me? "I am in my car but I am not my car. I am in my body but I am not my body." Does that mean "I" actually am contained in my body in some way? Why does it always seem that I am looking out "my" eyes? If I touch "my" head, how come I can feel that as a sensation?

Great question! As surprising as it may be, the sense of looking out the "eyes" is completely thought content. The sense that there is someone looking in the first place is also thought.
Thought says that because something is seen, there must be something/someone seeing it! It cannot accept that there is just the seen.
Please try this exercise from "The Headless Way":
https://www.headless.org/experiments/pointing.htm
What do you see when the finger is pointed inwards?
Their website may have some interesting reading material too.

And please watch this video next:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DphlhmtGRqI

"Locating" senses (ie a sensation arose near the head/ in the head, when the head was touched), and establishing cause-effect relationship (the sensation arose because the head was touched) are both thought activities, and we will practise looking at sensations more deeply in the next exercise.

[Stacyg888]

The double slit experiment! Did the particles "know" they were being observed, or were the particles simply not separate from the observation and from the observer

Big aha here! Science implies this is simply due to intelligence in consciousness but "no separation" takes that further. Quick funny story. My daughter in law is 7 months pregnant and baby is very active. It took her 3 minutes to get a 10 second video of movement because baby would freeze every time she picked up her phone. Oneness makes so much more sense now!

the sense of looking out the "eyes" is completely thought content

. Interesting. A hard habit to break perhaps. Curious question. During the night I reached for an inhaler next to my bed - in the dark and with eyes closed. Yet I found it straight away, no fumbling at all, just as easily as if my eyes were open. Can we see without the eyes?

What do you see when the finger is pointed inwards?

I see space. I'm not sure how that is helpful though.

Locating" senses

- fascinating experiments and I see how the brain can quite easily be tricked, evidence that what appears to be is not so. I get it intellectually.

[ankitawho]

Big aha here!

It was this way for me too!
Personally, there was high resistance here to accept that my direct experience was adequate, because science would say the sample set of one person is too small! :)
Some teacher once called science the 'religion of matter', as in all of its claims are built on matter, something that it itself says cannot be proven to exist.

Quick funny story. My daughter in law is 7 months pregnant and baby is very active. It took her 3 minutes to get a 10 second video of movement because baby would freeze every time she picked up her phone.

Hahah 😊❤️

Can we see without the eyes?

It is difficult to answer this question in a way that bypasses intellectual understanding and doesn't make the ego immediately co-opt and set new desires and goals around this. This can be answered on many levels, but in an attempt to direct our conversations more and more to DE, lets take this approach:
If you can, look at the sky for this. When you look at the sky, what is your DE? Is it not just the experience of the sky? In your DE, where are the eyes? Keep looking at the sky, don't go to thought for this question. Where in the sky are your eyes?

Language needs a subject and an object, so the phrase goes "The eyes are seeing the sky", but really, in your DE, is there anything except the action of seeing in any of this? Is it not just that whatever-is is simply experienced, instantly? As a verb?

Now that there is an opening to consider a new pov, lets pinch off the intellectual get-around's and keep looking into DE.

[Stacyg888]

When you look at the sky, what is your DE? Is it not just the experience of the sky? In your DE, where are the eyes? Keep looking at the sky, don't go to thought for this question. Where in the sky are your eyes? Language needs a subject and an object, so the phrase goes "The eyes are seeing the sky", but really, in your DE, is there anything except the action of seeing in any of this? Is it not just that whatever-is is simply experienced, instantly? As a verb?

What a great example. Yes, I just see sky, no eyes anywhere in the DE. I remember some time ago you said there are no practices to do but it seems like just seeing, without the experience of looking with eyes, would be a good thing to practice on a daily basis. Would it? I am a type A personality and study the **** out of everything I try to do. I have been studying Douglas Harding and Angelo resources daily since you suggested some of their work but it feels like just taking in content, it's not landing. I zone in and out a lot too and don't hold concentration for long. Or is that just a thought? I'm probably trying too hard./color]

Seeing, without adding labels and thought, is such a hard habit to break!

Curious question. I watch young children around age 3, and they point to things and close one eye. Douglas Harding talks about how our view is through an oval shape in front of us. Does the one eye closed thing that kids do related to their view in some way?