I know it but don’t yet see it.

[Shoji]

Hi Daniel,

After all, there never was a "self" there that would now need to be erased. One simply sees the fact that there never was one.

Yes, I see the point that I don’t have to change anything because the fact of no-self isn’t anything new. I don’t drop the self, I drop the belief (a thought) in a self.

The relief lies not in the world changing, but in the fact that the struggle to protect or find an imagined self can cease.

This is a very clear way of putting it. Not a change in me or in the world, but a relaxation of a seeking…

… seeking a “new state” of enlightenment, yes
… but also seeking people/things/experiences/situations that protect the supposed self or try to make it whole.

Understood.

...into this "sense of self." If you strip away all thoughts and labels: Is what you feel there really an "I"—or is it simply the raw, pulsating aliveness of your body?

Raw, pulsating, aliveness of the body… yes, that is definitely an excellent description of the overall experience appearing in consciousness.

Could it be that this feeling is merely the tangible fact that life and perception are taking place? Why should this pure aliveness in the mouth or the back of the head be a "self"?

It’s just a bit of muscle tension that consciousness of which is aware.

If this aliveness has an “owner” right now—what does he smell like, what color is he, and what does he feel like when you touch him directly?
The question might sound odd, but I really mean it seriously.

Let the answer come solely from raw sensory experience.

Ok, I’ll investigate this.

Should I also continue to investigate the direct experience of objects (what about my awareness of them is the sight/sound itself, and what about my supposed awareness of them is a only a concept/thought… and also whether I can detect a boundary between the object and myself and the space of the room)?

Warm Regards,
Josh

[Shoji]

(A bit of muscle tension of which consciousness is aware). 😊

[Daniel777]

Hi Josh,

nice to hear from you again.

Yes, I understand that I do not need to change anything, for the fact of non-self is nothing new. I am not giving up the self, but rather the belief (the thought) in a self.

That’s where a very subtle but devilishly tricky snag lies. Even a belief in something cannot be given up by someone who doesn't exist. Right?
As soon as you look directly into your experience with complete sobriety and realize that there is simply no "I" sitting there, that belief collapses all on its own.

If this living thing now has an “owner”—what does it smell like, what color is it, and what does it feel like when you touch it?
The question might sound strange, but I am completely serious.

The answer should come solely from immediate sensory experience.
Okay, I’ll look into it.

Is something holding you back from taking a closer look into this question?

Sollte ich auch weiterhin die direkte Erfahrung von Objekten untersuchen (inwiefern ist meine Wahrnehmung von ihnen das Sehen/Hören selbst, und inwiefern ist meine vermeintliche Wahrnehmung von ihnen nur ein Konzept/Gedanke … und kann ich außerdem eine Grenze zwischen dem Objekt, mir selbst und dem Raum wahrnehmen)?

Make as much use of direct experience as you like, and look for yourself what is actually there and what exists only as a thought.

Kind Regards
Daniel

[Daniel777]

(A bit of muscle tension of which consciousness is aware)

How do you know? :)

[Shoji]

Hi Daniel,

nice to hear from you again.

Oh yes, I’m in this for the long haul.

That’s where a very subtle but devilishly tricky snag lies. Even a belief in something cannot be given up by someone who doesn't exist. Right?

Touché

As soon as you look directly into your experience with complete sobriety and realize that there is simply no "I" sitting there, that belief collapses all on its own.

I see what you mean.

Is something holding you back from taking a closer look into this question?

No, not that I’ve noticed. No specific resistance I can detect. I’ve just a busy couple of days and haven’t had a chance to think about it in earnest. :-(

Sollte ich auch weiterhin die direkte Erfahrung von Objekten untersuchen (inwiefern ist meine Wahrnehmung von ihnen das Sehen/Hören selbst, und inwiefern ist meine vermeintliche Wahrnehmung von ihnen nur ein Konzept/Gedanke … und kann ich außerdem eine Grenze zwischen dem Objekt, mir selbst und dem Raum wahrnehmen)?

Make as much use of direct experience as you like, and look for yourself what is actually there and what exists only as a thought.

Ok I will do so! I know you’re probably reading my responses and providing me with exercises that are tailored to where I am in that present moment, so I just wanted to make sure I’m not neglecting all of the various types of “looking” I should be doing.

Warm Regards
Josh

[Shoji]

(A bit of muscle tension of which consciousness is aware)

How do you know? :)

Because there is awareness.

[Daniel777]

Hey Josh,

No, not that I’ve noticed. No specific resistance I can detect. I’ve just a busy couple of days and haven’t had a chance to think about it in earnest. :-(

Good.
A Zen master would hit his student on the shoulder with a stick right about now. :) Immediate experience—don't THINK about the questions. By this, I do not mean that you should try to quiet or stop your thoughts. Ultimately, observe what is present.

(A slight muscle tension one is aware of)

How do you know that? :)
Because there is awareness.

Conclusion! No direct experience of a 'knowing consciousness' —or is there?

Anyway...ist there an 'owner'? :)

Kind Regards
Daniel

Kind Regards
Daniel

[Shoji]

Hi Daniel,

(A slight muscle tension one is aware of)

How do you know that? :)
Because there is awareness.

Conclusion! No direct experience of a 'knowing consciousness' —or is there?

Anyway...ist there an 'owner'? :)

I cannot find an “owner” of the feeling in any location, even in the location where the feeling associated with the owner is located.

The association is a concept just as the owner is a concept.

Nevertheless, when I look at a partially reflective object like a cola can, and while looking I notice that there is a reflection in the can, there is a silent voice in consciousness that says “ok I see a reflection in the can.” Of course there’s no need to add that commentary since the features have already entered consciousness via the vision sense… it has already been experienced before the voice says “I have just experienced such and such”.

But the interesting thing is that the voice says “I see the reflection”. The mind seems to be tricky… it’s speaking in the first person, though it isn’t the first person.

Then again, if it were to speak in the second person and say “you see the can”… to whom would it be spreading??????

Gaaah. 🤦‍♂️

Anyway, just sharing my investigation so far.

Warm Regards,
Josh

[Shoji]

(To whom would it be speaking”. Autocorrect. 🙄

[Daniel777]

Hi Josh,

nice to read.

I cannot find an “owner” of the feeling in any location, even in the location where the feeling associated with the owner is located.

The association is a concept just as the owner is a concept.

Good Catch!

Of course, this comment is superfluous, since the characteristics have already entered consciousness via the sense of sight…

Yes, that sounds logical, based on scientific-biological principles.
However, I would argue that in immediate experience, there is simply the seeing itself.
There is no pathway for the information to travel along and no destination where it arrives.

Would you like to check if that is the case? Where does the information land? Can this question even be answered? Does it need to be answered?

it has already been experienced before the voice says “I have just experienced such and such”.

To understand each other, one could put it that way—certainly. Good. But Look, can you ever actually perceive something as "having been experienced" (in the past)? Or is there only ever the absolutely fresh, active experiencing happening right now?

The mind seems to be tricky…

Well, seems like this. :)
There is no malicious intent in the system, and no "I" that could be deceived. It is a purely mechanical, useful function of language.

Then again, if it were to speak in the second person and say “you see the can”… to whom would it be spreading??????

Gaaah. 🤦‍♂️

Welcome to the club of those who realize that the radio announcer in their head has been talking to an empty studio the whole time! Enjoy the silence.

I look forward to hearing from you again.

Daniel

[Daniel777]

Hi Josh,
how are you?
Everthing is fine?

[Shoji]

Hi Daniel,

Yes, everything is fine, thanks!!

However, I would argue that in immediate experience, there is simply the seeing itself.
There is no pathway for the information to travel along and no destination where it arrives.

Yes, agreed, these are concepts.

“it has already been experienced before the voice says “I have just experienced such and such”.

To understand each other, one could put it that way—certainly. Good. But Look, can you ever actually perceive something as "having been experienced" (in the past)? Or is there only ever the absolutely fresh, active experiencing happening right now? “

Yes, this is also true. Another concept automatically applied by the mind (time).

The mind seems to be tricky…

Well, seems like this. :)
There is no malicious intent in the system, and no "I" that could be deceived. It is a purely mechanical, useful function of language.

No, not malicious… it’s more that the mind seems to want to preserve the “I” illusion as a “self”-defense mechanism. It’s trying to help, not hurt, but it has the opposite effect as we know.

Welcome to the club of those who realize that the radio announcer in their head has been talking to an empty studio the whole time! Enjoy the silence.

Thanks for the welcome!!! Now the “trick” is not to automatically apply the concept of “hey that’s ME talking over the loudspeaker”

I’m continuing with my observations of objects while investigating the boundaries between each other and between them and myself (and how/where I “know/feel” that that separation is real).

I cannot find that knower “so far”… and I don’t expect to, but expectation is a concept as much as the knower is. :-)

Thanks!
Josh

[Daniel777]

Hi Josh,

I continue my observations of objects, examining the boundaries between them and between them and myself (and how and where I perceive this separation as real).

Fine. Ask yourself: Does this boundary exist in your actual perception, or is the "boundary" itself merely an imaginary line that you superimpose after the fact?

Is there a "you" in the immediate process of perceiving and reflecting upon it?

See you soon.
Daniel

[Shoji]

Hi Daniel,

Fine. Ask yourself: Does this boundary exist in your actual perception, or is the "boundary" itself merely an imaginary line that you superimpose after the fact?

Is there a "you" in the immediate process of perceiving and reflecting upon it?

I was walking down the hallway at work today, and really looking for the “me” in the sense of “where is this feeling of separation located”… does it really have a locus or is it just an assumption?

As I perceived the scene, looking for where that feeling was, that “defined” or “characterized” the separation between the seeing and the “one” seeing it, nothing different happened, distance or perspective didn’t collapse into a flat plane, nor did items lose their boundaries, or any other visual magic, but I briefly (barely longer than the time it takes a muscle to twitch) had a moment in which the seeing of the scene was just allowed to be, like I was just allowing it to come in without trying to make something “special” happen. It’s hard to put in words, it might just be my ego trying to convince me “something happened” even though, if so, it would be the most ordinary “something” ever to be considered noteworthy by a person. 🤣. It was more like just a split second of stopping the search for a result, if that makes any sense at all. 🤷‍♂️

Anyway, the investigation continues. I hope you’ve had a nice week!

Cheers,
Josh

[Daniel777]

Hey Josh,

but I briefly (barely longer than the time it takes a muscle to twitch) had a moment in which the seeing of the scene was just allowed to be, like I was just allowing it to come in without trying to make something “special” happen. It’s hard to put in words, it might just be my ego trying to convince me “something happened” even though, if so, it would be the most ordinary “something” ever to be considered noteworthy by a person.

Wonderful! It is understandable, yes!
Reality is simple, sober, and completely unspectacular. It was simply that split second when the habitual mechanism of searching paused for a moment. The scene was allowed to simply be as it was—without thoughts inventing a story about it.

Take this questions with you for the weekend:

Do 'you' or something know where the attention will go next, before it goes there?
Does thought make focus move or does thought describe after the movement?

Have a nice Weekend, friend.

Kind Regards
Daniel