At one with X

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

Awesome... I feel we are really honing in here.

Here is a Buddhist Sutra I'd like you to contemplate:

In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
- Buddha.

There is an observer. There is a perception or feeling that it is watching everything, thoughts, emotions, perceptions, what the body does and doesn't do, etc.

Okay... can you consider the possibility that what is commonly labelled "observer" (or as others put it, the witness, awareness, etc) is just another sensation, another perception, just that seamless Experiencing, here and now?

As you have said... "there is a perception or feeling that it is watching..."

What I want you to consider is if this is TRUE, and not just a perception or a feeling. Is there really an observer? Challenge this fully.

My gut reaction is that the observer is liberated and what is being observed is not liberated.

Okay, thank you for sharing this... this is VERY important.

As for my above consideration, I will add another...

what if Experience is self-aware without a separate observer?

What if the universe is aware of itself and has fooled itself in to thinking that it is some separate self, or observer that is 'watching' or 'observing' everything else?

:)

Please do not rush to answer this... really give it a thorough LOOK. Take AT LEAST a day, and really use Direct Experiencing... simply noticing.

with Love.

[at1]

There is an observer. There is a perception or feeling that it is watching everything, thoughts, emotions, perceptions, what the body does and doesn't do, etc.

Okay... can you consider the possibility that what is commonly labelled "observer" (or as others put it, the witness, awareness, etc) is just another sensation, another perception, just that seamless Experiencing, here and now?

As you have said... "there is a perception or feeling that it is watching..."

What I want you to consider is if this is TRUE, and not just a perception or a feeling. Is there really an observer? Challenge this fully.

It could be that the observer I perceive doesn't literally exist.

My gut reaction is that the observer is liberated and what is being observed is not liberated.

Okay, thank you for sharing this... this is VERY important.

As for my above consideration, I will add another...

what if Experience is self-aware without a separate observer?

The observer is not separate.

What if the universe is aware of itself and has fooled itself in to thinking that it is some separate self, or observer that is 'watching' or 'observing' everything else?

There is nothing separate from the universe.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

We're really honing in to Direct Experiencing, and that is what this is ALL about. Only YOU (lol) can do that, we can just pesteringly point :D

It could be that the observer I perceive doesn't literally exist.

So, instead of saying "it could"... really use Direct Experience and test this out.

Can the 'observer' just be another aspect of Perception, of Experience, of Life, that is just labelled "observer" by thought ?

The observer is not separate.

Only 'this'
no observer needed :)

There is nothing separate from the universe.

There is no "you" ... You are that universe.

So...

Tell me where you are at with investigating the illusion of the separate self. Are there any doubts through seeing through the separation? Is there anything more that I can help you with in regards to this investigation?

Talk to me,

with Love.

[at1]

It could be that the observer I perceive doesn't literally exist.

So, instead of saying "it could"... really use Direct Experience and test this out.

Can the 'observer' just be another aspect of Perception, of Experience, of Life, that is just labelled "observer" by thought ?

I perceive an observer who participates, and yes all concepts in that statement ("I" "perceive" "observer" "participates") are labelled such by thought.

The observer is not separate.

Only 'this'
no observer needed :)

Needed?

There is nothing separate from the universe.

There is no "you" ... You are that universe.

When I am on autopilot, yes.

So...

Tell me where you are at with investigating the illusion of the separate self. Are there any doubts through seeing through the separation? Is there anything more that I can help you with in regards to this investigation?

Talk to me,

with Love.

I've never believed self is separate. I do doubt that there is no self but I do not doubt that it and reality are inseparable. I do not know if I need any more help or what you can do to help....maybe my answers will direct you (and it really seems to be the case that there is a you).

[at1]

"You are that universe"

What if the universe said: I am the universe?
Or
My self is the universe?
Would that be wrong? If the self is the universe...

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

When I am on autopilot, yes.

What about when there is no autopilot... can you explain how there is a choice, or decision? who/what in direct experience makes it? Explain this clearly from direct experiencing.

"You are that universe"

What if the universe said: I am the universe?
Or
My self is the universe?
Would that be wrong? If the self is the universe...

It's not exactly about being wrong, it's about trigger this insight. The insight destroys the illusory bond to an illusory self, and unless investigated it will remain.

Regardless of what is said, what we are looking for is the assumption that there is a self that lives life, that controls life, and has it's own little pocket in the universe doing it's own thing.

If we were to call it Life, Universe, Self, All-That-Is, Experiencing... it doesn't matter, but we are making sure, that in experiential investigation, a self that does, controls, chooses, thinks and lives life is nothing more than an abstraction that is placed on Experiencing, All-That-Is, Self, Universe, Life.

Does that make sense?

with Love.

[at1]

Hey At1,

When I am on autopilot, yes.

What about when there is no autopilot... can you explain how there is a choice, or decision? who/what in direct experience makes it? Explain this clearly from direct experiencing.

The first thing that comes to mind is the activity of playing chess. There are twenty opening moves to choose from and one is free to choose any move they wish among the set of legal moves. It is a fact that moves are made but whether or not there is something making a decision is not certain.

How can moves be made without something that decides what move to make?

I think if that can be answered, I'll be home free.

It is important to note that a computer can play chess and an equally valid question is who/what in DE is making decisions? In the case of a computer, it is a what not a who (imo). And what it is depends on the software and the hardware. In the case of the human body, the software is in the DNA and the laws of physics and the hardware is the body and the intersection of body and environment.

The what that is making decisions is somewhere in the software and hardware. We can try to pinpoint this what down by removing lines of code from the software and see if it can still make decisions. If you remove lines of code, it will start affecting the quality of the decisions but it will still be able to make decisions (poor ones). Likewise if you remove hardware, it will initially be slower in making decisions but eventually completely unable to make any decisions. So the what that is making decisions is somewhere in the software+hardware. By removing lines of code in the software and by removing hardware (little by little), an investigator could pinpoint the minimal software+hardware that will still enable the computer to make decisions on what move to make.

I suspect that a similar inquiry into the human software+hardware idea would lead to some fruitful results.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

this is a great analogy. Thinking about the software + hardware combination is a great way to think about how decision are made by a computer, and to think about a brain, neurons, dns, cells, etc is a great way to think about how decisions and choices are made by a human. However, for this investigation, it is crucial that you investigate, oh lord, I am going to say it again... Direct Experience. Actually SEEing how seeming decisions are made, and seeming choice are made is essential for triggering this insight.

What is evident is that there is no choice. This is evident because the "choice-point" is seen as an abstract reference to a part of moment to moment experiencing that thought labels "choosing" and even worse "I am choosing". When ruthlessly investigated, it is seen that there is no ACTUAL self there, and it is seen that there is no actual difference between 'automatic' and 'choosing', and both are actually just abstract references to a stream of Experiencing, to Life living itself, whatever.

For a simple experiment and investigation, take two objects and place them in front of you. Then intensely observe direct experience. Then try to choose one of them.

You will see, if you are nakedly honest, that there is NEVER a choice, and that choice itself is an illusion. It can be said that ALL is one big choice, or it can just be said that it all just happens, seamlessly, without a self or choice. Self (i/me/myself) and Choice are just abstract concepts that are placed on Life. It is like a river flowing, twisting and turning, and suddenly being able to think, and then labeling certain parts as "free flow" and other parts as "choosing to turn left".

However, this is all hearsay until you actually investigate this for yourself.

How can moves be made without something that decides what move to make?

I think if that can be answered, I'll be home free.

Just LOOK in direct experience and you will see it is all just happening with no how, or why, or what, or when. Just happening, only Now. The only 'how' is in thought.

So... Give the experiment a try and really observe in direct experience what a "choice" is and if there is a "chooser" there. Your analysis in your previous post was really well presented, yet as you can see, no matter how great the theory is it will not lead to an Awakening. You literally have to SEE it for yourself. I will do my best to point you, and apologize if my responses are super repetitive, but the illusion of separation / doership / self is repetitive too, and always exist only in self-referencing thoughts, and as such direct experience is the most clear, direct and non-BS way to circumvent it.

with Love.

[at1]

I see that something is deciding. Am I seeing something that isn't there?

It's like a river approaching a fork. Something decides left path or right path, though in that case the choice is not actually made by a conscious person, it is made by the initial conditions and the laws of physics.

In the case of a computer playing chess, there is no person making choices per se. The choices are made by the software (and hardware).

In the case of a human, I really see a difference; it's in my DE to perceive that I have a degree of control over the thoughts. Most of the time, thoughts occur like water molecules flowing down a river and whether they go left or right, depending on the initial conditions and the laws of physics. But sometimes thoughts can be directed.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

I'm feeling good about the flow of this river :)

I see that something is deciding. Am I seeing something that isn't there?

What is it that you are seeing that is deciding? Can you describe it from direct experience?

In the case of a human, I really see a difference; it's in my DE to perceive that I have a degree of control over the thoughts. Most of the time, thoughts occur like water molecules flowing down a river and whether they go left or right, depending on the initial conditions and the laws of physics. But sometimes thoughts can be directed.

Who is this "I" that has a 'degree of control' of thoughts?

Where in direct experience can you find this director?

Can you choose a thought? If you can, can you find this 'you' that chooses a thought?
Aren't "you" and "i" just thoughts? labels? can thoughts and labels think?

LOOK Deeply at this, and respond to each question with respect to direct experience.

with Love.

[at1]

What is it that you are seeing that is deciding? Can you describe it from direct experience?

I can't see the decider; I only see the decisions. Just like I can't see the wind, I only see the blowing leaves.

The thought chooser isn't located in one particular place.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

great.

so look at "decisions" and everything else that isn't labelled "decisions". Is it ever more than an abstraction over Experiencing, or over Life?

the idea that there is intention, or choice, or will, or decision, is not in itself a bad one, but because it is so closely related to the "I" binding, it has to be seen through. When the "I" is seen as an abstraction, then so is 'choice' as well. You have to really look deeply at the relationship to you personally around these two things that we are looking at here. We are investigating the illusion of the self, and the illusion of separation. Do you see that choice contains separation in it? Why would the One need to choose? Why would Life need to decide. It IS decision, it is Aliveness, at All moments. Only thought separates this in to "I" and then in to "choice/personal".

Try this with both something physical - walking, moving your hands, and try it with thoughts. Are you the doer? Are you the thinker?

The answers to those questions reveal any sense of personal binding.

Your going in the perfect direction. Keep looking in to direct experience for the answers to your Absence.

with Love.

[at1]

Hey At1,

great.

so look at "decisions" and everything else that isn't labelled "decisions". Is it ever more than an abstraction over Experiencing, or over Life?

I suppose labels are abstractions yet I am thinking that sometimes something that has a label doesn't necessarily not exist.

the idea that there is intention, or choice, or will, or decision, is not in itself a bad one, but because it is so closely related to the "I" binding, it has to be seen through. When the "I" is seen as an abstraction, then so is 'choice' as well. You have to really look deeply at the relationship to you personally around these two things that we are looking at here. We are investigating the illusion of the self, and the illusion of separation. Do you see that choice contains separation in it? Why would the One need to choose? Why would Life need to decide. It IS decision, it is Aliveness, at All moments. Only thought separates this in to "I" and then in to "choice/personal".

The One?

Try this with both something physical - walking, moving your hands, and try it with thoughts. Are you the doer? Are you the thinker?

Sometimes, yes. It depends on how much conscious effort I am putting into it. When I do those exercises, yes there is no person behind the thoughts and basic motion. But when I do something requiring more intense directed willfulness, there is something making decisions as to what to think and what to do.

[at1]

I don't identify myself as my thoughts.

It could be that there is nothing that is deciding to think what I think when I want to change what I think. Seems a little queer that there are decisions about what to think without a decider, though. It reminds me of Searle's Chinese Room. There is like a black box out of which come thoughts but I cannot see into this black box so I don't know if there is a sentient person inside that black box that is choosing thoughts.

But what's contrary to liberation as purported by this website is that it is possible to change the nature of what comes out of this black box. I am beginning to suspect that what it is that is changing the nature of the output of the black box is something that has some degree of personhood and self-awareness.

Now a thermostat is in some sense aware of one aspect of the environment and in some sense decides to turn the heater on or off. I believe that at least some humans have a greater awareness of self than a thermostat while it seems like liberation as purported by this website would reduce human awareness of self to that of a thermostat, which seems untenable. Am I misperceiving what liberation is?

I feel I'm on the brink. I feel I need to let go of "me" whatever that is. Sometimes I fear nonexistence at times like these but that is just another way thought traps me. There I go again with "me"...

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

I suppose labels are abstractions yet I am thinking that sometimes something that has a label doesn't necessarily not exist.

There is an Experiencing, or Life, or whatever, and then there are thoughts about it which are abstractions that point to other abstractions, or to that movement of Life. The assumption of a separate something is what we are challenging here. The assumption of a chooser, doer, and agent is also based on the idea of this separate something.

Sometimes, yes. It depends on how much conscious effort I am putting into it. When I do those exercises, yes there is no person behind the thoughts and basic motion. But when I do something requiring more intense directed willfulness, there is something making decisions as to what to think and what to do.

There is a flavor of experience that we label 'conscious effort' and we attribute that to "I am doing it", and another flavor we label as "automatic" which we say "just happens". Look at this difference in these activities and see if there is anyone or anything that either goes on automatic or suddenly chooses / makes conscious effort. You know that this is a key angle for you, and we gotta keep on this :)

I feel I'm on the brink. I feel I need to let go of "me" whatever that is. Sometimes I fear nonexistence at times like these but that is just another way thought traps me. There I go again with "me"...

Where is this "me" that you need to let go of?

Where is the "you" that can get trapped by thoughts? (these last 2 questions are for you to LOOK & SEE, do that first, then respond)

You don't have to fear nonexistence because there is never a "me" that existed anyway :) It is just a thought-story, something that Life is in the process of seeing through.

Am I misperceiving what liberation is?

Don't worry about what you think Liberation is about, just stay true to this investigation. We are really getting somewhere here, and you're doing really well. Just stick to direct experiencing and let my pointers take you back to that simple recognition. In the end the actual shift will show you what Liberation is :)

with Love.