At one with X

[at1]

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.

There is no separate agent, no. The commentator is not me, though it sure does like to talk.

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 :)

There are perceptions of "conscious effort" and "automatic" but all I can see are the aftereffects of what's in the black box. I can't see into it to know that there is a doer, an agent inside it.

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

Here.

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)

I do not see myself as bound to any particular location.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

There are perceptions of "conscious effort" and "automatic" but all I can see are the aftereffects of what's in the black box. I can't see into it to know that there is a doer, an agent inside it.

Yes, that is because you are looking in direct experience and not relying on thought-stories, ideas, theories (which tell you that there IS a black box, and describe what is going on in there). In direct experience it is plain and simple, there is just Life, and thoughts that arise in and as it, that's it. No separate you. All you have to do is look and you will see this for yourself. Stare deeply in to 'your' absence.

I do not see myself as bound to any particular location.

There is no 'myself' that can be bound anywhere. As you know "me" is just a label superimposed on a fresh, ever-changing, alive Experiencing, or Life or whatever.

Great.

So where are you at with this investigation. Talk to me,

with Love.

[at1]

Yes, that is because you are looking in direct experience and not relying on thought-stories, ideas, theories (which tell you that there IS a black box, and describe what is going on in there). In direct experience it is plain and simple, there is just Life, and thoughts that arise in and as it, that's it. No separate you. All you have to do is look and you will see this for yourself. Stare deeply in to 'your' absence.

Makes sense.

I do not see myself as bound to any particular location.

There is no 'myself' that can be bound anywhere. As you know "me" is just a label superimposed on a fresh, ever-changing, alive Experiencing, or Life or whatever.

Great.

So where are you at with this investigation. Talk to me,

with Love.

Only one issue remains. The thoughts can sometimes be manipulated -- but I'm no longer identifying ME as those thoughts. 90% of the time the thoughts have a life of their own. Sometimes though, thought can be controlled but I'm beginning to see there is no controller.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

Only one issue remains. The thoughts can sometimes be manipulated -- but I'm no longer identifying ME as those thoughts. 90% of the time the thoughts have a life of their own. Sometimes though, thought can be controlled but I'm beginning to see there is no controller.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. This is in line with the same 'control' / 'choice' VS "automatic" issue we were touching on before. It sure seems like "YOU" can think a thought, but as you see "YOU" is just a thought... and thoughts CANNOT think :)

1 thought may go "hmm... i wonder if i can think a thought",
then another will go "I'm going to think of a blue frog",
then another will go "blue frog!",
and then another will go "I just thought of a blue frog... i can think and choose thoughts... at least SOME of them!".

What basically happened here was there was JUST a stream of thoughts - that's it! :) Further on in your inquiry (after the initial Awakening) it will be seen that thoughts are essentially meaningless abstraction, and tell you NOTHING about What-Is. You are ALREADY starting to see this.

What you will notice again, is there is just an abstract conclusion that is made real time that some thoughts are thought-of, and others are AUTOMATIC. That conclusion is of course, abstract. To say it was thought-of must mean there is some thinker there that is deciding. The difference between these so called automatic happenings, and the so called conscious/controlled happenings is just a difference in the flavor of experience. Some things just REALLY feel undeniably like they just happened, and some REALLY undeniably feel as if it was done by a "me". Yet, again, sticking nakedly to direct experiencing, we can see that this choice or control is an illusion. There is just a seamless flow with no coordinator, and no controller. As you stick nakedly to Experiencing, and challenge these key assumptions, then the unbinding is triggered.

As we have covered thus far... what are these key assumptions that create the illusory binding?

- That there is a separate entity or self
- That there is some separate observer / perceiver / experiencer
- There is choice / control
- There is a doer

These are ALL maintained by thought-stories (no matter how 'accurate' to reality we think them), and they are equally circumvented by referring to direct experience. These are the key points that you are investigating and that is your Work!

http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... ughts.html
http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... rship.html

i'm sure I've given you these somewhere along our investigation, but they cover the basics if you want to review. You can make your own experiments too and just center them along the foundation of our inquiry :)

Keep the conversation and inquiry going - you are doing REALLY great at honing in these key sticking points that are relevant to your investigation,

with Love.

[at1]

Thanks, cosmiK.

I like how you spelled that out especially with the blue frog example.

Yet, again, sticking nakedly to direct experiencing, we can see that this choice or control is an illusion.

How do we know it's an illusion?

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

Yet, again, sticking nakedly to direct experiencing, we can see that this choice or control is an illusion.

How do we know it's an illusion?

What I mean is that choice and control is just an abstract concept that is superimposed on Experiencing, on Life. These concepts implies that suddenly there is someone or something or some process there that suddenly takes 'control' or 'makes a choice'. To SEE that it is just an abstraction, you just refer to direct experience, that is all. It is always seen that there is JUST a seamless flow. It is a habitual tendency to think in terms of automatic and then choice, but that tendency is just circumvented from direct SEEing.

Does that make sense?

How are you coming along,

with Love.

[at1]

I appreciate your point of view and want to see but it certainly feels like there is something that chooses, for example, a chess move. Is that not the direct experience of something?

Or maybe that is indirect experiencing?

[cosmiK]

Hey,

I appreciate your point of view and want to see but it certainly feels like there is something that chooses, for example, a chess move. Is that not the direct experience of something?

That's fine - I understand what you mean. The 'feeling that something chooses' doesn't necessarily fully go away after Awakening, but seeing through the 'reality' of the supposed chooser/choice is important to triggering the initial insight. What is clear after Awakening is that it is just a 'feeling that something chooses', a sort of conditioned way of seeing things, just a certain flavor of Experiencing. This drastically diminishes when the realization 'matures' so to speak (although I never like to sell the idea of "more", there does seem to be a maturing process). Regardless, do not worry about that - 110% focus on the process and investigating your own experience. That is KEY.

If you can actually engage in a chess game, take your investigation there and spend some time with it. Or choose some other activities that we engage in 'consciously with choice', such as writing an essay, etc etc. Do it slowly and nakedly notice.

Or maybe that is indirect experiencing?

I guess we could say that idE would be a thought-story/superimposition over raw Experiencing, and you are already seeing the difference,

with Love.

[at1]

It's beginning to make sense.

A lot of what goes on in the brain in this body is a thought-story superimposed over raw Experiencing. Like the idea of a chooser that is choosing thoughts. The chooser is a construct I cling to but in my awareness, I am focusing on not identifying "me" as a collection of thoughts or thoughts about that collection. It makes sense in a way; I wouldn't identify "me" as my fingertips, either. The "me" that is a fading memory is a collection of thought apparatuses focused on identifying and classifying thoughts and feelings and perceptions.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

Cool.

Let's take another wild angle to REALLY stir things up! This will involve leaving everything you hold as true behind and really plunging in to naked experiencing.

Let's use the Dream analogy. Leave the idea that dreams arise from a brain.

In the Dream, there happens to be a character in the first person interacting with other characters in a big room with loads of objects. Do you see that in a dream, the first person character has ZERO awareness, and the other characters ALSO have ZERO awareness. Do you see that the room and the objects are not actually 'things' in an of themselves, but are just part of the Dream. Do you see that the Dream is All-There-Is, and it is aware of itself? Do you see that the Dream is indivisibly One? The Dreamer and the dream is One, and the first person character is NOT the dreamer/self that dreams, but just another appearance in it.

Let's switch to 'waking life'. Waking life differs in the sense that it SEEMS a lot more substantial, has undeniable continuity, and is reinforced by several ideas we have about 'reality' such as science, philosophy, rationality, etc etc.

Now... notice...

Does the character At1, HAVE any awareness?
or
is the character At1 (you), just another appearance in Experiencing, in Life?

When the 'body' moves and does things... is there actually any actual 'body' doing anything? or is it just another appearance in Life?

Does Experiencing come from the body?
or
is the 'body' just another appearance in Experiencing?

is there "awareness" in the body/mind?
or
is the "body/mind" just another appearance in Experiencing?

answer all of these from pure direct experiencing.

with Love.

[at1]

The character At1 is just another element of the appearance of experiencing.

When the body moves, that is just another element of the appearance of experiencing.

Experiencing does not come from the body, the body is just another appearance in experiencing.

The "mind/body" is still an appearance in experiencing.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

okay, so...

is there is a separate self, anywhere, in any form, was there ever?

in Experiencing, in Life, is there any separation at all?

do you see that the first person character is NOT "I" / self and just another appearance?

do you see that 'choice' and 'control' is impossible because the entire show: Experiencing itself, just happens, including those times where it "seems as if the character is you, and it is doing things deliberately"?

is there a notice-er apart from the noticing? is there a know-er apart from the known?
is there an experience-er that experiences Experience?
is there an observer that observes everything else?

with Love.

[at1]

Hey At1,

okay, so...

is there is a separate self, anywhere, in any form, was there ever?

There is no self separate from reality.

-in Experiencing, in Life, is there any separation at all?

There is no separation in experiencing.

do you see that the first person character is NOT "I" / self and just another appearance?

Yeah, I think this is, in substance, equivalent to the first question.

do you see that 'choice' and 'control' is impossible because the entire show: Experiencing itself, just happens, including those times where it "seems as if the character is you, and it is doing things deliberately"?

If there is a chooser, that chooser lacks personhood.

is there a notice-er apart from the noticing? is there a know-er apart from the known?
is there an experience-er that experiences Experience?
is there an observer that observes everything else?

All of those are mental constructs.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

alright. good.

look at the inseparability, at experiencing, at consciousness. seer and seen are inseparable, and One.

are there any doubts about seeing through the illusion of the separate self?

has there been a shift in perception?

is there anything more that you would like to investigate?

:)

Great job so far.

[at1]

Hey At1,

alright. good.

look at the inseparability, at experiencing, at consciousness. seer and seen are inseparable, and One.

are there any doubts about seeing through the illusion of the separate self?

has there been a shift in perception?

is there anything more that you would like to investigate?

:)

Great job so far.

The blue frog example was just the right thing to say at the right time.

There has been a shift, not in perception per se, but in how perceptions are processed and interpreted.

Yes, there is something more to investigate. How does this fit into the God concept? I am basically a pantheist (incidentally) with some influences beyond pantheism as my first post here alludes to.