Cosmik - Can you help?

[barrie1]

Hi Cosmik

I am looking for another guide and I if anyone can help me see this I believe you can. I have been working with Damon Kamda but he has left the One-on-One forum now. I know you are already running several threads but if you can take one more on that would be great.

Barrie

[cosmiK]

Absolutely :)

So... Where are u at with this investigation?

Is there a separate self in any way in any form?

With Love.

[barrie1]

Hi CosmiK, thanks for taking this on.

After a couple of months of looking I can’t find a self and never will, I have looked at various feelings between the head and the heart and see these are just feelings, they are not self. I see that thoughts pop into consciousness who knows where from and disappear again and they do not control anything. Most of life is on automatic pilot, although thinking about other stuff goes on pretty incessantly. When listening to sounds there is no separation between the sound and a listener, just a sound, to a degree also with touch and vision but with more of a sense of remoteness or distance between sensations.

OK so far but a few things have come up that need to be resolved. While looking at the question ‘do you exist’ the idea came up that a lot of Direct Experience experiments just confirm the existence of a sub-conscious eg movement not directed by the conscious mind or how thoughts come from somewhere into conscious view. I know the DE response is that this is an idea and not experience but then I have read many explanations by guides that the self was formed during childhood and that’s not direct experience it ‘s just an idea. Another problem I was having was that whilst I can’t find a self I have never seen how that is proof that there isn’t one.

What I am trying to say is that the doubting mind has come up in a big way. Why I don’t just settle for this conventional view is the occasional hints of a bigger, all-encompassing picture being hinted at. For example, something you said in one of your early threads along the lines that the brain is not real threw me. If in DE there is no brain, then nor presumably eyes or mouth (where has all that food been going?!), what about Australia doesn’t that exist either? The only conclusion I can draw using DE there is no proof of their existence but some comments such as that sound more certain.

I hope that this gives you a flavour of where I am at, somewhere and nowhere, but I confess I do find some of this difficult to express adequately.

Thanks again for offering your guidance it really is much appreciated.

Barrie

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

Loved your first paragraph.

Here is an article for a quick read. Just a way we can investigate/report on direct experience together.

http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... ce-de.html

After a couple of months of looking I can’t find a self and never will, I have looked at various feelings between the head and the heart and see these are just feelings, they are not self. I see that thoughts pop into consciousness who knows where from and disappear again and they do not control anything. Most of life is on automatic pilot, although thinking about other stuff goes on pretty incessantly. When listening to sounds there is no separation between the sound and a listener, just a sound, to a degree also with touch and vision but with more of a sense of remoteness or distance between sensations.

Right... no "you" to find a self, just thoughts about a self looking and the appearance of one :)

Are you in a body?
or
is the body just an appearance in and as consciousness?

what parts of life are NOT on automatic pilot? really check in direct experience and report on this clearly.

and yes, no separation between knowing/known - INSEPARABLY ONE.

OK so far but a few things have come up that need to be resolved. While looking at the question ‘do you exist’ the idea came up that a lot of Direct Experience experiments just confirm the existence of a sub-conscious eg movement not directed by the conscious mind or how thoughts come from somewhere into conscious view. I know the DE response is that this is an idea and not experience but then I have read many explanations by guides that the self was formed during childhood and that’s not direct experience it ‘s just an idea. Another problem I was having was that whilst I can’t find a self I have never seen how that is proof that there isn’t one.

just notice for a few seconds.

clearly something exists... :) .. right? :)

it's undeniable.

we can just call this Life itself, consciousness itself.

this is often confused with the body/person/1st-person-character. that is NOT self.

the self is never formed because there is NO self. it only exists in thought. self-referencing thought loops that refer back to sensations, and to other thoughts. the idea of a 'body' that experiences Life is tightly woven around this as well.

the idea of being a self, ad proving there isn't a self, and talking to people on the internet about enlightenment is all just a story :) there is noone there that is talking to anyone here :) this is just Life communication with itself through 2 apparent characters. the character "you" has no awareness, but instead is just an experience, just an appearance in and as consciousness.

also... is there a 'conscious mind' that you can find in direct experience? whose mind is that anyway? :)

things are inside and NOT what they seem. direct experience is a way of nakedly noticing Experiencing without through the lense of thought-stories. direct experience is always happening. knowing the difference between thought-stories and dE is essential.

for a quick refresh on dE, please read:
http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... ce-de.html

What I am trying to say is that the doubting mind has come up in a big way.

there is no 'doubting mind' that can come up. there is just experience. really look nakedly at this.

Why I don’t just settle for this conventional view is the occasional hints of a bigger, all-encompassing picture being hinted at. For example, something you said in one of your early threads along the lines that the brain is not real threw me. If in DE there is no brain, then nor presumably eyes or mouth (where has all that food been going?!), what about Australia doesn’t that exist either? The only conclusion I can draw using DE there is no proof of their existence but some comments such as that sound more certain.

sometimes a brain shows up, and sometimes it doesn't. thought says that predictably, if you slice a person's head open you will find a brain. i would bet on that, but it is still only a thought correlation. when consciousness looks at itself through people, and MRI/brain scans, and through the lens of science, then yes, there "is" a "brain", but consciousness is a lot simpler and deeper than that. we are leaving behind ALL beliefs about EVERYTHING and just trusting bare attention. this is what the Buddha did when he sat down in front of the bodhi tree. But hey... did any of that ever happen? :) Find out.

Australia eh?
does it exist now? would it exist if you took a plane there and visited it? did it ever exist? what is "exist"? :) Life is rich and vivid and a beautiful expression, but it hasn't been likend to a dream for no good reason... it is one of the richest and deep hallucinations ever - especially the part about there being a person living it :D

the idea that you are in a body, is just an idea. it does not mean that you stop feeding yourself. it doesn't mean anything about behavior, just a shift in perception, just an openness to look at every held assumption about reality itself.

this is why we stick to direct experience. then it is seen that all thoughts are abstractions, and all appearances are ephemeral, empty and dreamlike. there is no body that experiences, but the body itself is an experience.

I hope that this gives you a flavour of where I am at, somewhere and nowhere, but I confess I do find some of this difficult to express adequately.

:) you are doing great.

really look deeply at direct experience. bare attention. the naked Experiencing, here and now.

do you find a self there? do you find a "you" there? :)

Thanks again for offering your guidance it really is much appreciated.

it's a pleasure working with you :)

with Love.

[cosmiK]

woops :) sorry for re-posting the article :D

[barrie1]

Hi CosmiK, Seasons Greetings

I had a look at your blog entry on direct Experience, which is very helpful. It did raise a couple of questions. In the group of sensations is Feeling confined to tactile and kinaesthetic feelings, so not feelings such as emotional or intuitive? Also ‘The Sense of Aliveness’ would that also be called awareness? I know this is often referred to as the most obvious thing but I am not sure that I can separate it from thoughts and sensations.

Are you in a body?
or
is the body just an appearance in and as consciousness?

At the moment my attention is on feelings in the body and those feelings are more of an appearance in consciousness, I am not sure of the ‘and as consciousness’ part.

what parts of life are NOT on automatic pilot? really check in direct experience and report on this clearly.

Well as whatever I do is either on automatic with no thoughts or as a result of thoughts that come up in consciousness not generated by a ‘me’ then it all must be on autopilot. Difficult though it is to take on board after so many years of assuming ‘I’ am in control.

also... is there a 'conscious mind' that you can find in direct experience? whose mind is that anyway? :)

there are only thoughts appearing in consciousness from who knows where with nothing that can claim ownership

there is no 'doubting mind' that can come up. there is just experience. really look nakedly at this.

there is just the thoughts with feelings of doubt, I do not want to ignore them though as they are my protection from blindly accepting anything

really look deeply at direct experience. bare attention. the naked Experiencing, here and now.

do you find a self there? do you find a "you" there? :)

At this moment no. There are body sensations and passing thoughts and a sense of what composes this character and how it will react etc but nothing that can convincingly claim to be me.

Have a good Christmas

Barrie

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

In the group of sensations is Feeling confined to tactile and kinaesthetic feelings, so not feelings such as emotional or intuitive?

Really great points!

for emotions... once the labels of "sadness, fear, frustration, joy, etc" are dropped, there are just sensations, namely feeling-sensations (tactile+kinesthetic). you can test this out for yourself.

for intuition, i leave this out because this may bring all sorts of other complications in to play... for instance... who is intuiting about what exactly? is there something separate "out" there to intuit about? regardless, i know a few fellow cherished guides who use the term intuition and as long as we are referring to here and now, and not some assumed somewhere else, we are good.

these are all words. it can be said that there is NO seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting... that there is just this/experiencing which thought labels and divides as 5 sensations including itself as thought. i use experiencing to point back to the indivisible seamless alive whole. dividing it in to the 3 aspects, 6 streams, whatever, is just a skilful way of breaking down assumptions and is not the RIGHT way, but definitely a skilful way of looking at things.

regardless... for the article... we can simplify it all as just Experiencing... whether it be sensations, thoughts, emotions, intuition... the important thing here is looking to see if it happens to anyone.. is it being experienced by anyone?

Also ‘The Sense of Aliveness’ would that also be called awareness? I know this is often referred to as the most obvious thing but I am not sure that I can separate it from thoughts and sensations.

Nice... but don't worry about how it is referred to, really look and see this for yourself.

is there a sense of undeniable and obvious existence, of being alive?

and about "awareness" or even the word "consciousness", we can use them as long as we clearly see that there is not some special ground of being or substratum called awareness/consciousness. When there is a sound... JUST the sound. When there is feeling, JUST the feeling. When thinking, JUST thinking. in Experiencing there is JUST experience.

Is there an "awareness" that is aware of sound?
Is there a "consciousness" that observes thoughts?

these are hiding places for a subtle "I" and must be checked. But it seems like you already see that - "it cannot be separated from thoughts and sensations"!

we can say that Experiencing is aware of itself (awarExperiencing).
consciousness is aware of itself.

the sense of presence is the obvious sense of knowing, of being aware, but you have to check if there is ANY separation between knowing/known? is there an "I" that is the knower that knows of the known? (that is key to this investigation, of maintaining the illusion of separation).

At the moment my attention is on feelings in the body and those feelings are more of an appearance in consciousness, I am not sure of the ‘and as consciousness’ part.

What I mean is that it is important not to conceptualize consciousness as some meta-container, some invisible place, or some special space that holds everything together. This is along the same lines as what I have written at length before this quote.
So... Look in experience...
are there "feelings" IN consciousness?
or
are those feelings themselves consciousness?

(this is what I mean by IN & AS).

And in terms of "feelings IN the body"... can you look at this more closely.

Is it possible that "body" is just a label thought gives to feeling-sensations (tactile+kinesthetic), that sort of creates this imaginary boundary between "body"/"inside" and everything else/"outside"?

Well as whatever I do is either on automatic with no thoughts or as a result of thoughts that come up in consciousness not generated by a ‘me’ then it all must be on autopilot. Difficult though it is to take on board after so many years of assuming ‘I’ am in control.

Understandable, and it sounds like it may be an intellectual assertion. Don't settle for that. Dig deeper. Throughout the day, gently notice everything. Is there ever a controller? Is the "I" ever the agent? are "YOU" ever in control?

even better... is there a YOU that notices that a YOU is not in control? :)

http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... rship.html
^--- this may help.

there is just the thoughts with feelings of doubt, I do not want to ignore them though as they are my protection from blindly accepting anything

Great. Even if I make declarative statements, the ultimate tool here is ALWAYS direct experience, here and now. Test everything out.

At this moment no. There are body sensations and passing thoughts and a sense of what composes this character and how it will react etc but nothing that can convincingly claim to be me.

Great... take this out with throughout the day, and keep checking, here and now... is there a separate self, anywhere, in any form?
(don't (rush to) answer that yet... it's just the main question that encompasses the essence of this investigation)

So...
to recap...
"the body":
- does the body experience?
or
- is the "body" just a thought label given to a set of sensations (namedly feeling [tactile+kinesthetic]) that appear in/as consciousness

doership:
can YOU ever do anything? at all?

observer/experiencer/perceiver:
is there an "I" that perceives?
a "You" that experiences?
some "awareness" that observes?

:)

Happy Holidays to you and yours,
and Lots of Love
<3

[barrie1]

Hi CosmiK

Hope you are enjoying the holiday. Thank you for all the really helpful stuff in your last post, it helped clear up a few things for me.

is there a sense of undeniable and obvious existence, of being alive?

Not that can be separated from the awareness of experience

and about "awareness" or even the word "consciousness", we can use them as long as we clearly see that there is not some special ground of being or substratum called awareness/consciousness.

When not looking at direct experience this concept does arise, I am not sure if the mind can grasp the idea of consciousness as experience being self aware.

the sense of presence is the obvious sense of knowing, of being aware, but you have to check if there is ANY separation between knowing/known? is there an "I" that is the knower that knows of the known?

This idea of a sense of knowing (presence)apart from the known leads me into a feeling of separation. The known is just known where and as it is, it is only when the mind jumps in that there is separation.

What I mean is that it is important not to conceptualize consciousness as some meta-container, some invisible place, or some special space that holds everything together.

This is the same point as above but an important one for me so glad that you have re-stated it in a slightly different way. I am aware of a strong temptation see objects as being in a container of consciousness rather than let them be as they are.

Is it possible that "body" is just a label thought gives to feeling-sensations (tactile+kinesthetic), that sort of creates this imaginary boundary between "body"/"inside" and everything else/"outside"?

I see this with sound, taste and smell. The inside /outside boundary is strongest with feeling and vision, although with eyes closed it is not obvious so mainly with vision. Even in vision there can just be what is seen unless a feeling of self arises and creates a separation. I have wondered if wearing glasses brings back the separation more often as seeing the frames and the difference between the in and out of focus does create a strong impression of a someone looking through the glasses and so back into separation.

Understandable, and it sounds like it may be an intellectual assertion. Don't settle for that. Dig deeper. Throughout the day, gently notice everything. Is there ever a controller? Is the "I" ever the agent? are "YOU" ever in control?

As you say in your blog there is no controller in activities throughout the day. The day is made up of a string of different activities with no decider as to which order they should be done. The decision is made by a thought popping into the mind. Familiar activities such as walking, drying dishes, eating etc need little or no attention but new activities do and are more like the mind state when deciding on which activities to do.

Hope all the above makes some sense.
Barrie

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

When not looking at direct experience this concept does arise, I am not sure if the mind can grasp the idea of consciousness as experience being self aware.

just keep noticing if there is a notice-r apart from the noticing?
is there an experience-r apart from experience?
this is the sticking point of there being a separate witness/observer/perceiver. Just stick to direct experience and notice if there is an actual experiencer.
Notice that WHATEVER is experienced... even the experience of a noticer... even the experience of an experiencer... even the experience of a separate self is JUST another experience... a part of the seamless dance. JUST experience.
LOOK Deeply in to this and report on your findings.

This idea of a sense of knowing (presence)apart from the known leads me into a feeling of separation. The known is just known where and as it is, it is only when the mind jumps in that there is separation.

Yes... there is just Experience, and thought jumps in to label and conceptually divide.

This is the same point as above but an important one for me so glad that you have re-stated it in a slightly different way. I am aware of a strong temptation see objects as being in a container of consciousness rather than let them be as they are.

Have a look... are there any 'objects' that could ever be 'contained' by anything else?
perception is rich and in "3d", but are there any separate objects there apart from THOUGHTS about objects.
Do you find a container that contains "objects"?

LOOK Deeply in to this and report from direct experience.

I see this with sound, taste and smell. The inside /outside boundary is strongest with feeling and vision, although with eyes closed it is not obvious so mainly with vision.

Great...so your work is mainly with checking these 2 sense streams.

Even in vision there can just be what is seen unless a feeling of self arises and creates a separation.

look at this carefully.

is there a "feeling of self"?
or just a feeling which thought labels "feeling of self"?

and...
is there EVER separation created?
or just different experiences that thought labels "no separation" and "separation".
Gently check... whatever experience appears, is there EVER any separation (apart from what thought says)?

I have wondered if wearing glasses brings back the separation more often as seeing the frames and the difference between the in and out of focus does create a strong impression of a someone looking through the glasses and so back into separation.

Again... "separation" is just a thought-story about Experiencing. Whatever is being experienced is just experience :) Question if there is really EVER any separation... if there is EVER a separate self?
This is a SIMPLE recognition, that is ALWAYS overlooked.

The decision is made by a thought popping into the mind.

Careful here. Do thoughts make decisions? Thoughts definitely seem to co-arise with many actions/happenings/decisions, but really check if thoughts are responsible for decisions. Does every action/happening require thought? Is this causality or just a correlation?

I'm not sure if I have asked this yet, but here we go.

are YOU the thinker of thoughts?
can YOU think and choose a thought?

Lots of Love.

[barrie1]

Hi CosmiK
Happy New Year.
I have to say I have been pretty distracted over the last week or so and have found it difficult to focus even though your questions have been running in the background as it were.

Have a look... are there any 'objects' that could ever be 'contained' by anything else?
perception is rich and in "3d", but are there any separate objects there apart from THOUGHTS about objects.
Do you find a container that contains "objects"?

LOOK Deeply in to this and report from direct experience.

Do you mean in the way a photo of a collection of objects is just a photo made up of colours and shapes until you identify the separate objects? There isn’t a container.

is there a "feeling of self"?
or just a feeling which thought labels "feeling of self"?

Oh yes, just a feeling labelled ‘self’

and...
is there EVER separation created?
or just different experiences that thought labels "no separation" and "separation".
Gently check... whatever experience appears, is there EVER any separation (apart from what thought says)?

They are different experiences but I had labelled one of them, when attention is just on the external as ‘just seeing’ and the other when there is some body awareness as ‘separation’. The body awareness can be a subtle tension behind the eyes. Something that occurred to me was that this tension appears to be located behind what is seen but that does not support the scientific model I have always understood where the scene being looked at would be ‘seen’ in the visual cortex, which is behind the eyes.

are YOU the thinker of thoughts?

Thoughts arise and are understood. A thought can’t understand itself so must be seen and understood by something. I don’t know what though.

can YOU think and choose a thought?

I was going to say 2 + 2 to myself, which always gives the same answer, but this and whatever other experiment is used to check this out arises from a thought, so no.

Barrie

[cosmiK]

Hi!

Happy New Year!

I have to say I have been pretty distracted over the last week or so and have found it difficult to focus even though your questions have been running in the background as it were.

No worries - even a quick message to check in would be great. I am glad that the questions have been marinating though :) testing out those angles in dE (direct experience) is your "Work" :)

Do you mean in the way a photo of a collection of objects is just a photo made up of colours and shapes until you identify the separate objects? There isn’t a container.

Yes. This is just a check to see if consciousness/awareness isn't made in to some separate thing/container. For instance, there is sound, and that sound itself is awareness. There is feeling, and that feeling itself is consciousness. There is no consciousness/awareness that is watching sound or feeling. Just check and see if that is also your experience.

They are different experiences but I had labelled one of them, when attention is just on the external as ‘just seeing’ and the other when there is some body awareness as ‘separation’.

Okay so this may be an assumed point of individuality/self/center.

Check and see where internal/inside are?
then check and see where external/outside are?
Where is this point that separates in/out in direct experience?
Is there an actual inside, and an actual outside?
Stare this down and describe it.

The body awareness can be a subtle tension behind the eyes. Something that occurred to me was that this tension appears to be located behind what is seen but that does not support the scientific model I have always understood where the scene being looked at would be ‘seen’ in the visual cortex, which is behind the eyes.

This is where dE comes in, and all theories and models must be thrown out. It isn't discrediting modern science, but it is emphasizing the importance of present moment experience / direct experience as the main apparatus that all assumptions are tested out with. dE is the main tool for Awakening... everything else is second hand knowledge and thought-fluff. Jump in NAKED!

Do you find "eyes" in direct experience? or just seeing/vision and a thought about eyes/behind them.
Do you find a brain in dE... and so on...

this also leads us to this sticking point about the body, which is just another repackaging of the self/individual.

Check in direct experience ONLY and tell me what the "body" actually is?

"Over here" in cosmiK-land, the "body" is simply a habitual thought reference to feeling-sensations(tactile and kinesthetic) along with other sensations depending on the situation (such as seeing "the body"). There are other ideas about the body being some container, and the brain being a center of awareness and such, but these are simply just ideas. Test them out.

Is it the body that experiences through its sense organs?
Or is there experience that thought labels "body" and further thoughts/ideas arise about a body having sense organs that perceive data from some outside world?

Over here the body doesn't experience anything, because it is simply another experience. the body is merely another perception, and part of the perception that make up the person. All of this is just another appearance in/as consciousness.

Check this with dE and tell me what comes up.

Thoughts arise and are understood. A thought can’t understand itself so must be seen and understood by something. I don’t know what though.

NOTHING is hidden from you - everything is in plain sight. Watch thoughts... is it understood by someone/something?

Let's really detangle this "body" sticking point! Put all attention on that, and of course the simple checking of direct experience for an actual self/I/me that is there.

with Love.

[barrie1]

Hi CosmiK

It seems ridiculous that it takes me so long to come up with answers to just 4 questions, but here they are:

Check and see where internal/inside are?
then check and see where external/outside are?
Where is this point that separates in/out in direct experience?
Is there an actual inside, and an actual outside?
Stare this down and describe it.

The sensations in the body are very different to the visual perception of what I call the external world. When I look at both together long enough the distinction between them does blur slightly as they are both perceptions. There is no point that separates inside and out with vision alone until the mind steps in and says something over here is looking at something over there, the something here being where the body feelings are perceived.

Check in direct experience ONLY and tell me what the "body" actually is?

For me feelings are the strongest creator of a body, tingly, fuzzy or sharp sensations many of which correspond with what is happening with the image of the body in the visual field. Others correspond to just an imagined view of what is happening when those body parts can’t be seen. There are certainly lots of ideas about the body including it is the wrong shape or isn’t fit enough. Sometimes the sensations are seen as just floating in a space and at other times the solidify into much more of a body shape.

Is it the body that experiences through its sense organs?
Or is there experience that thought labels "body" and further thoughts/ideas arise about a body having sense organs that perceive data from some outside world?

Over here the body doesn't experience anything, because it is simply another experience. the body is merely another perception, and part of the perception that make up the person. All of this is just another appearance in/as consciousness.

Check this with dE and tell me what comes up.

I am not sure it is possible to say if it the body that is experiencing as the way sensations are experienced may be how they are perceived through sense organs. The sequence does seem to be experience first which is then labelled body but does that make it a wrong assumption?

NOTHING is hidden from you - everything is in plain sight. Watch thoughts... is it understood by someone/something?

The thoughts are just understood. That thought just came to me but it doesn’t make much sense.

Thanks for making me 'push the envelope' on this.

Barrie

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

The sensations in the body are very different to the visual perception of what I call the external world.

The sensations ARE the body. feeling-sensations (tactile and kinesthetic) are commonly referred to as "body" by thought. It is important to recognize this simple difference. seeing-sensations(vision) is then labelled as "external world". Sometimes thought even divides seeing-sensations in to "me" and "external world". just look slightly down at the feet and you will see how this happens.

When I look at both together long enough the distinction between them does blur slightly as they are both perceptions. There is no point that separates inside and out with vision alone until the mind steps in and says something over here is looking at something over there, the something here being where the body feelings are perceived.

Yes... thought always conceptually divides Experiencing. before thought, there is just seamless Experiencing. the concept of "here" and "there" is also based on the concept of location. location is also another subtle sense of individuality. notice that only thought labels "here" and "there" and assumes that "here" looks at "there", but the entire thing is Experiencing, the entirety is a perception, and only thought divides it. In this thought division there is usually an "I" attached, which usually goes along with "here" and "body".

For me feelings are the strongest creator of a body, tingly, fuzzy or sharp sensations many of which correspond with what is happening with the image of the body in the visual field. Others correspond to just an imagined view of what is happening when those body parts can’t be seen. There are certainly lots of ideas about the body including it is the wrong shape or isn’t fit enough. Sometimes the sensations are seen as just floating in a space and at other times the solidify into much more of a body shape.

This is some great insight about the "body". It is certainly created afresh moment to moment with the combination of certain sensations, feelings and of course thought! with thought, the existence of self, body, others, and the entire world comes in to being. as soon as thought drops there is just Experiencing, just this.

look at the "body" again... is it "yours"? it is more yours than the sky? clouds?

The sequence does seem to be experience first which is then labelled body but does that make it a wrong assumption?

Yes... this simple recognition is important. The assumption that the "body" experiences experience is another hiding place for the "I" / self and as such must be seen through. Keep looking in to this and see that the "Body" is just part of the show, just like everything else... just another experience.

--

so... is there a separate self in any way or in any form?

what does "I" / "me" point to?

gently notice the answers to these questions and report from direct experience.

--

would it be accurate to say that the "self" (I/me/you) is just a thought? and has no actual existence apart from thought?

--

Thanks for making me 'push the envelope' on this.

Thank you :) Let's "keep going" :)

Lots of Love.

[barrie1]

Hi CosmiK

Yesterday I started making some notes with how frustrating it was that I could see so much of what you mean but there was a block on being able to say that there is no self. Last night though I was reading one of the email threads in Gateless Gatecrashers and something Elena said has helped. She advised someone to answer from the neck down and to drop the mind into the heart. This seems very effective for me to be able to answer questions with more confidence.

look at the "body" again... is it "yours"? it is more yours than the sky? clouds

When I am not ‘in my head’ but responding from the heart there is a faint sense of possession or maybe just recognition of the vsual body. Body feelings certainly grab the attention more, are louder than the gentler seeing of a cloud/tree etc. When I ask is it mine a thought rushes up ‘of course it is’ but without that thought there is no feeling of ownership – but that wouldn’t hold long if someone were to grab my wallet.

Yes... this simple recognition is important. The assumption that the "body" experiences experience is another hiding place for the "I" / self and as such must be seen through. Keep looking in to this and see that the "Body" is just part of the show, just like everything else... just another experience.

Right now that feels easy to see but it needs to be looked at in some more challenging circumstances.

so... is there a separate self in any way or in any form?

Without the mind, no.

what does "I" / "me" point to?

‘I’ points to nothing directly but allows an artificial embodiment of a group of experiences, sensations and thoughts into a separate character with a history and a future.

would it be accurate to say that the "self" (I/me/you) is just a thought? and has no actual existence apart from thought?

I would say it is no more than a thought supported by some sensations in the body.

Barrie

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

When I am not ‘in my head’ but responding from the heart there is a faint sense of possession or maybe just recognition of the vsual body. Body feelings certainly grab the attention more, are louder than the gentler seeing of a cloud/tree etc. When I ask is it mine a thought rushes up ‘of course it is’ but without that thought there is no feeling of ownership – but that wouldn’t hold long if someone were to grab my wallet.

Well, even when "you are in your head", and even if there is a sense of possession, and even if body attentions grab attention and seem louder, jsut notice that the only way all of this becomes person is with thought.
you have no head... do you find one in dE? :)

the drop in to the heart is a great pointer, as long as you don't mistake it to mean a person's heart... there is no such person, just the apparent appearance of one. the person has no awareness :)

everything in experience is non-personal.

thought creates the person, and then creates ownership.

the dance of experience is just is.

illusion comes in with thought, and it is held in place by the core, the "I" or self thought.

notice this simple recognition. regardless of anything else. is there EVER a self apart from thought?

Right now that feels easy to see but it needs to be looked at in some more challenging circumstances.

This is also a simple recognition as ALWAYS is already... there is just experience, some feeling-sensations, then thought claims it as "body", or worse, "my body".

check and see this. how does it look?

Without the mind, no.

if you mean thoughts, yes. the "mind" is another thought-created object that doesn't exist as anything personal. you have no mind, and have no head... just check in dE :)

‘I’ points to nothing directly but allows an artificial embodiment of a group of experiences, sensations and thoughts into a separate character with a history and a future.

Yes... and what is KEY here is that "I" is JUST and ONLY a thought, strung together to form a story about a person, time, space, the world, etc etc...

there is only experience.

when thought is dropped, is there an actual self there?

I would say it is no more than a thought supported by some sensations in the body.

yes...

and there is no "in" the "body".
"In" is just a concept of location, and location is also just a concept.
and sensations (at least feeling-sensations pre-dominantly) ARE "the body".

--

look again at the body. it may be the key sticking point here :)
is it the experiencer?
is there an inside/outside with reference to the body? how is that possible?
is the body AN experience? if so how does an experience experience experience, and how does it have an inside/outside?

Lots of Love <3