Musername

[musername]

So how then can anything be 'seen' purely if using the organism?

Once the story component is recognized, the 'inappropriate' responses are dropped, this then allows those neuronal networks in the brain to atrophy, and something more akin to "purity" establishes.

So then the organism is simply the medium for expression? Once the jig is up? Once the mind is understood to be phantom? But who is doing the understanding.... ? Is there anything that is understanding? Or is understanding a given... simply going on?

Some stories are useful, but will still be seen as stories so there won't be the same reactions to them as there was when they were believed to be actuality.

For example...?

Other stories will be seen as entirely misleading and will be laughed at and dropped completely along with the suffering that they engendered.

How are the misleading ones deciphered from the useful ones? Does the body report it in some way? With so-called emotions that follow up with sensations/feelings labeled painful? And are the useful ones free of any aftermath of bodily response?

In this way mind is re-educated and will fairly quickly stop consisting of 'inappropriate' thoughts. No "upper hand" involved, just like re-training the physical to a new skill.

Re-educated? Are 'inappropriate' responses then simply being traded for 'purer' ones that are re-conditioned? Seems this is simply more judging. Or is this the natural outcome of looking for self, followed by the discovery of no such thing?

Hope all is well for you in Australia with news of fires there, Vince.

[vinceschubert]

So then the organism is simply the medium for expression?

Sense input first then expression.

Once the jig is up? Once the mind is understood to be phantom?

The mind (thoughts) isn't phantom, it's the contents that are conceptual that might be called phantom reality.

But who is doing the understanding.... ? Is there anything that is understanding?

There doesn't need to be a who or what, understanding just happens. What is understanding except a sense of satisfaction about certain thoughts.

Some stories are useful, but will still be seen as stories so there won't be the same reactions to them as there was when they were believed to be actuality.
For example...?

Oh say, that Mary Beth is competent to do certain tasks or that tomorrow will be a normal day or that there will be enough money to do what is necessary. When a useful story is recognized as a story a caveat will automatically get included. That they might not happen either. With this a sense of openness and acceptance that life takes care of itself.

How are the misleading ones deciphered from the useful ones?

They are usually quite obvious. Say a story that Mary Beth might be sick tomorrow. Once it is seen as story it will be recognized that it has self fulfilling components and dropped (with a chuckle of thankfulness that it was seen) Pretty soon that type of story ceases to occur.

With so-called emotions that follow up with sensations/feelings labeled painful?

Emotions are the physical component of thought.

Re-educated? Are 'inappropriate' responses then simply being traded for 'purer' ones that are re-conditioned? Seems this is simply more judging.

Certainly it is, and all judgements and opinions are story and treated appropriately. They wont stop but they will be seen in the same light as useful or harmful stories as above.

Or is this the natural outcome of looking for self, followed by the discovery of no such thing?

yes, but i would describe it more as a (brain) re-training or the outcome of de-conditioning.

No fires near here, thankfully.

love vince

[musername]

So then the organism is simply the medium for expression?

Sense input first then expression.

Huh? Sense input then expression? I don't get this.

Once the jig is up? Once the mind is understood to be phantom?

The mind (thoughts) isn't phantom, it's the contents that are conceptual that might be called phantom reality.

What exactly is the mind then? And is there a difference between thoughts and their contents. The contents ARE the thoughts themselves, aren't they?

But who is doing the understanding.... ? Is there anything that is understanding?

There doesn't need to be a who or what, understanding just happens. What is understanding except a sense of satisfaction about certain thoughts.

A sense of satisfaction? Seems there would need be a person who is experiencing dissatisfaction before the satisfaction can happen. Can satisfaction even occur if it is not felt by someone?

Some stories are useful, but will still be seen as stories so there won't be the same reactions to them as there was when they were believed to be actuality.
For example...?

Oh say, that Mary Beth is competent to do certain tasks or that tomorrow will be a normal day or that there will be enough money to do what is necessary. When a useful story is recognized as a story a caveat will automatically get included. That they might not happen either. With this a sense of openness and acceptance that life takes care of itself.

Oh, simply story. Not sad story, happy story or frustrating story.

How are the misleading ones deciphered from the useful ones?

They are usually quite obvious. Say a story that Mary Beth might be sick tomorrow. Once it is seen as story it will be recognized that it has self fulfilling components and dropped (with a chuckle of thankfulness that it was seen) Pretty soon that type of story ceases to occur.

With so-called emotions that follow up with sensations/feelings labeled painful?

Emotions are the physical component of thought.

Re-educated? Are 'inappropriate' responses then simply being traded for 'purer' ones that are re-conditioned? Seems this is simply more judging.

Certainly it is, and all judgements and opinions are story and treated appropriately. They wont stop but they will be seen in the same light as useful or harmful stories as above.

Or is this the natural outcome of looking for self, followed by the discovery of no such thing?

yes, but i would describe it more as a (brain) re-training or the outcome of de-conditioning.

So NOT a natural outcome? Something is done for the retraining to occur? Someone is doing something to de-condition? There must be effort? Or does it simply all happen when it happens when it's time for it to happen... albeit over 'time' or suddenly?


No fires near here, thankfully.

Yes! Thankfully.

All love...MB

love vince

[vinceschubert]

So then the organism is simply the medium for expression?
Sense input first then expression.
Huh? Sense input then expression? I don't get this.

The organism has the sensory organs that input data, then the brain processes this, then mind (still brain) further processes, then emotions (the physical component of thoughts) start the expression aspect.

What exactly is the mind then?

It is a convenient name for thought processes. Is there mind if thoughts are removed ?

is there a difference between thoughts and their contents. The contents ARE the thoughts themselves, aren't they?

Well, it would be true that you couldn't have a thought without content, but for the purposes of this investigation, i would say that the fact of a thought is a reality, and that is so even if the content is ABOUT something mythical, or is total nonsense.

Seems there would need be a person who is experiencing dissatisfaction before the satisfaction can happen.

Satisfaction probably isn't the best word. Perhaps dissonance is better than dissatisfaction and resonance for satisfaction. But anyway, these are sensations which the organism is quite capable of feeling. Why does there have to be a 'self' or an I to experience it ?

So NOT a natural outcome? Something is done for the retraining to occur? Someone is doing something to de-condition? There must be effort?

If you consider that de-conditioning is the atrophy of neuronal networks in the brain from not being used, it is more a matter if what is NOT done.
It is natural that they would fade from disuse.
No-one is doing it. It happens. Certainly no effort is going to make it happen.
The closest you can come to 'doing' something is to cultivate the intention to 'drop' reactions when they are recognized as habitual responses to story.

love vince

[musername]

Why does there have to be a 'self' or an I to experience it ?

Good question. Is experience simply occurring? This mind wants to keep every belief neatly in place... as if doing otherwise would make parent/grade school teachers/etc angry. The body feels resistance ....a pushing against not believing there has to be a person for experience to take place. There seems to be a 'rising above' it feeling. A coming out of belief, so to speak. A release.

If you consider that de-conditioning is the atrophy of neuronal networks in the brain from not being used, it is more a matter if what is NOT done.

There is a thought... "This could take eons!" The mind wants to throw in the towel with thoughts like... "Enlightenment will take you lifetimes, GF. Fahget about it." This sort of yammering seems to be the primary ka ka as of late. It is a cesspool and pulling out of it is tricky. Something called 'lazy' goes back to dwelling in habitual thought world meandering.

It is natural that they would fade from disuse.
No-one is doing it. It happens. Certainly no effort is going to make it happen.
The closest you can come to 'doing' something is to cultivate the intention to 'drop' reactions when they are recognized as habitual responses to story.

Cultivate the intention to drop reactions when they are recognized as habitual responses to story? Whew... there is a huge story that that is a LOT of work. Being constantly on the alert... since these stories are IN MY FACE. BUT, there is also relief that it could be that simple... to squeeze in the intention to drop the reactions to stories. The term, Mountains out of molehills comes to mind. The snake analogy as well.

Thanks, Vince. Digesting the wisdom.... as the beat goes on.

[vinceschubert]

"This could take eons!"

Ha, thoughts are very clever at convincing you to stay in the familiar. i now recognize time as a fallacy, a concept just like 'self'. Does time exist anywhere in any way other than as thoughts now relative to memory thoughts or thoughts of future ?
Certainly the sensation that emotions engender when thinking of not having enough time are real, but is time ?

Something called 'lazy'

Lazy is another bullshit concept. Every time lazy is investigated something else is revealed.
What would be the outcome of this "lazy" ?

Cultivate the intention ... there is a huge story that that is a LOT of work.

No, no, by cultivate the intention, i mean simply develop a habit by rewarding the thought with good humor. Not doing dropping, just saying "they will drop", then recognizing that they may or may not drop. So when you recognize that you have been sucked in by story, that instant of recognition also brings with it a memory of the intention and a good humored chuckle that acknowledges the SEEing of what had (or was about to ) happen. Try it, you will see that it takes no effort or doing to drop the habitual reaction. Anger becomes hollow, self depreciation is forgotten, all in an instant.

i love the me that is you Mary Beth, thankyou.
vince

[musername]

Ha, thoughts are very clever at convincing you to stay in the familiar. i now recognize time as a fallacy, a concept just like 'self'. Does time exist anywhere in any way other than as thoughts now relative to memory thoughts or thoughts of future ?

No.

Certainly the sensation that emotions engender when thinking of not having enough time are real, but is time ?

Yes.... sensations are real. Feelings are very bazaar 'things.' Fade in. Fade out. The baggage that comes with thoughts that pop out. And yet something sometimes likes the baggage.... the weight of it, the noticing and the experience of them.

Went to Les Mis tonight. Interesting to be fluctuating between getting lost in sad/dark story and plain pokin' fun at it as well. Monty Python kept showing up almost every time Russell Crow sang. It just wasn't there and only humor could fill the hole. And yet, the sheer beauty of the music produced streams and streams of tears. Yes... a story is a story. Dry on that account, mostly. But the MUSIC!

Driving home... it hit home! Two fears revealed themselves as clearly as if something had written them in the sky. Fear #1... Something desperately holds back outlandish appreciation of the BEAUTY of it all. The fear is that the appreciation could express itself into uncontrolled, outrageous laughing and crying. Wildness! That's what could have ensued tonight in the theater, listening to the violins. OUTLOUD WEEPING! And with that made-up, visual image comes the realization of fear #2... being 'enlightened' means one must tighten it all into a zombie-like stance. Really. How could one possibly NOT be overwhelmed with the sheer magnificence of it all?!? And yes... here it comes. Just what/who is it that is appreciating? Right? Appreciation is just happening.

Lazy is another bullshit concept. Every time lazy is investigated something else is revealed.
What would be the outcome of this "lazy" ?

Used to love just lazing around as a kid.... felt like the most natural and wonderful thing to do. Nothing. Heaven. But the ol' Catholic guilt would set in about not saving somebody or other is some funny-sounding country far away. 'Shoulds' replaced silence. Now there is permission for that. The door is open.

Try it, you will see that it takes no effort or doing to drop the habitual reaction. Anger becomes hollow, self depreciation is forgotten, all in an instant.

All in an instant? The blink of an I? ;o ))

i love the me that is you Mary Beth, thankyou. I love the Eye that is you, Vince. Welcome.

[vinceschubert]

Ah, great SEEing of the fears.
Ha, nothing zombie like with liberation. Without 'self' consciousness what inhibits expression of emotion ?
i am frequently moved to tears these days. Usually tears of joy. Just watched a movie called "The Saphires" and cried all of the way through it - great !

And yet something sometimes likes the baggage.... the weight of it, the noticing and the experience of them.

Yes, this is an interesting one. Is it because it is familiar ? or is it the it promotes a sense of aliveness ? Self importance ? i wonder...

The blink of an I? ;o ))

Ha, very good...

Life-ing is Wonder-Full.

love Mary Beth

vince

[musername]

Without 'self' consciousness what inhibits expression of emotion ?

Yes... that yucky, pesky self consciousness. The feeling of it is so uncomfortable! Sometimes labeled as shyness. Conscious of a self that isn't even real. Conscious of a thought.

So just witnessing that sensation, that thought as it arises... is the key that deconstructs it?

Is it because it is familiar ? or is it the it promotes a sense of aliveness ? Self importance ? i wonder...

Prbly. Familiarity breeds contempt. Noticed it today walking the halls. Noticed how old this story is of being in a body. Noticed the old story of body identification. Fleeting, yes. But strikingly aware of the weight of it. And yes, self importance. Me, me, me. I, I, I. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

Life-ing. Yes... Life.... ing.

Love Vince

Life-ing is Wonder-Full.

love Mary Beth

vince

[vinceschubert]

So just witnessing that sensation, that thought as it arises... is the key that deconstructs it?

Yes, the Recognition that it is happening is followed by the realization that it is a response to a thought, story, which allows the dropping of it and the dropping of it means that the neuronal pathway doesn't get used and so weaken. (sometimes completely disintegrates.)
So, Mary Beth, is there an actual self, an I anywhere in any form ?
Has there ever been ?

[musername]

So, Mary Beth, is there an actual self, an I anywhere in any form ?
Has there ever been ?

Whoa.... seems there is some one 'out there' even if it doesn't look like there's one here. Looks as though there are numerous 'selves' all over the place in this view screen. But now that you ask... this needs to be yet seen. Will need to get back to you on this.

So are you saying that anything that anyone says... is not being said by someone? If sitting with friends, no one is there? Talking? Huh? So there's nobody here? Or there?

Talk to me. Lots of head-scratchin' goin' on here. And has there ever been? Okay... so now the whole world is completely topsy turvy.

Who's on first?
No, whose on first.

Saw the 2012 film, I Am. Strikingly beautiful.

Happy Sunday.

[vinceschubert]

seems there is some one 'out there' even if it doesn't look like there's one here. Looks as though there are numerous 'selves' all over the place in this view screen. But now that you ask... this needs to be yet seen. Will need to get back to you on this.

Ok, stay with your own direct experience while investigating.

So are you saying that anything that anyone says... is not being said by someone? If sitting with friends, no one is there? Talking? Huh? So there's nobody here? Or there?

Seems like an outrageous idea, aye ?
When you discover the actuality of your own 'self', the answer to this will become obvious.

so now the whole world is completely topsy turvy.

Good, the illusion of stability needs examining.

Saw the 2012 film, I Am. Strikingly beautiful.

Will have a look at it... Is it the hindi one ?

love

vince

[musername]

The documentary, I Am? No, not hindi.

Go to: http://www.amazon.com/I-Am/dp/B006VEFQE ... words=i+am

You will be able to rent for about $4 and stream it on your computer for a week or so.

So wonderful.

[musername]

Ok, stay with your own direct experience while investigating.

Yes.... so sick and tired of 'usuing' everyone else in the world and their story of how it looks. Gurus, Byron Katie, Nisagarata, Ramana, Mooji, Gururaj, nuns from grade school who scared the holy bajesus out of us, priest who know pontificated about nothing but fairy tales, etc., etc. So lost in the mire of it all for years when it could be so damn simple! Stay with my own direct experience while investigating? Don't even know how to DO that, there's so many layers and layers of mistrust.

Seems like an outrageous idea, aye ?

Yes, outrageous and suspect as well. Again... who is there even to trust any more?

When you discover the actuality of your own 'self', the answer to this will become obvious.

Obvious to you, maybe to you. Is that so easy for you to say to those of us to whom it is NOT obvious?

Okay... stepping down off the box. Yes... will continue looking. Possibly ad infinitum.

Thanks for your patience, Vince. Some of us are simply thick as bricks and can't see their nose to spite their face. Just whining.

mb

[vinceschubert]

i don't know about the nuns and priests, but what the others say will be seen by you in a completely different light post gate.

So lost in the mire of it all for years when it could be so damn simple!

Ha, yes. Well i felt the same but now see it as those years were necessary to setup the dependent conditions for it to 'happen'.

Don't even know how to DO that, there's so many layers and layers of mistrust.

Direct Experience means to read your experiencing without the distortion of mind. Using thoughts to describe sensations but any thought that is the result of another thought is to be ignored. You are right to mistrust thoughts as all thoughts are ABOUT something and never the actual, even though some pose as something.

Obvious to you, maybe to you.

i did say; "When you discover the actuality of your own 'self',", and say again that when that happens there, it will be obvious to you too.

Possibly ad infinitum.

Possibly, but not likely.

and can't see their nose to spite their face.

Ha, alright, i'll give you a clue; "it's closer than your nose".

are simply thick as bricks

Thickness has nothing to do with it. Here's another clue; When you recognize someone that you know, is there any work, or intelligence involved ? Did you DO anything to make the recognition occur ?

Oh, and enjoy the frustration, it shakes up the 'normal' and makes the abnormal possible.

love

vince