Happy 2013! Would be deeply grateful for a guide!

[cosmiK]

Hey,

Not in direct experience -- the experiencer feels like a phantom lurking behind the scenes who disappears every time I look at him.

isn't the "experiencer" just another experience that thought claims to be the self that is "you" experiencing life?

break down what this "experiencer" is in direct experience. is it in thought? seeing? hearing? feeling? explain it here.

It's not really describable, and it's not a smooth, moment-to-moment process. There are times when the demands of everyday life occupy attention and the self is less obtrusive. But in a moment's notice this self can seem to be everywhere, intimately connected with every experience. It seems separate from everything else not so much as a matter of isolation but because everything else comes and goes while the self is always there - either subtly or blatantly.

this "self" that you describe is just as much part of the show as everything else like trees, flowers, cars, birds, etc etc. the "self" is just another habitually labelled part of experience, of consciousness. it's a self-referencing loop.

you say that the "self is always there", but what you may be referring to is awareness, or consciousness, and/or the sense of beingness and that is NOT personal. notice that consciousness is always present, but thoughts claim this as a self, that is separate and observing everything else. there is no such self. re-read this sentence. what you are referring to as 'self' in this quote portion of your response is a misunderstanding. Only thought selectively labels aspects of experience as self and fixates heavily around the combination of the sense of aliveness/presence and certain aspects of experience. thought creates a separate knower and known, and takes part of the known to be the knower. for instance feeling-sensations that compose the "body" are taken as "self", and certain thought-ideas (memories, self stories) are also taken to be "self". of course, thought also claims consciousness, which is what is aware of and reading this sentence. that is not self or "I" because it is impersonal, and inseparable from everything else.

really look at what you call "self" here and notice is there is actually a separate self there.

in the 6 streams model of describing Experiencing, of describing how consciousness dances itself, which one does the self exist in?

It seems most closely related to the sense of aliveness/presence within the penumbra of feeling/kinesthetic sensation, which is sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant, and sometimes neutral. It seems to locate me in space, at the center of the universe I experience. It's watching thoughts (when it's not directly fused with them) and it's sensing sounds, sights, etc., but is not those sounds and sights.

the "self" exists ONLY in thought. it is a thought created phantom.

you are right in the sense that thought claims the sense of presence and feeling-sensations (sometimes called "body") as "self", but it is very important to recognize that the "self" exists ONLY in thought. that's it. "you" exist only in thought. that which reads this sentence is NOT a person or self, but consciousness... completely impersonal.

the self doesn't watch thoughts, or hear sounds, or see sights. thoughts can't hear sounds, and see sights. in direct experience there is just seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting and thought. there is JUST Experiencing. We can say that Experiencing is self-aware... a sort of awarExperience. or we can say that consciousness is aware of itself. There is no separate self there that is aware of anything.

look carefully at direct experience again and see if you can find this self?

look again at direct experience and see if you can find the experiencer?

When I consider the self as such, it feels external, like thoughts and feelings themselves. Sometimes that's just a formulaic perception, but occasionally experiencing the self as an object creates a brief flash of freedom from its constant domination.

is there an "internal" and "external"?

look nakedly at direct experience and describe the point/line that divides "in" and "out"?

does it actually exist?

also look at this self that supposedly dominates? where is it? stare right at it? does it exist apart from thought?

Sometimes when I perceive "selfness" as a factor within this mixture, it seems clear that it is a thought or a feeling or a combination.

the "self" is nothing more than an experience. the self doesn't experience anything because it is just another experience like a tree is, or a cloud is, or a color is. the self has no actual existence apart from thought. thought stitches together aspects of direct experience and creates a self. watch how this happens moment to moment.

It's no longer some mysterious Master of the Universe; it's just part of the show.

Yes... it's just another part of the show like everything else. None it is personal.

I feel free and easy and that the truth is right in front of me.

feelings of freedom and ease show up as part of the show, but there is nothing in front of you, because there is no you that is behind anything :) there is just this, that shows up as the various expressions of life. part of that expression is the first person character, but that character isn't aware of anything, but is rather an appearance in/as consciousness, or in/as awareness - just part of the show.

"I" or "me" becomes a lot less definite when I scrutinize myself, not analytically, but as "nakedly and directly" as I can. Then, the evanescence of the self is manifested, but only for a flash.

regardless if there is "evanescence of self" or not, is there ever a self there?

do you see that "self being there" or "evanescence of self" is just all part of the show?
... and regardless of the content of the show, regardless of the experience, that it is all JUST Experience? no actual person there experiencing... no actual self there perceiving... it's all just consciousness, all just Life.

Seriously though, I feel a lot of confidence in this process, but there is sometimes a nagging doubt that either I won't be able to pull it off or that it will happen and I will be disappointed, like, is that it? So what? Is that weird?

Look at this "I" that has confidence in this process. Look at this self that may or may not be able to pull it off, and that may be disappointment. Do you find this self in direct experience?

Even a "process" implies that something will change or that someone is going through it, but the only thing that will change is the recognition that there is NEVER a self apart from thought. It is a simple recognition and is always right here, right now. Life carries on, but Life/consciousness is not clear that it is NOT a person, but that the person is just another innocent appearance and not more "self" than anything else that shows up.

And seriously...
what is the difference between the "self" and Santa Claus? really answer that question.

--

Let's look at doership.

Can you control the first person character commonly referred to as "you"?

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

^--- check out this article. do the 3 exercises in dE and report on your results for each section (1,2,3).


with Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi,

In general, the points you make are all ones with which I can agree, intuitively, logically, philosophically, yada yada yada, but I keep "feeling" confined within my "illusory" sense of self. I realize that this "I" with such a feeling is an artifact and the "constriction" is just a thought/feeling loop and not reality. Yet I am still staring at experience and feeling like I am wandering in a labyrinth. You have given me a thread to follow out of this maze, so take none of my responses below, when they express doubt, as disagreement -- I am "debating" myself, not you.

sn't the "experiencer" just another experience that thought claims to be the self that is "you" experiencing life? break down what this "experiencer" is in direct experience. is it in thought? seeing? hearing? feeling? explain it here.

The "experiencer" is a mixture of thoughts, images, aliveness, and feeling sensations, constructed from the 6 streams. The components of the mixture vary, as do the dynamics - sluggish or agitated, or the tone - distressed or contented.

what you are referring to as 'self' in this quote portion of your response is a misunderstanding. Only thought selectively labels aspects of experience as self and fixates heavily around the combination of the sense of aliveness/presence and certain aspects of experience. thought creates a separate knower and known....

...really look at what you call "self" here and notice is there is actually a separate self there.

It's truly a misunderstanding, but it seems so convincing. At the same time, your "refutation" is convincing as well. Yes, there is no "separate self there." What a quandary!

the "self" exists ONLY in thought. that's it. "you" exist only in thought. that which reads this sentence is NOT a person or self, but consciousness... completely impersonal.
the self doesn't watch thoughts, or hear sounds, or see sights. thoughts can't hear sounds, and see sights. in direct experience there is just seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting and thought. there is JUST Experiencing. We can say that Experiencing is self-aware... a sort of awarExperience. or we can say that consciousness is aware of itself. There is no separate self there that is aware of anything.

look carefully at direct experience again and see if you can find this self? look again at direct experience and see if you can find the experiencer?

Can't find it anywhere, but it's like an invisible field -- very tenacious, very annoying.

And yes, you might ask, WHO is being annoyed? Or is there just annoyance or annoyancing.

is there an "internal" and "external"?
look nakedly at direct experience and describe the point/line that divides "in" and "out"?
does it actually exist?

Internal and external are just regions that share a boundary -- mostly the sense of inside my skin and outside my skin, but sensations and perceptions cross that boundary all the time. The "boundary" connects us as much as it divides us.

also look at this self that supposedly dominates? where is it? stare right at it? does it exist apart from thought?

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away
(H. Mearns 1899)

I am "not there" not only last night or earlier today, but right now -- Oh how I wish I could go away!

do you see that "self being there" or "evanescence of self" is just all part of the show?
... and regardless of the content of the show, regardless of the experience, that it is all JUST Experience?

Yes I do see it, but somehow the fact eludes me. My mind keeps circling back into doubt, even if there is confidence in the reality of anatta.

Everything is part of the show, the Dance of Shiva, the Divine Play of the Cosmos.

Yeah, right! (sarcasm intended but not harsh)

Look at this "I" that has confidence in this process. Look at this self that may or may not be able to pull it off, and that may be disappointment. Do you find this self in direct experience?

Even a "process" implies that something will change or that someone is going through it, but the only thing that will change is the recognition that there is NEVER a self apart from thought. It is a simple recognition and is always right here, right now. Life carries on, but Life/consciousness is not clear that it is NOT a person, but that the person is just another innocent appearance and not more "self" than anything else that shows up.

No self in direct experience. None, zero, nada. I am not here again today. I wish that I would go away.

what is the difference between the "self" and Santa Claus? really answer that question.

They are alike in that both are supposed to bring me "goodies." Yes, both are myths. Neither are real. But I rely on the self to acquire and protect identity and a place in the world, just like a child relies on Santa to reward good behavior.

What I think is hardest for me is the (mistaken?) sense of expectation. I know that I am anticipating some sort of rewarding glow or flash or release. The literature is so filled with of tales of satori and "eureka." Sort of like the fireworks in silly romances when the two lovers kiss for the first time. Or to return to the Santa idea, looking forward sleeplessly to Christmas morning when the presents will be unwrapped.

Before I started this dialogue with you, I read a blog by Ciaran Healy from Ruthless Truth, a predecessor to this LU site, I believe. He was working with someone and warned them not to try to build an "emotional bridge" to the realization of non-self. I think I keep trying to build an emotional bridge to liberation.

It's hard to get my mind around the idea that when I see through the illusion of self, nothing will be any different. That seems impossible. But I also remember that Buddha said he gained absolutely nothing from perfect, unexcelled enlightenment, which, he said, is why it was perfect and unexcelled.

I have taken a break to read your article, which is very clear and which I feel expresses the truth, and do the exercises.
...

1. This was like walking meditation, mindful walking. Look, lift leg, bend knee, step, lower foot, move... A series of motions, feelings, positions, efforts, pressure against the floor, flowing. The sense of a self "directing" the walk was faint, but hard to dismiss. I will keep testing this.

2. Your comments on this exercise matched my experience -- sensations in the arm and shoulder, lifting against gravity, pausing, lowering with only enough effort to guide the arm down rather than just letting it drop. Now that last factor is puzzling. There is a difference in using deliberate muscular resistance while lowering the arm as opposed to just letting gravity flop it down. Or "choosing" to pause the arm in its descent. I will keep testing this.

3. Throughout the day, noticing my actions/activities.... This is sort of like vipassana -- being mindful of all efforts, acts, and experiences as collections of sensations, one of them being the sensation of "doer." I will keep testing this.

I appreciate your great patience. It's true that I am struggling with this, but it's also true that the confusion and perplexity is not anguishing. That's not to diminish what I see as the importance of liberation, which I have focused on with varying intensity during most of my adult life. Maybe I feel that one way or another, the realization will happen -- not to me, since I am not an entity, but somehow I will reach the same position that you and your colleagues have. You are all doing a very good thing for the world.

Love and respect,
Stan

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

In general, the points you make are all ones with which I can agree, intuitively, logically, philosophically, yada yada yada, but I keep "feeling" confined within my "illusory" sense of self. I realize that this "I" with such a feeling is an artifact and the "constriction" is just a thought/feeling loop and not reality. Yet I am still staring at experience and feeling like I am wandering in a labyrinth. You have given me a thread to follow out of this maze, so take none of my responses below, when they express doubt, as disagreement -- I am "debating" myself, not you.

Yes. I understand. There is still a strong identification and belief in the person, in the first person character, as the undeniable actual self that is you. It's important then to look at what you really consider to be you... the you that is trying to see through that same you. the snake chasing it's tail.

Just turn around and just look at You... just do that. Really look at and find who YOU really are tell me honestly what you find. We look at direct experience as a way to nakedly perceive the nature of reality behind our assumptions. Get to know this self that is apparently you.

Describe to me your self and tell me how it has actual existence in reality apart from thought/images.

The "experiencer" is a mixture of thoughts, images, aliveness, and feeling sensations, constructed from the 6 streams. The components of the mixture vary, as do the dynamics - sluggish or agitated, or the tone - distressed or contented.

the "experiencer" is just a thought. it is an abstract reference to this-that-Is. in conceptuality, we sometimes even see a separate "seer" + "seeing" + "seen" to explain experience, but there is no 3 things.. there is just this, and thoughts divides the inseparable in to 3.
when experiencing experiences experience, is there any separation possible apart from thought? CHECK :)

It's truly a misunderstanding, but it seems so convincing. At the same time, your "refutation" is convincing as well. Yes, there is no "separate self there." What a quandary!

yes, waves of thoughts crashing against no-thing... and quandaries only exist in thought. gently and honestly look at dE... notice that all of this apparent confusion, seeking, finding answers and insights all dance on complete clarity. no matter what is, there is no separate self there, there is no separation, there is just this. you are this in /of which this entire dance dances itself, and not the apparent confused one.

to see that look for the actual confused self.

Can't find it anywhere, but it's like an invisible field -- very tenacious, very annoying.

And yes, you might ask, WHO is being annoyed? Or is there just annoyance or annoyancing.

actually I would aski WHY annoying? WHO is important as well - definitely look at that, but also ask WHY.
WHY?
So what annoyance shows up? so what?

nternal and external are just regions that share a boundary -- mostly the sense of inside my skin and outside my skin, but sensations and perceptions cross that boundary all the time. The "boundary" connects us as much as it divides us.

Read this over. There is a sense, at least for me, that there is an actual (at some level for you) internal, and some actual external. and if skin is just a thought label for sensation/image, and if 'the body' also just sensation/image, then what exactly is an inside and what exactly is an outside?

in and out are just thought stories, just like experiencer, and you/i/me are.

I am "not there" not only last night or earlier today, but right now -- Oh how I wish I could go away!

If you're not there, then WHY do you wish you would go away?

Yes I do see it, but somehow the fact eludes me. My mind keeps circling back into doubt, even if there is confidence in the reality of anatta.

Everything is part of the show, the Dance of Shiva, the Divine Play of the Cosmos.

Yeah, right! (sarcasm intended but not harsh)

You have no mind :) firstly there is no you, and secondly there is no mind. mind, or my mind, usually refers to the stream of thoughts. they are not personal... they aren't yours.
can you control your thoughts? can you think thoughts?
are thoughts any more personal than the sky, clouds, trees and birds are?

More importantly, what in experience claims ownership? This is Key.

yes the dance Is, and currently what is happening now Is that dance, including the idea that there is someone trying to realize that it is just a dance. the most important thing to look at is this supposed self that is the conscious actor in Life. look at it over and over again and really get to know what it is. look at everything that you hold to be this self and gently notice it and how it comes in to play moment to moment.

No self in direct experience. None, zero, nada. I am not here again today. I wish that I would go away.

Who/what is looking to see and conclude that there is no self in direct experience?

What I think is hardest for me is the (mistaken?) sense of expectation. I know that I am anticipating some sort of rewarding glow or flash or release. The literature is so filled with of tales of satori and "eureka." Sort of like the fireworks in silly romances when the two lovers kiss for the first time. Or to return to the Santa idea, looking forward sleeplessly to Christmas morning when the presents will be unwrapped.

expectations are attachments to an IMAGINED future or self. they are thought-stories. they essentially obscure what is right here and now, what was always here. Anatta isn't realized anywhere else, not in time, not in space. Anatta points to that in/of which this entire dance plays itself out.

romanticizing the idea of enlightenment will get you nowhere fast. let those expectations just fall away.

look for yourself and investigate this most important question. if there is an actual separate self that you are. this is the foundation and core of the house of cards. once this is seen everything will start to collapse.

Before I started this dialogue with you, I read a blog by Ciaran Healy from Ruthless Truth, a predecessor to this LU site, I believe. He was working with someone and warned them not to try to build an "emotional bridge" to the realization of non-self. I think I keep trying to build an emotional bridge to liberation.

Take a close look at this "I" that you believe you are that is building a bridge to liberation. turn the attention backwards on this seeker. is this seeker real? is this seeker you? is the person actually real?

It's hard to get my mind around the idea that when I see through the illusion of self, nothing will be any different. That seems impossible. But I also remember that Buddha said he gained absolutely nothing from perfect, unexcelled enlightenment, which, he said, is why it was perfect and unexcelled.

liberation isn't about getting non-existent minds around ideas...

liberation is about seeing for yourself what the truth is. the buddha said to test ALL of his ideas and see them for yourself. there is noone else that can see it for you. decide to do this. and start with this self.

investigate this supposed you.

can you control the first person character?

1. This was like walking meditation, mindful walking. Look, lift leg, bend knee, step, lower foot, move... A series of motions, feelings, positions, efforts, pressure against the floor, flowing. The sense of a self "directing" the walk was faint, but hard to dismiss. I will keep testing this.

You were describing everything like an impersonal phenomena, until you came to "The sense of a self "directing" the walk was faint, but hard to dismiss.". Let us call that X. How is X any more personal that other things like step, lower foot, move, breath, sound, pressure, tree, sky?

2. Your comments on this exercise matched my experience -- sensations in the arm and shoulder, lifting against gravity, pausing, lowering with only enough effort to guide the arm down rather than just letting it drop. Now that last factor is puzzling. There is a difference in using deliberate muscular resistance while lowering the arm as opposed to just letting gravity flop it down. Or "choosing" to pause the arm in its descent. I will keep testing this.

when you say effort... are you making it? who/what makes effort? describe this. how is effort any different that spontaneous?

when you say deliberate... who did?

look at choice. identify in direct experience what/when the choice-point is, when suddenly there is some control over experience. is there anyone that does ANY of this? is controlling anything possible? Can you do it?

Is the first person character in your control?

3. Throughout the day, noticing my actions/activities.... This is sort of like vipassana -- being mindful of all efforts, acts, and experiences as collections of sensations, one of them being the sensation of "doer." I will keep testing this.

look directly at experience. this is not some exercise ultimately. the story of someone doing an excercise is playing itself out, and it is not personal.

are they your activities?

is there a "you" that can test through "your" day if "you" are doing anything? :)
investigate the core of all of this...
this apparent you that is trying to find liberation.

Don't be discouraged with frustration and anguish - it means you are actually attempting to see this. i am just telling you where to and how to look. that's how the process works :) i am eternally here. just stay focused. keep "going" :)

with Love.

[Critterfan]

Just turn around and just look at You... just do that. Really look at and find who YOU really are tell me honestly what you find. We look at direct experience as a way to nakedly perceive the nature of reality behind our assumptions. Get to know this self that is apparently you.
Describe to me your self and tell me how it has actual existence in reality apart from thought/images.

I will respond to your questions and limit my method to "direct experience" but at the end of this post I need to ask you something, which may help me become more skillful in the task proposed by the LU project.

Back to your questions:

Describe to me your self and tell me how it has actual existence in reality apart from thought/images.

The only evident properties are thoughts, images, and feelings.

when experiencing experiences experience, is there any separation possible apart from thought? CHECK :)

Subject and object are really indistinguishable in that the sense of being the subject consists of the continuous parade/dance of objects. The "object-less" subjectivity I will refer to in my question at the end of this post is very brief, very resistant to description, but very compelling, virtually self-evident. I would be willing to say it is an illusion of attention or suggestibility. Consciousness is probably never truly "without an object." So going back to your question, the answer is No, there is no "separation possible apart from thought."

there is no separation, there is just this. you are this in /of which this entire dance dances itself, and not the apparent confused one.

to see that look for the actual confused self.

I can see/feel the confusion but not who is confused.

yes, waves of thoughts crashing against no-thing...

That's exactly what it feels like, waves of thought.

So what annoyance shows up? so what?

That made me laugh and feel better.:)

there is an actual (at some level for you) internal, and some actual external.

I assume here you were saying not that there is an actual internal and external, but that I was processing these categories in such a way as to make them seem absolute. But I do recognize that internal perceptions and external perceptions are equally perceptions and belong in the same set.

in and out are just thought stories, just like experiencer, and you/i/me are.

Yes, it takes the mind to split hairs and say a thought is "internal" and a sight (e.g., the keyboard in front of me now) is "external." They are both being produced as simulations "inside" my brain -- the thought simulates associative neuro-cognitive data processing and the sight simulates a construction of solid matter, plastic, electronic circuitry, etc. There is no difference in direct experience between internal and external, just the conventional, definitional distinction, which takes place within thinking, not direct experience.

can you control your thoughts? can you think thoughts?

No

are thoughts any more personal than the sky, clouds, trees and birds are?

Not in the final analysis

More importantly, what in experience claims ownership? This is Key.

That which claims ownership is the illusory self, but it has learned over the years to be a very litigious advocate for its claims. :)

Look for yourself and investigate this most important question. if there is an actual separate self that you are. this is the foundation and core of the house of cards. once this is seen everything will start to collapse.

I am certainly eager for the "collapse." But is there an internal resistance in me? In my life, I have sometimes been through what might be called "metaphysical fear" or existential dread, and sometimes that is connected with anticipated "loss of self" within an imagined infinity but I am not feeling any fear or anguish during this process, but it is a struggle, with doubt, with over-expectation, with pre-conceived notions.

Earlier in your post you said:

gently and honestly look at dE... notice that all of this apparent confusion, seeking, finding answers and insights all dance on complete clarity [emphasis mine].

That's a lovely way of putting it. To be honest, during this process (and at other times in my life, without needing to go into deep meditative states or whatnot, I see that clarity, that fluid, transparent emptiness that everything emerges from and merges into moment-to-moment. It's as "tangible" as time itself, Time Present. Constantly, innumerable objects and beings and existence itself flutter out of the nothingness of the future and flash into the nothingness of the past, their residence in the NOW brief, but vivid. I'm not equating reality with time or impermanence, which is only one dimension, but it's like that. DIrect experience is like that. My own thoughts have that quality, and are certainly time-like.

is there anyone that does ANY of this? is controlling anything possible? Can you do it?
Is the first person character in your control?

Certainly not. Is the whole futile effort to control the first person character what generates the confusion in the first place? I can see that it is related. It's a persistence that also creates the resistance.

is there a "you" that can test through "your" day if "you" are doing anything? :)
investigate the core of all of this...
this apparent you that is trying to find liberation.

Working on it. Working on it.

At the beginning of this post, I mentioned a question I needed to ask you about method. I hope you don't see this as me trying to start a philosophical discussion around romanticized "enlightment" topics, but I feel the need for some input to help me differentiate what you are challenging me to do from something I have myself experienced over many years (albeit on rare occasions) before finding this site. It's something that could conceivably be described in your terms as "nakedly perceiv[ing] the nature of reality" to "really look at and find who YOU really are tell me honestly what you find." I don't want to go barking up the wrong tree and I certainly think it's possible that an old codger like me with decades of practice, study, minor satoris, etc., has more "enlightenment" baggage to shed than a younger, more unformed person with "beginner's mind." So here goes...

Your ground rules specified, while I should not spend time on other "spiritual sites" during this process, I could continue any meditative practice I was currently engaged in. Help me determine if what you want me to do, the looking into self, is like meditation or is really something else....

Sometimes in meditation, if I really concentrate and focus, if I go deep into silence and drop down below the chatter of thoughts and sensations, I have felt/seen/known/experienced my consciousness at its root as impersonal, pure Nature, universal, without form or feature, a timeless and boundless continuum. This is not direct experience, it takes time and practice to uncover this state, which is not very often. The "I" is briefly empty but omnipresent pure awareness, and I refrain from speculating whether this is like the advaita vedanta Tat Tvam Asi, or 6th jhana/boundless consciousness, or realizing that "I" am actually a human brain: one of the most densely complex and miraculous forms of matter in the universe -- any of which might arguably be related to the anatta dimension because the formations of the "standard self" are voided. Or it could be the illusion of "Essence" within the reality of essence-lessness/anatta. It could also be nothing more that the "aliveness/presence stream momentarily devoid of the other five elements, thoughts, feelings, sensations. It certainly is not "ordinary mind." The glimpse is brief but infused with quiet joy, which is the return of the sensation element.

Bottom line question -- in following your instructions to focus on the self, how deep should my "focus" go?

Bless you for your patience.

Love,

[cosmiK]

Hey,

The only evident properties are thoughts, images, and feelings.

Are any of these personal?

What is the difference between personal and impersonal?

I assume here you were saying not that there is an actual internal and external, but that I was processing these categories in such a way as to make them seem absolute. But I do recognize that internal perceptions and external perceptions are equally perceptions and belong in the same set.

Yes... all just Experiencing. thought labels some of it "internal" and some "external" and strings together further concepts and ideas and the self, the world, others, objects, space and time are born... all in thought. in direct experience there is just Experience.

Yes, it takes the mind to split hairs and say a thought is "internal" and a sight (e.g., the keyboard in front of me now) is "external." They are both being produced as simulations "inside" my brain -- the thought simulates associative neuro-cognitive data processing and the sight simulates a construction of solid matter, plastic, electronic circuitry, etc.

Yes, I appreciate this, but do your best to report from direct experience as much as possible, regardless of how scientific the analysis/theory may be. the first sentence seems to be from dE, and the second goes in to ideas of a brain. just ask... is there a brain in direct experience? :) do you see how it went from dE to thought-stories. No insult to science or your analysis (as it was sound), but just a focus to stick to nakedness, to directness, here and now.

There is no difference in direct experience between internal and external, just the conventional, definitional distinction, which takes place within thinking, not direct experience.

this is Key.

That which claims ownership is the illusory self, but it has learned over the years to be a very litigious advocate for its claims. :)

Right, but notice that this "illusory self" is only a thought. It is still a misunderstanding to claim that there is an illusory self... the illusion arises in thought, and disappears with it. Keep looking in to ownership and checking... is there an owner? where is the only place that ownership can exist? where is the only place that a separate X can own a separate Y?

I am certainly eager for the "collapse." But is there an internal resistance in me?

don't ask me. check.
We've discussed this thought-story about "internal" and "external". And we are also starting to see that a "me" doesn't exist outside of thought. Check again... is there an "internal" where there is a "me" that resists?

In my life, I have sometimes been through what might be called "metaphysical fear" or existential dread, and sometimes that is connected with anticipated "loss of self" within an imagined infinity but I am not feeling any fear or anguish during this process, but it is a struggle, with doubt, with over-expectation, with pre-conceived notions.

thoughts claims it as 'your' life - but thoughts are self-referencing.

all of these doubts, struggles, etc are all just different flavors of experiencing. the important thing to check is if it arises to anyone? is it felt by anyone? is anyone going through this process?
be honest and look.
gently letting be all that is,
is there anyone there to let it be?

It's a persistence that also creates the resistance.

persistence of what?

Bottom line question -- in following your instructions to focus on the self, how deep should my "focus" go?

I appreciate all that you have wrote, but my response would be that this insight is a simple recognition. in fact... it's so simple that you are continuing to overlook it at every apparent second.

all of what you said is bourne out of a story of a person reaching certain 'spiritual' insights. this story is only in thought. that is also something important to recognize. Now alone IS, the rest is a thought story.

that which reads this sentence is not that person, not that story, not what thought says.

If there is anything that i would ask you to do is to really look in to the angles we are covered. that means honestly, gently, alertly and directly noticing what is going on - experiencing. it can be done any time while doing anything. we call this "Looking". it is the most direct, natural and easy meditation. anyone can do it, now. it's not about going deeper, or getting anywhere, it's just about looking simply.

this recognition is simple and it can take a second.

just notice... is there a noticer apart from the noticing?

is there a person that is aware of anything?

is there a "me" that is actually separate from everything else?

the best way to move forward is to continue investigating this, and sticking to the process :) this is why we do it :)

Lots of Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi,

Things are definitely starting to gel in this matter. Simplicity, directness, nothing special, no need for tension.

Thoughts, feelings images.

Are any of these personal?

Not in any absolute sense.

What is the difference between personal and impersonal?

Is there a difference, other than in a "story."

notice that this "illusory self" is only a thought. It is still a misunderstanding to claim that there is an illusory self... the illusion arises in thought, and disappears with it. Keep looking in to ownership and checking... is there an owner? where is the only place that ownership can exist? where is the only place that a separate X can own a separate Y?

The concept of ownership is just part of a story, a thread of thought. I think I see that even the illusory self is not actually a "self" or even a pseudoself. It's like a phrase in a sentence within a paragraph of a myth.

be honest and look.
gently letting be all that is,
is there anyone there to let it be?

That last question really resonates.

really look in to the angles we are covered. that means honestly, gently, alertly and directly noticing what is going on - experiencing. it can be done any time while doing anything. we call this "Looking". it is the most direct, natural and easy meditation. anyone can do it, now. it's not about going deeper, or getting anywhere, it's just about looking simply.
this recognition is simple and it can take a second.
just notice... is there a noticer apart from the noticing?

I think I'm getting the hang of this. No special concentration or cultivation of states of consciousness.

just notice... is there a noticer apart from the noticing?
is there a person that is aware of anything?
is there a "me" that is actually separate from everything else?

Thoughts may be accurate and practical and refer to reality but that does not change the fact that they are thoughts -- weightless, immaterial. Thoughts are not the things in themselves, which are unknowable. I think I know who I am, but I don't -- I am an unknowable thing-in-itself.

If I keep at this, it's going to work.

Love

[Critterfan]

Hi Cosmik,

Are you still there? Everything OK? I feel like I'm making good progress but are you thinking that I have finished the course? I noticed you have posted elsewhere early today. You giving me a break? =:o

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

Are any of these personal?

Not in any absolute sense.

Is anything ever personal ever apart from thought?

The concept of ownership is just part of a story, a thread of thought. I think I see that even the illusory self is not actually a "self" or even a pseudoself. It's like a phrase in a sentence within a paragraph of a myth.

Yes. I like the way you put this.

We often say it like this:
there is no self, the "self" is just a thought, and only exists in thought.

be honest and look.
gently letting be all that is,
is there anyone there to let it be?

That last question really resonates.

Yes :) but please answer it from direct experience :)

I think I'm getting the hang of this. No special concentration or cultivation of states of consciousness.

Not at all. states and experiences come and go... we are looking at the assumed core or self that is behind, controlling or experiencing all of this. That is the CORE misunderstanding... the foundation stone of the illusory house of cards.

Simply notice. no matter what... is there a noticer apart from the noticing? :)

Thoughts may be accurate and practical and refer to reality but that does not change the fact that they are thoughts -- weightless, immaterial. Thoughts are not the things in themselves, which are unknowable. I think I know who I am, but I don't -- I am an unknowable thing-in-itself.

Yes... seeing thoughts as JUST thoughts is KEY. the self exists only in thought.

that which is aware of this sentence is not self or a person. it is Life itself, and that is not personal. two apparent characters cosmiK & Critterfan appear to be discussing Liberation... none of them have any awareness... they are just appearances in/as awareness... in/as Life... in/as consciousness (just 3 words that point to that which is alive and aware of this sentence).

just notice... is the 'first person character' aware of everything else?
or is that first person character just another appearance in/as awareness?

then, write how it is experienced as well. when you are here responding... who is responding to who? are there separate selves here that respond?

If I keep at this, it's going to work.

No "I" to go at anything... an "I" doesn't do anything, only a thought imagines an "I" that does anything :)

SEEing is happening, and Life wakes up to itself from identification with the person that thought claimed was self.

"self" is just an abstract concept, just a thought.

Life is unitary and whole and can never be divided. only thought does that.

--

let us revisit control and choice again :)

can YOU control the first person character any more than you can control the weather?

is it possible for YOU to choose between two things? does choice exist outside of thought?

--

Lots of Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi Cosmik,

I will respond specifically to your challenges later today. I'm currently following your example of reviewing some of our earlier dialogues, focusing on noticing the factors you have been pointing to, and reflecting on the implications, as much "without thought or self reference" as can be attained from time to time. Since you have a lot of responsibilities and things to do, we could set a pace of communicating "every other day" if you wish, and I will use the time to ponder and probe my direct experience as diligently as possible. I definitely feel a difference in my outlook and understanding since we began this around New Year's Day. You've said every moment and every perception is an opportunity to SEE so I am being open to those opportunities. Have a nice day, stay warm and dry, and don't catch the flu.

Maximum Love

[Critterfan]

Is anything ever personal ever apart from thought?

Thought happens without the "person's" control or initiative, but it always spoofs the observer/person by making cognitive processing seem to be volitional and real. In terms of direct experience, the < I > that seems to own the thought, or at least the struggle to form the thought, or faces the consequences/implications of the thought, continues to broadcast its validity. Direct experience is or seems dramatically concentric. How is this "seeming" so convincing, so linked to my inner motions? The flow of unbidden thoughts are outside my control but they also answer to "my" needs --- they propose options and alternatives and possibilities. By "my" I mean the signature of the dominant signal in my experience, the magnetic persuasion that seems to say "I exist and the world around me is my home," sometimes in a whisper and sometimes in a shout.

That said, I can also realize that while "being personal" is very familiar and seems inevitable, nevertheless it's all inside the head, inside the echo chamber of thoughts. The thing is that the sounds from this echo chamber carry messages that seem so consistent, seamless, compelling, rigorous.

be honest and look.
gently letting be all that is,
is there anyone there to let it be?
please answer it from direct experience :)

Life/existence IS/ will BE with or without permission or acquiescence. Even surrendering seems an act of dismissing the "will," but who invokes the dismissal? I can also see that it's all a show, a theatre of intentions and reflections. Ai yi yi yi!

states and experiences come and go... we are looking at the assumed core or self that is behind, controlling or experiencing all of this. That is the CORE misunderstanding... the foundation stone of the illusory house of cards. Simply notice. no matter what... is there a noticer apart from the noticing? :)

Sometimes I think it would be good if I really COULD isolate the noticer behind the noticing -- then I could target it, probe it, dissect it, transcend it, dissolve it.

is the 'first person character' aware of everything else?
or is that first person character just another appearance in/as awareness?
then, write how it is experienced as well. when you are here responding... who is responding to who? are there separate selves here that respond?

Self and thought are co-arising figments of information, but sometimes the "I" state carries the urgency of breathing. Is there a difference between information and the actuality to which is refers or is everything computation? Sometimes it seems that every microsecond engenders a different self. And the non-separation of these selves make them all the more tenacious and durable. They change constantly, and can never be grasped firmly enough to dispose of.

can YOU control the first person character any more than you can control the weather?
is it possible for YOU to choose between two things? does choice exist outside of thought?

Choice is a thought process and contained entirely within thought; equally so is the notion that there is NO choice -- another thought construct. Potential choices I might face seem cosmically significant within the drama of free will. Yet again, "there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so..." (Thus saith Hamlet, the archetypal self of ferociously thoughtful human experience, who also said "To be or not to be, that is the question...")

The demons of ego, id and superego that used to tempt, tantalize or torment me (like they do most folks) are increasingly seen as toothless and empty. I continue to feel a progression towards detachment and release from suffering and yet, still find myself at odds with nothing. On the other hand, in the past week of this work, my relationships and ordinary life are more and more harmonious and stable, although in recent years they have been pretty healthy in any case. The sky at sunset is more beautiful than ever.

Maybe I need to be patient and trust in attrition, trust in the wearing down of the I-construct, the decay of the habit by exposing its nullity. I am feeling free of existential concerns -- and yet I am not in touch with anything that seems ALIVE. Pain is remote, pleasure is remote, but neutrality is not the answer either. I know that all of this is just turbulence and churning of ideas and notions, not evidence of an enduring center of identity. Space and time themselves seem to conspire towards creating this IDENTITY, which is so obviously improvised, so obviously a "house of cards" --- but, but, but....

"And yet, and yet . . . to deny the self, to deny the astronomical universe, appear to be acts of desperation and are secret consolations. Our destiny (unlike the hell of Swedenborg and the hell of Tibetan mythology) is not terrifying because it is unreal; it is terrifying because it is irreversible and iron-bound. Time is the substance of which I am made. Time is a river that sweeps me along, but I am the river; it is a tiger that mangles me, but I am the tiger; it is a fire that consumes me, but I am the fire. The world, unfortunately, is real; I, unfortunately, am Borges."
-- A New Refutation of Time, Jorge Luis Borges (1946)

I feel as if all the excruciating dilemmas of identity and fate were clamoring towards me, but I am curiously unaffected. Who is this unaffected "I"? I know it is not an essence or a reality, but how strongly it exerts its influence!

All of these branchings and tendrils of thought diverge from direct experience, but when I return to direct experience they continue to color it.

I hope I don't seem like too much of a drama queen.

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

. Since you have a lot of responsibilities and things to do, we could set a pace of communicating "every other day" if you wish, and I will use the time to ponder and probe my direct experience as diligently as possible.

As long as there is direct investigation of the angles, then we can do "each day", and do my best to respond every day. Let's do our best to honor that :) It shouldn't be a problem.

Thought happens without the "person's" control or initiative

the "person" exists only in thought. there is just experience/consciousness. only thought selectively labels apparent parts of experience in to "person". if there is just experience, what could ever have control over what?

comment on this: "person" and "control" ONLY exist in thought.

but it always spoofs the observer/person by making cognitive processing seem to be volitional and real.

an "observer" or "person" is simply a thought creation.

in experience there is JUST & ONLY experience. thought labels part of experience "observer".
do you find an observer of experience?
and if you do, isn't that just experience?
snake chasing it's tail :)

In terms of direct experience, the < I > that seems to own the thought, or at least the struggle to form the thought, or faces the consequences/implications of the thought, continues to broadcast its validity.

in direct experience, do you find an "I" that owns thought? or would it be more accurate to say that "I" is just a thought.

"I" arises in thought, as does "struggle, ownership, consequences, etc etc". outside of the content of thought, is there an actual "I" there?

Direct experience is or seems dramatically concentric. How is this "seeming" so convincing, so linked to my inner motions? The flow of unbidden thoughts are outside my control but they also answer to "my" needs --- they propose options and alternatives and possibilities. By "my" I mean the signature of the dominant signal in my experience, the magnetic persuasion that seems to say "I exist and the world around me is my home," sometimes in a whisper and sometimes in a shout.

when we say direct experience, we are just pointing to a simplicity.

the only place it may be dramatic or concentric is in thought. thoughts constantly self-referencing and pointing to an imagined center/self/"I" that is never there in actual reality. just look and see if you can find this center. is it there? is "center" or "self" or "I" ever more than a thought reference?

Keep staring at your always apparent absence. This is a very simple recognition.

That said, I can also realize that while "being personal" is very familiar and seems inevitable, nevertheless it's all inside the head, inside the echo chamber of thoughts. The thing is that the sounds from this echo chamber carry messages that seem so consistent, seamless, compelling, rigorous.

Of course, when strings of thought keep referencing themselves over and over again, it definitely seems that way, but look beyond thoughts and see if there really is this "me", if there really is an actual "inner" and "outer" division. Does any of that stuff exist apart from thought?

Life/existence IS/ will BE with or without permission or acquiescence. Even surrendering seems an act of dismissing the "will," but who invokes the dismissal? I can also see that it's all a show, a theatre of intentions and reflections. Ai yi yi yi!

Yes.... just Life/consciousness. permission, dismissal, and even surrender, are just thought-stories.

Who/what could ever give permission to anything else, but thought?
Who/what could ever surrender, but in a thought story?

Sometimes I think it would be good if I really COULD isolate the noticer behind the noticing -- then I could target it, probe it, dissect it, transcend it, dissolve it.

Again... this is very simple... it can be done anywhere, anytime... Now
you are making it some thing that has to be done... something that has to be changed... that is NOT the case.
it already IS... it just needs to be recognized!

in what is experienced... do you find an experiencer?
in what is noticed... do you find a noticer?
in what is observed... do you find an observer?

You avoided answering this directly. Please LOOK and Investigate this and identify which is more accurate. Then comment on how it appears in direct experience for you.
is the 'first person character' (commonly referred to as ME) aware of everything else?
or is that first person character just another appearance in/as awareness?

and... does the first person character have any more awareness than a rock/tv screen?

--

It's important that when questions are posed, they are answered 1 by 1, directly, and then any comments afterwards please. Again... answer the questions DIRECTLY, 1 by 1. Try this one again:

can YOU control the first person character any more than you can control the weather?
is it possible for YOU to choose between two things? does choice exist outside of thought?

I feel as if all the excruciating dilemmas of identity and fate were clamoring towards me, but I am curiously unaffected. Who is this unaffected "I"? I know it is not an essence or a reality, but how strongly it exerts its influence!

there is no "me"... there is no "I". there is no thing to exert influence on anything else. "me" and "I" are just thoughts that do not point to anything substantial.

if you look in direct experience you will find JUST experience. ONLY thought divides it up, and ONLY thought references an "I" or a "me". Stick to this simple investigation and all the rest will fall in to place. You keep asking and talking about this "I" as it if actually exists. Does it? Is it anything more than a thought?

All of these branchings and tendrils of thought diverge from direct experience, but when I return to direct experience they continue to color it.

let whatever happen happen. there is way too much focus on the content on thought, and not enough focus here on the focus of this investigation.

in whatever happens... does it happen to anyone? CHECK.

is there a "you" at the center of all of this?

I hope I don't seem like too much of a drama queen.

Re-read the contract and make sure that the process is honored. The key here is referring to moment to moment experience, here and now. simple noticing. I ask questions so attention is directed, then investigation begins, and there is a response from you with as much respect to direct experience as possible. this is the way the process works (yes it actually works), so I advise sticking to that, and making that the only focus. The rest of the tendrils and branchings and apparent drama only exist as woven by thought.

with Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi Cosmik,

Thanks for helping me stay on track.

Thought happens without the "person's" control or initiative
the "person" exists only in thought. there is just experience/consciousness. only thought selectively labels apparent parts of experience in to "person". if there is just experience, what could ever have control over what?
comment on this: "person" and "control" ONLY exist in thought.

I can't control the motions and notions of the person that seems to be within what the word "I" refers to. When I reflect upon the person, or try to exert control, the "person" appears as a fuzzy self image in experience, but is not the consciousness performing the reflection. When I have the idea of "a consciousness performing the reflection," it takes a fraction of a second the realize I've only just launched another thought. That realization is also just another thought. As I write this, the writing and verbalizing morphs from being a flowing action into an experience captured in memory. My awareness is only of memories, even though it's made of memories of what happened a few milliseconds before.

an "observer" or "person" is simply a thought creation.
in experience there is JUST & ONLY experience. thought labels part of experience "observer".
do you find an observer of experience?
and if you do, isn't that just experience?
snake chasing it's tail :)

The observer of experience turns out to be just a memory picturing "myself" having such and such experience; however the experience itself, any experience, is not conscious. It is content, a usually coherent set of information, but not consciousness itself. Is consciousness itself, too, just an idea -- an experience of visualizing my head gazing out into the world?

in direct experience, do you find an "I" that owns thought? or would it be more accurate to say that "I" is just a thought.
"I" arises in thought, as does "struggle, ownership, consequences, etc etc". outside of the content of thought, is there an actual "I" there?

There is only the shimmering flow of the stream of the elements of direct Experience, but the instant that shimmer and flow appear as such, they are no longer direct Experience, but a memory, a thought, not aware, not conscious, not a "person" or "controller."

when we say direct experience, we are just pointing to a simplicity.

the only place it may be dramatic or concentric is in thought. thoughts constantly self-referencing and pointing to an imagined center/self/"I" that is never there in actual reality. just look and see if you can find this center. is it there? is "center" or "self" or "I" ever more than a thought reference?
Keep staring at your always apparent absence. This is a very simple recognition.

When I stare at the "apparent absence", it keeps solidifying into thought, into the components of experience, nothing more. As that happens, it's not very simple at all. When I try to BE in the simplicity, I form the thought: "simplicity."

Of course, when strings of thought keep referencing themselves over and over again, it definitely seems that way, but look beyond thoughts and see if there really is this "me", if there really is an actual "inner" and "outer" division. Does any of that stuff exist apart from thought?

I trust my previous responses in this post about "any of that stuff" are consistent with your points all along -- i.e., none of it is apart from thought.

Who/what could ever give permission to anything else, but thought?
Who/what could ever surrender, but in a thought story?

It seems truly impossible for this awake brain (or anyone's?) to "not think" (other than to form an image of a blankness or the idea of a "frozen" or suspended stream of consciousness, which is an image, not a reality. It is not possible to surrender in a way that is not merely a mental picture of "surrendering." I think this is true even in so-called deep meditation on nothingness. Nothingness becomes a featureless image, but an image nonetheless.

in what is experienced... do you find an experiencer?
in what is noticed... do you find a noticer?
in what is observed... do you find an observer?

You avoided answering this directly. Please LOOK and Investigate this and identify which is more accurate. Then comment on how it appears in direct experience for you.
is the 'first person character' (commonly referred to as ME) aware of everything else?
or is that first person character just another appearance in/as awareness?
and... does the first person character have any more awareness than a rock/tv screen?

I'm really trying to answer or comment directly, descriptively, honestly. When I observe experience, there is a naive, automatic tendency to imagine myself on a "mental" sofa watching the tv screen of "experience." But that cannot be right. That "mental me" is only a thought. As I try to experience direct experiences, while responding to the question, it's clearly just more ripples of thoughts, images, feelings, including the "I try[ing] to experience."

can YOU control the first person character any more than you can control the weather?
is it possible for YOU to choose between two things? does choice exist outside of thought?

All these "efforts" to capture the experiencer are clearer outside of central control. At first it seems like I am "choosing" to make the effort of control, but all of this is nothing more than thought sequences.

here is no "me"... there is no "I". there is no thing to exert influence on anything else. "me" and "I" are just thoughts that do not point to anything substantial.

if you look in direct experience you will find JUST experience. ONLY thought divides it up, and ONLY thought references an "I" or a "me". Stick to this simple investigation and all the rest will fall in to place. You keep asking and talking about this "I" as it if actually exists. Does it? Is it anything more than a thought?

Sometimes I am "talking about this 'I'" in order to answer the questions, but "I" do acknowledge that nothing more than thoughts, intentions, feelings are in play.

in whatever happens... does it happen to anyone? CHECK.
is there a "you" at the center of all of this?

I'm sure there is no "me" at the center, but there does seem to be a "center" out of which thoughts present themselves, spontaneously (i.e., without a controller).

I don't want to merely "make the leap of faith" and firmly believe (even with complete logical rigor as well) that "I" don't exist apart from direct Experience and am therefore "liberated." That would be bogus and certainly doesn't seem enough to dissolve the pre-conscious assumption that this "non-existence of self" is nevertheless something in itself. I can see this as a logical contradiction, a paradox, but it keeps me locked into these thought-illusions. WHO is the one being locked up? Yes, no one is locked. There is a feeling of being locked up -- not particularly unpleasant, but still it feels like something that could or should dissolve. If I keep focusing on and

staring at [my] always apparent absence

will this "very simple recognition," this "simplicity" liberate me? -- to put it more consistently with this process, cause it to "actually work"?

I hope the tendrils and branchings in some of my answers are my efforts to face the topic, not evade it. I have tried to put it in terms of direct experience, but keep me on task. It's so easy to go off on tangents.

Love back at ya!

[cosmiK]

Hey there :)

My awareness is only of memories, even though it's made of memories of what happened a few milliseconds before.

I like this reflection - you are really testing your angles out in dE and THEN commenting on it. Great!

The observer of experience turns out to be just a memory picturing "myself" having such and such experience; however the experience itself, any experience, is not conscious. It is content, a usually coherent set of information, but not consciousness itself. Is consciousness itself, too, just an idea -- an experience of visualizing my head gazing out into the world?

well it's important to see what you mean by consciousness.

is there a consciousness that is conscious of experience, or JUST experience? or we can also say JUST consciousness.

that way I use consciousness or experiencing in this investigation, is that they are meta-labels that point to the entirety of what shows up. They point to an undivided whole. we divide that whole in to 6 sense streams, but really we can just say consciousness alone is... or there is only experiencing.

it's important to not make consciousness in to some separate point that sees everything else - that is just a repackaging of the individual/self. can you find any separation between that which is sees and what is see?

is it possible that consciousness is self-aware? if experience is self-aware?

if there is just this, One?

is there and could there ever be a self in that?

There is only the shimmering flow of the stream of the elements of direct Experience, but the instant that shimmer and flow appear as such, they are no longer direct Experience, but a memory, a thought, not aware, not conscious, not a "person" or "controller."

Yes... Just Experience, and as soon as it is attempted to be grasped it becomes a memory... a thought :) I like your analysis here.

A nice question is... did anything ever happen? is anything ever happening? will anything ever happen? :) is this all an illusion? :) (don't take this too seriously... it's just a little pointer in there for fun, and may be beyond the scope of this investigation)

When I stare at the "apparent absence", it keeps solidifying into thought, into the components of experience, nothing more. As that happens, it's not very simple at all. When I try to BE in the simplicity, I form the thought: "simplicity."

Yes... let go of the trying and notice if there is a self / "I" that could ever try to BE.
Being IS... but where is the "I" in that besides thought? :)

It seems truly impossible for this awake brain (or anyone's?) to "not think" (other than to form an image of a blankness or the idea of a "frozen" or suspended stream of consciousness, which is an image, not a reality. It is not possible to surrender in a way that is not merely a mental picture of "surrendering." I think this is true even in so-called deep meditation on nothingness. Nothingness becomes a featureless image, but an image nonetheless.

Yes you have some really good insights here about thought. But again, stay focused... in whatever is experienced... keep noticing... is there a separate self? a person? in any of that? keep staring at that simple recognition. That's my 'job' here... to keep pointing you back to that unquestioned assumption till the foundation POPS.

As I try to experience direct experiences, while responding to the question, it's clearly just more ripples of thoughts, images, feelings, including the "I try[ing] to experience."

Yes... relax a tad more and just simply notice whatever is showing up... does it/can it be showing up to anyone? and if attention shifts to something in response to that question isn't that just another 'showing up', another experience?

drive it home - is there a self in anything that shows up...

are you separate from any of it?

All these "efforts" to capture the experiencer are clearer outside of central control. At first it seems like I am "choosing" to make the effort of control, but all of this is nothing more than thought sequences.

Yes... keep noticing that these sequences happen automatically just like everything else. There is no-one there doing/choosing any of it. If that is doubted, look and see if you can find the doer/chooser and the answer is always there.

I'm sure there is no "me" at the center, but there does seem to be a "center" out of which thoughts present themselves, spontaneously (i.e., without a controller)

good, stare at this "center" too. "center" is just a thought label, a point of location, probably associated with something related to "self" (maybe)... regardless... drop the thought of center and notice...

is the "center" any more than experiencing itself?

is there an actual "center"?

:)

I don't want to merely "make the leap of faith" and firmly believe (even with complete logical rigor as well) that "I" don't exist apart from direct Experience and am therefore "liberated." That would be bogus and certainly doesn't seem enough to dissolve the pre-conscious assumption that this "non-existence of self" is nevertheless something in itself. I can see this as a logical contradiction, a paradox, but it keeps me locked into these thought-illusions. WHO is the one being locked up? Yes, no one is locked. There is a feeling of being locked up -- not particularly unpleasant, but still it feels like something that could or should dissolve. If I keep focusing on and

Yes... noone need to believe anything. You just investigate, report, and I point. You will see the simplicity/answers for yourself.

When you point to an "I" that exists apart from experience... do you see that WHATEVER that "I" points to is ALSO just experience. ONLY experience.

Life simply wakes up to itself

consciousness simply frees itself from identification.

I hope the tendrils and branchings in some of my answers are my efforts to face the topic, not evade it. I have tried to put it in terms of direct experience, but keep me on task. It's so easy to go off on tangents.

You're doing really well. I appreciate you answers, but just want to make sure you are indeed LOOKing and answering the questions directly BEFORE you comment. This is very important - it is part of a process that is tried and true :)

So...

Really LOOK...

Is there a separate "you" in any form?
was there ever?
can there ever be?

what does "I" and "me" point to in Direct Experience?
and whatever it points to... is it an actual self?

with Love.

[Critterfan]

Some of the questions were harder to answer in writing in terms of direct experience instead of conceptual elaboration, but I am trying to be responsive and pertinent to the challenges. However, before writing them down, I am trying to attend to direct experience in the direction your questions were pointing me.

what you mean by consciousness.
is there a consciousness that is conscious of experience, or JUST experience? or we can also say JUST consciousness.

"Consciousness" and "experiencing" basically refer to the same process -- The former perhaps implies more of an entity than is really there -- the participial -ing form is more useful -- "being conscious" or "experiencing."

really we can just say consciousness alone is... or there is only experiencing.
it's important to not make consciousness in to some separate point that sees everything else - that is just a repackaging of the individual/self.

I think I understand the importance of this. The "spiritual" search to be free of illusion carries a constant risk of generating illusion, for example wish-fulfillment -- to realize that separate, omniscient "point" and thus become godlike.

can you find any separation between that which is sees and what is see?
is it possible that consciousness is self-aware? if experience is self-aware?
if there is just this, One? is there and could there ever be a self in that?

No, no, no, and no.

Direct experiencing only carries "a self" as content, as a thought form, analogous to the English language carrying the word "self" in this sentence. In a way, everything is code -- information, regardless of which words or concepts it can be translated into. MY SELF is not what is writing this sentence. And these sentences only refer to reality because we have agreed to play the game of language.

Experience or "Being conscious" is just a descriptive, symbolic string that seems to imply "something" (a center) that is awake and knowing. But when I am actually conscious, I can't be conscious of myself as consciousness, anymore than the eye can "see itself as itself," except from the "outside" using the artificial gimmick of a mirror. If I say "I am conscious of myself, a conscious being," it is just a verbal statement reporting that I am carrying an idea or image of myself -- the thought of myself "being conscious." I can't be conscious of consciousness. Whatever "I" am, is nothing more than a moment in consciousness.

"Self awareness" sort of violates "truth in labeling", unless we limit the term to factors like: I know that my Myers-Briggs profile is such and such, I like cold watermelon, I don't wear a hat except rarely, in the hot sun. Cataloging my supposed attributes is not the experiencing of self. I think you are saying that the self cannot be experienced because consciousness cannot be experienced in itself.

A nice question is... did anything ever happen? is anything ever happening? will anything ever happen? is this all an illusion

I'll answer that in the playful sense that you asked it. "From the very beginning, not a single thing is..." Nothing is happening in the real world sense because reality is "undifferentiated energy soup" or maybe "the Tao". When "something happens", it's just a useful simulation within a specific configuration of the energy soup called my "neural network" -- an illusion if you will, but that doesn't mean a delusion or a fantasy -- just as an accurate photograph of an apple is not something juicy and tart to eat anymore than the word "A P P L E" is.

notice if there is a self / "I" that could ever try to BE.
Being IS... but where is the "I" in that besides thought? :)

"I" is just a thought. I am just an ongoing cascade of thinking.

simply notice whatever is showing up... does it/can it be showing up to anyone? and if attention shifts to something in response to that question isn't that just another 'showing up', another experience?
drive it home - is there a self in anything that shows up...
are you separate from any of it?

I (that is, this cascade of self-representational thinking) am different from this and that set of sensory experiences only in the sense of being a different combination of the 7 elements of experience than the collection expressed by, for example, the experience of the lamp on my desk here, but not separate absolutely, not something other then another experience.

"center" is just a thought label, a point of location, probably associated with something related to "self" (maybe)... regardless... drop the thought of center and notice...
is the "center" any more than experiencing itself?
is there an actual "center"?

There is no actual living center, just the idea of a center, like a concept in geometry, a leaf in the stream of consciousness.

WHATEVER that "I" points to is ALSO just experience. ONLY experience.
Life simply wakes up to itself
consciousness simply frees itself from identification.

I manufacture this nonexistent self in the constant process of projecting "what it would be like" to free myself from identification-- another act of imagination that preserves and exalts the separate self, just as someone manufactures a desired self by imagining a future in which they win the lottery or fall in love.

Is there a separate "you" in any form?
was there ever?
can there ever be?
what does "I" and "me" point to in Direct Experience?
and whatever it points to... is it an actual self?

I look and look. I can see that nothing is there that is ME, but I keep expecting to be....

I guess that conceptually I accept that because I/ME appears to be that which is creating experience, I/ME cannot be experienced. However, that implies a separate, super-entity or a realm the mind could inhabit that is beyond or prior to experience. It's a nice idea, seductive, spiritual, but if what is real for the mind is only that which can be observed by the mind, there is no actuality to it.

I feel that I understand this conceptually, but the restless seeking persists. I will keep looking and staring in the direction where my "self" seems to originate -- to eventually have it "pop" like a soap bubble. Or is that another way of misleading myself?

Love.

[cosmiK]

Hey,

so it's just important to remember with words like consciousness and experiencing, they only point to that which IS, here and now. it is just to point to the undividedness. in that sense consciousness is not some container for everything, or whatever everything else is IN, but consciousness IS whatever shows up. thought = consciousness, senses = consciousness, feeling = consciousness. Consciousness is it all. Just a meta-label. It isn't some separate container or thing that houses everything else... it IS everything.

Does that make sense?

"Self awareness" sort of violates "truth in labeling", unless we limit the term to factors like: I know that my Myers-Briggs profile is such and such, I like cold watermelon, I don't wear a hat except rarely, in the hot sun. Cataloging my supposed attributes is not the experiencing of self. I think you are saying that the self cannot be experienced because consciousness cannot be experienced in itself.

When I say experiencing is self-aware, or consciousness that is aware of itself... I mean that there is no separate seer/seen... seer/seen are just two concepts that point to One reality. only thought would divide that. that is why we use direct experience...

when you refer to direct experience... do you find any separation at all? whatsoever?

what i am referring to is there is ONLY consciousness (or awareness, or this (whatever word is fine)). we can also say that consciousness is aware of itself, or that it is self aware (not that there is a SELF, but that consciousness doesn't need anything separate to be aware of it).

I guess that conceptually I accept that because I/ME appears to be that which is creating experience, I/ME cannot be experienced. However, that implies a separate, super-entity or a realm the mind could inhabit that is beyond or prior to experience. It's a nice idea, seductive, spiritual, but if what is real for the mind is only that which can be observed by the mind, there is no actuality to it.

Ok, this is an idea... test it out.

Isn't "what cannot be experienced" ONLY a thought?

There is nothing hidden from you.. it's in plain sight. ONLY thought adds all kinds of extras over what-is-here-now.

Can you find an "I/me" that is creating experience?

I feel that I understand this conceptually, but the restless seeking persists. I will keep looking and staring in the direction where my "self" seems to originate -- to eventually have it "pop" like a soap bubble. Or is that another way of misleading myself?

Keep LOOKing...

in direct experience.

Is there a self?

What are you?

-

Lots of Love.