Ready to dive in...

[vinceschubert]

the "this is just a story."

Ok, it's time we moved on from the "just a story" to 'a story'. Moving from believing story to be reality, to believing story to be Not real, is another belief. Now it's time to recognize that story exists and that there are useful stories as well as those that distort reality.

Is it a belief without doubt that fingers are typing, body is breathing?

The distinguishing feature of belief is that it is always ABOUT. Fingers typing, body breathing is experienced directly, so not belief.

so clarity means direct experience.

Hmm, yes. We have to be careful that we don't apply meaning to direct experience. Meaning is belief. (because it is ABOUT it)
Is clarity, direct experiencing ?

but not sure about the second part... i have no idea if there is another reality. and certainly my experiencing is different from your experiencing. so i don't know.

Ok, put it another way. Can you experience my experiencing ?
Obviously not. So it can only be conceptualized by you.
What is real outside of your experiencing ? Nothing ! It can only be conceptualized by you.
Your only reality is your Now experiencing. Right ?

but this "sense" requires the mind to be involved.

The mind is involved if it is other than "shivering occurring."

there's still a sense that the shivering is happening to me or by me,

Yes, there's still a sense that the earth is flat and that the sun goes across it too.

Confusion OF this organism arises!!!

Confusion is interesting. Have you examined the sensations while it is rampant ?

love vince

[ixturtle]

back home. not much to report. i thought (hoped?) some time far away might shift things, but of course, SEEING can only be here as it is.

the distinction of "ABOUT" from your last post has been a helpful distinction. when upset, i seem so attached to the "about" and yet it makes me miserable. i can see that the direct experience isn't actually making me miserable, just the "about"-- and yet i still choose it. truly insane. but it's as if my survival depends on it-- which i suppose it does, if i'm talking about ME.

the last few years i was under the impression that i was choosing happiness, and it seemed to work. i would surprise myself regularly by how happy i was. currently i'm under the impression that i don't have to "choose" anything-- things get chosen, but what keeps getting chosen seems to hurl me regularly into a bleak self-hating, life-hating depression-- not pretty.

perhaps this latter is more authentic, but it doesn't feel very liberating. of course, this too is ABOUT. what's here is ok i guess.

well, in any case, these fingers are typing on this site again, so that's something.

peace,
ix

[vinceschubert]

and yet i still choose it.

Is it a choice ? or does it happen automatically ?

it's as if my survival depends on it-- which i suppose it does, if i'm talking about ME.

There isn't a "me" to not survive. How can what never existed, cease to exist ?
Is there a self other than as a concept ?

but what keeps getting chosen seems to hurl me regularly into a bleak self-hating, life-hating depression

See if you can find a specific example of what gets chosen. Follow this with the form that the "life-hating takes on its' way to the depression.

well, in any case, these fingers are typing on this site again, so that's something.

Yes, good to 'talk' again.

love love

vince

[ixturtle]

Is it a choice ? or does it happen automatically ?

not a choice... if it were "I" would not choose it... but no "I" and no "choice", just choosing, insane or no.

Is there a self other than as a concept ?

even if self is only a concept, it seems to drive this mind/body's entire experiencing...
how to see through...

See if you can find a specific example of what gets chosen. Follow this with the form that the "life-hating takes on its' way to the depression.

so the supposed "choice" is seeing that there is nothing in direct experience to cause distress but to nevertheless continue to believe and get caught up in a story, which then triggers feelings of helplessness, self-pity, etc...which in turn are made up of sensations in the body (direct experience) and lots more story (more "about").

thought arises, that i need this blog to be the first thing i do in the day, not the last... and also to get back to posting more often in general. but that's the part of me that believes i need to work at it... anyway, we'll see what gets chosen...

peace to you dear friend,
ix

[ixturtle]

had an interesting moment this evening during yoga class when i was on a roll (topic was-- surprise-- direct experience vs. "about") and in the middle of it the thought arose -- notable because i had been dreading being back in the role of teacher again-- "wow, i really am pretty good at this" but instantly as the thought appeared i saw that that too was "about" and that meanwhile everything was absolutely ordinary and beautiful. quite sweet.

well off to bed.

hope all is well--
ix.

[vinceschubert]

instantly as the thought appeared i saw that that too was "about" and that meanwhile everything was absolutely ordinary and beautiful. quite sweet.

aah, why are there tears here on reading this ?
It's more than "sweet" (maybe it's the 'sweet spot') There is not only the content of the SEEing, there is the process of SEEing. Where did the thought come from, the SEEing "that this too is about". What shift heralded a 'permission' for this to occur ?
You might think that i'm making too much of it, but this 'happening' is to become the norm, will become more frequent, until you almost don't notice them because of the familiarity.

love love

vince

[ixturtle]

i knew you would probably see more to that than i do, but it's a good sign post in any case-- that it isn't fancy, it just is, and it happens without making it happen, in its own time.

feeling very busy minded just now, but so it is.

[vinceschubert]

grin

[ixturtle]

ok but...

like "this is it", there is still a disconnect between what's underneath "about" and the seeing of no self.

of course i understand that the "about" is what constitutes the fabricated sense of self. without "about", there's no self. i say that, but i don't really SEE it. direct experience still seems to get filtered through a "me".

i know you once responded to a question of mine like that as "and the sun seems to revolve around the earth." yet i've never SEEN that it doesn't-- i've been told that, and seen diagrams and movies, but i don't have direct experience of the earth moving around the sun. it's a mental concept that this mind has accepted the evidence for as "TRUE".

but we want direct seeing here-- direct seeing that experiencing doesn't need or include or point to a personal entity.

grappling with it mentally doesn't work, but it does seem to support accidental seeing in some other way. certain thoughts land and then surface on their own which shift perspective, even if briefly.

on a different note, i haven't been checking in on rose lately. i suppose i could do so right now. do you have any suggestions/ideas/requests with respect to your original idea that we would support each other's process?

[vinceschubert]

the seeing of no self.

i always chuckle at the oxymoron of seeing something that is not there. i think the idea is that you look and when you don't find it, then there is an acceptance that it doesn't exist. Well, maybe not quite like that. There is lots of Recognition of aspects of the illusion in the Looking.
For me the portal was "THIS-IS-IT!" and once 'there', the 'no self' thing was obvious.

direct experience still seems to get filtered through a "me".

Is it the direct experiencing that gets filtered or the description/explanation of it ?

the sun seems to revolve around the earth.

Yes, this is a tricky one. On the one hand we are saying that your only Reality is that which you are directly Experiencing, yet here is an example of how we can't trust our Experiencing to deliver us the truth. But if we investigate a little deeper, we realize that our direct Experiencing doesn't show us the sun moving at all. It is only mind, concept that says "it was there, and now it is here, ergo movement has occurred."
The direct experience model is simply to differentiate concept from experiential reality. It is easy to see the about stuff is the cause of all of the suffering ever experienced, isn't it ?
Really, we are going to reach a point where we simply enjoy Life-ing as a perpetual discovery, whilst navigating daily existence without inducing suffering by believing concept is actual.

but we want direct seeing here-- direct seeing that experiencing doesn't need or include or point to a personal entity.

meat sack + concept = personal(ity)
When we wake up to discover that out boat has come adrift from its' mooring while we were dreaming, what is there to do but hoist the sail and navigate to somewhere interesting ?

i suppose i could do so right now. do you have any suggestions/ideas/requests with respect to your original idea that we would support each other's process?

Good to take it up again. There is much that seem pertinent to both of you.

love love peace & wonderFull-ness to you

vince

[ixturtle]

i think the idea is that you look and when you don't find it, then there is an acceptance that it doesn't exist.

ok. so i feel like what i'm about to say puts me WAY back at the very beginning of this string, BUT this process seems more spiral than linear so here it is:

when i look, i DO find it (or so it seems). i mean, when i think through it I can talk myself into the logic of no-self and i find many folks (over the centuries) who have spoken about this (including you) to have proven themselves to be utterly wise and trustworthy. i get that thought exists on top of experience and SELF is a thought. but nevertheless perception of experience happens-- and it happens in the context of this mind and body (and its unique to this mind/body, and indeed completely distinct from your mind/body). i'm not sure of the language here as "ownership" and "belonging" are words that i know require thought (of course-- they are words), but if there's a way to get underneath this relationship such that perception of this "relationship" between subject and object shifts (in experience, not just in mind), i can't speak to that yet.

[ixturtle]

whoops... pushed submit before i was done...

For me the portal was "THIS-IS-IT!" and once 'there', the 'no self' thing was obvious.

i know we went through this before (and i think i even answered my own question before) but WHY?!?! why can't THIS BE IT also include "self" (of course the STORY is included, but i'm talking about the content). WHY WHY WHY? What was the so obvious about it?

ixturtle wrote:direct experience still seems to get filtered through a "me".

Is it the direct experiencing that gets filtered or the description/explanation of it ?

this probably gets back at that spiral issue again. but my rant says YES, THE DIRECT EXPERIENCE IS HAPPENING TO/THROUGH THE PERCEPTION OF THIS MIND/BODY. IT'S OBVIOUS. YES THE MIND MAKES A STORY (DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION) ON TOP OF IT, AND TO ANSWER A LATER QUESTION, YES, THAT STORY CREATES THE SUFFERING, HOWEVER THE DIRECT EXPERIENCE IS STILL CONNECTED TO THIS MIND/BODY, AND THAT MAKES IT UNIQUE TO THAT MIND BODY. DOES IT MAKE IT PERSONAL? WELL, WE'RE IN THE LAND OF LANGUAGE HERE AND THAT'S ALL STORY, AND SO OBVIOUSLY "PERSONAL" IS A STORY...BUT I FEEL SO VERY STUCK ON THIS ISSUE. TYPING, THINKING, HEARING-- ALL THAT FEELS MORE AUTHENTIC THEN "I TYPE, I THINK, I HEAR" ETC., I GET THAT. BUT STILL THAT TYPING, THINKING, HEARING IS UNIQUE TO THIS MIND/BODY. THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP. SO WHAT THE #$#?!?!#$% AM "I" MISSING!?!?!?!

ok. enough rant energy.

our direct Experiencing doesn't show us the sun moving at all. It is only mind, concept that says "it was there, and now it is here, ergo movement has occurred."

that's a new insight as to how precise and finite direct experiencing really is...

meat sack + concept = personal(ity)

if the meat sack were not capable of entertaining concepts-- say a dog?-- would it still not have preferences and quirks (which to me amount to personality)? the dog wouldn't perceive it as such i suppose. its just acting out its conditioning. and i can accept that it has no sense of its life story, but does a dog really have no concept of itself as separate from life? is that true? please help me see this if you can...

did go through rose's pages last night-- a few things jumped out at me, which i'll just list here:

"Wanting things to be different, locks them in. You empower what you resist.
Only acceptance allows change."

"The first difference between the liberated and 'others', is that the liberated have stopped believing that they are the character in the story. The result of this is that they then recognize when they start to 'act out' the script, and with that recognition, a dropping of the responding to beliefs that come out of the story. Each time a dropping occurs, the neuronal pathways associated with the habitual expressing of the reactive emotion, is weakened. It starts to atrophy with disuse. In a relatively (relative to the years lived in the delusion that an I was actual) quickly all of the extra dross is no longer a feature in the liberateds' life-ing. Considering that this Reality distorting shit permeated all waking life (and even sleeping dreams), a huge burden has been lifted.
The result of the elimination of this load, is much more than just the absence of all of this emotion. On a physical level, the body is not flooded with stress hormones regularly, which has obvious benefits. On another level, an innate 'wisdom' is revealed that was previously swamped with the old reactions to almost every situation. There is a 'knowing' of all that needs to be known in every situation that 'life presents'."

the liberated have stopped believing that they are the character in the story.

been mulling that one over today, but if you could elaborate i would be grateful... i feel like there's more here for me in this. like its WAY important.

"When does a story become the source of suffering ?
Is it when we respond to the conceptual instead of to the Experiencing ?"

starting to get that one clearly... although it seems to ebb and flow.

[vinceschubert]

but if there's a way to get underneath this relationship such that perception of this "relationship" between subject and object shifts (in experience, not just in mind),

There is no "way' to DO this, unless you describe the putting in place those dependent conditions that may be 'influenced' by our intentions.

but WHY?!?! why can't THIS BE IT

It IS it ! This is always IT. 'It', not being liberation or enlightenment, but 'What IS'.

What was the so obvious about it?

If i could make it obvious for 'you' with words, then most of the world would be liberated (centuries ago)

THE DIRECT EXPERIENCE IS HAPPENING TO/THROUGH THE PERCEPTION OF THIS MIND/BODY.

If the mind is involved at all then it is not direct experiencing. The mind (words) used to describe that experiencing, although they are about, doesn't distort, as long as it it realized that they are not it. Thought that are the result of those original thoughts, do distort. The moment logic or deduction begins, assumptions (beliefs) enter and distortion begins.
Can you stop the mind at the first (descriptive) level of thought ?
There is still filtering by the organism. Preferences, conditioned perceptions (eg. the eye doesn't pass messages to the brain that the brain has told it is of no interest) etc.

DOES IT MAKE IT PERSONAL?

If it is believed that it is happening to a 'self', then it is personal. Both 'self' and 'personal' are conceptual. Personal needs defending. That is where suffering starts.

SO WHAT THE #$#?!?!#$% AM "I" MISSING!?!?!?!

There is nothing missing. It's the extra baggage that is the 'problem', that is obscuring the 'basic' Reality.

f the meat sack were not capable of entertaining concepts-- say a dog?-- would it still not have preferences and quirks

Sure, and as someone that believes in the illusion, we would describe the dogs quirks as his personality, but that is not the same as when we take things personally. Insult a dog and see what ensues.

but does a dog really have no concept of itself as separate from life? is that true?

i would say that this is true for dogs and babies, but as i am neither, it can only be story, which may or may not be true.

the liberated have stopped believing that they are the character in the story.
been mulling that one over today, but if you could elaborate i would be grateful... i feel like there's more here for me in this. like its WAY important.

i imagine that you are saying that it resonates there. Is it that you feel that there is something for the mind to grasp which might result in you being able to DO something to 'get it' ?
The story still exists, the protagonist still has the same name, but now it is NOT personal. (incidentally, both the story and the main characters role in it will be modified significantly, even though the audience may not notice this.) Nobody has done this. It is the result of a Recognition that happened when all of the necessary dependent conditions aligned. How this occurred is way too complex to be analyzed, but if you don't hit golf balls towards a green, you'll never get a hole in one. (and you are hitting lots of golf balls in the right direction and have got many very close, so keep hitting them baby.)

heartfelt love

vince

[ixturtle]

f the mind is involved at all then it is not direct experiencing. The mind (words) used to describe that experiencing, although they are about, doesn't distort, as long as it it realized that they are not it. Thought that are the result of those original thoughts, do distort. The moment logic or deduction begins, assumptions (beliefs) enter and distortion begins.

This is a helpful disctinction...

Can you stop the mind at the first (descriptive) level of thought ?

No, but sometimes I can notice it...

If it is believed that it is happening to a 'self', then it is personal. Both 'self' and 'personal' are conceptual. Personal needs defending. That is where suffering starts.

This makes so much sense-- why I get so frustrated with the suffering and why despite all the mindfulness and spiritual tools at my disposal, it continues-- no matter how skillfully I try to negotiate it all... because deep down i still believe that it is happening to "me." Good to see any way...

Insult a dog and see what ensues.

I can't use words but tone does elicit a conditioned response-- if fear arises, the dog is suffering, no? (I'm sure you're going to say "no, it doesn't suffer, there is just an experience of fear arising"... BUT...)

Is it that you feel that there is something for the mind to grasp which might result in you being able to DO something to 'get it' ?

Probably... hahaha. But I'm just hitting golf balls over here! :-)

[vinceschubert]

Can you stop the mind at the first (descriptive) level of thought ?
No, but sometimes I can notice it...

Can't ask for anything more. Perhaps a trigger can be set for Recognition of the switch between the descriptive thoughts and those that follow. This will allow the dropping of the ensuing conceptual story before it starts.

i still believe that it is happening to "me."

This is worth investigating.
i (perhaps you'd better use upper case I to denote the belief in 'self'), "I" is a concept.
"believe" is thoughts that refer to something conceptual, that say it is true and can be reacted to without reference to awareness.
"me", see "I" above.
So, we have a concept, thoughts, that refer to other thoughts, that refer to thoughts that have given the brain permission to elicit emotion, because the first thoughts referred to the last thoughts (the "me" thoughts) as though they were true. (which is another set of belief thoughts)
..anyway, you get what is being said here. The process that elicits the emotion is purely thoughts about thoughts with other thought processes in the middle. ALL STORY.

(I'm sure you're going to say "no, it doesn't suffer, there is just an experience of fear arising"... BUT...)

What "BUT" ? The dog is reacting directly to what it has learned may elicit pain. Use that tone of voice and reward it with food from birth and watch how it reacts. Story here says it is all direct experience and is not defending a concept (the personal).

I'm just hitting golf balls over here! :-)

We can do no more, although perhaps we are trying different stances and adjusting the grip, which may or may not help, but which makes it seem that we are Doing something.

love

vince