Guidance requested.

[Chris]

So, if one transcends the mind, thus preventing the overlay of projections and thereby inhibiting the creation of form over this otherwise constant expression, what than happens to the senses and how they "report" back. Example: I know that this isn't really a keyboard, its a collection of sensory information coupled with assumptions about "how reality works". SO, once mind is transcended, what is the experience of these sensory experiences I used to call a keyboard? You hear so much that this world is an illusion, but to what extent can that every be realized? Will the lines and letters still be experienced? Will the smoothness and the tactility of the "plastic" still be felt? Only absent of ALL form? I ask only to relieve a seeming paradox in my understanding.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

This is not about transcending the story, but just seeing it for what it is. Things are not solid and separate like we believe them to be.

You are assuming that the mind/story can be transcended. There can be be experiences (typically during meditation) where there is little or no thought. But we are not looking to reach some mindless state. You are a construct of mind, how would a you ever transcend it?

Thought will continue to arise as there is the need, there's nothing wrong with thought and we aren't trying to escape it. Just trying to see how it works and if our current assumptions and beliefs stand up to the light of inquiry.

As for things not being separate...this site is dedicated to seeing the lack of a subject/object duality. There's much to be seen, but seeing as how we're at LU, we should really focus on this aspect. It's just the tip of the iceberg, bugt gets things moving in the right direction for sure!

[idomebutami]

So, a few days ago there was the realization that Life is being constantly expressed. Wonderfully grateful for that. Since that point tho...Ive been trying to objectify this sense of an "expression", foolishly trying to KNOW this. Soon after the realization that I can never KNOW this, I sort of backed down from the "pursuit" of this "life being expressed".

As I was walking this morning tho, there was a strong seeing that the mind tells a story based soly on the sensory perceptions. So, if Existence is constant, and I am informed of Existence through the senses, then it concludes that the FRESH experience of (or as?) the senses IS the Expression of Existence "I" have been pursuing? That would solidify the over expressed notion that Reality is NOW, always and constant, because the senses are never off...so to speak.

So where does this leave "me"? Upon awaking in the morning...there first arises the functioning of the senses?...and then the lighting fast ownership of these perceptions as a sense of existence FOR this "me"?

I am starting to be able to distinguish between "me" and just this underlying sense of Self that is ALWAYS accompanying me.

So in the above break down of sense perceptions and Existence, where does this sense of Self fit in? Is this sense of self part of the expression of existence in its raw form? Or...? ?

The "world" is losing its officiality...and its unraveling naturally. I just need to sort out the one who is watching all of this.

[idomebutami]

But see when I sit here and really just rest in the sensory perceptions...I cant really find anything within their expression that informs me that I exist. I don't hear "my" existence or see "my" existence. So than who am I that is looking for my existence?

Im sure the importance of answering the above question will inevitably dissolve into a purer experience of the senses, or perhaps, it has to be AS the senses? Because if what I AM is ALIVE...and the only thing alive are the senses...than I must be that???

[Chris]

But see when I sit here and really just rest in the sensory perceptions...I cant really find anything within their expression that informs me that I exist.

That's because you don't. Not inherently, anyway. You exist only as a concept. It sounds like you see that you are just a thought and that's what we're lookig for here at LU.

I don't hear "my" existence or see "my" existence. So than who am I that is looking for my existence?

There is no you looking, there is just looking. (You're still assuming there must be an I that does the looking.) And then a thought that follows that says, "I am looking?" and if you're doing self-inquiry a thought that follows that says, "Who is this I?" And then thought after thought about this elusive I follows. If there is no thought, is there an I to be looked for?

Im sure the importance of answering the above question will inevitably dissolve into a purer experience of the senses, or perhaps, it has to be AS the senses? Because if what I AM is ALIVE...and the only thing alive are the senses...than I must be that???

Instead of looking for what you are, try looking for what you're not.

[idomebutami]

A sense of self remains throughout the seeing that a person or even time and space cant exist.

A sense of self remains with the experience of the senses.

A sense of self remains within the seeing that is no future.

I can not escape this sense of individuality. Even when i see it for the farce it is. Even when observing the autonomy of life..."I" still am there, and its felt...

[idomebutami]

"The ‘I am’ is a useful pointer; it shows where to seek, but not what to seek. Just have a good look at it. Once you are convinced that you cannot say truthfully about yourself anything except ‘I am’, and that nothing can be pointed at, can be your self, the need for the ‘I am’ is over- you are no longer intent on verbalizing what you are. All definitions apply to your body only and to its expressions"

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

the need for the ‘I am’ is over- you are no longer intent on verbalizing what you are.

So there is an intent on naming what we are. We believe the name. So than what we "are" is just the BEING of that which we "are". So the "I" points to the source...of which nothing can be said.

[idomebutami]

How do I reconcile the irreducibility of the senses with the idea of a body?

I know that a body cant exist, thats just a name given to appearances. And appearances are just sensory input...but vision, taste, touch, hearing all feel like different "versions" of reality coming from different locations of experiencing..

[idomebutami]

Something else that just came to me...(and please address all my above emails too please : ) ...

What constitutes the variation in the tactile experience of "water" vs. that of "sand"? So there is no "sand" and there is no "water", there is only wetness and coarseness...but is there not even that? Wetness and coarseness are identifications, so still of mind. So is it safe to say, that within this understanding, the experience of wetness and coarseness are just further illusions?

[Chris]

A sense of self remains throughout the seeing that a person or even time and space cant exist.

A sense of self remains with the experience of the senses.

A sense of self remains within the seeing that is no future.

I can not escape this sense of individuality. Even when i see it for the farce it is. Even when observing the autonomy of life..."I" still am there, and its felt...

You've spent your entire life cultivating this sense of self, it's not going to magically disappear overnight. And is it even a problem? If you've seen it is just a sense of self and not an actual self, that can be seen again each time the sense of self arises.

[Chris]

"The ‘I am’ is a useful pointer; it shows where to seek, but not what to seek. Just have a good look at it. Once you are convinced that you cannot say truthfully about yourself anything except ‘I am’, and that nothing can be pointed at, can be your self, the need for the ‘I am’ is over- you are no longer intent on verbalizing what you are. All definitions apply to your body only and to its expressions"

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

the need for the ‘I am’ is over- you are no longer intent on verbalizing what you are.

So there is an intent on naming what we are. We believe the name. So than what we "are" is just the BEING of that which we "are". So the "I" points to the source...of which nothing can be said.

There is no source. Many (most) people get stuck here and it's a a subtle form of subject/object split. It reifies a big "I". It assumes there is an eternal thing that is a solid, unchanging source. In this way of seeing, only the objective is seen as empty. But, the subject is equally empty. There is just a constant flux of senses and thought. No ground or source that stands outside of these and creates or supports them.

[Chris]

How do I reconcile the irreducibility of the senses with the idea of a body?

I know that a body cant exist, thats just a name given to appearances. And appearances are just sensory input...but vision, taste, touch, hearing all feel like different "versions" of reality coming from different locations of experiencing..

Weather is just a thought, a label for a collection of different phenomenon.

Body is just a thought, a label for a collection of different sense phenomenon.

Check your experience to see if location is actual, or just another thought/mental construct.

[Chris]

Something else that just came to me...(and please address all my above emails too please : ) ...

What constitutes the variation in the tactile experience of "water" vs. that of "sand"? So there is no "sand" and there is no "water", there is only wetness and coarseness...but is there not even that? Wetness and coarseness are identifications, so still of mind. So is it safe to say, that within this understanding, the experience of wetness and coarseness are just further illusions?

I really don't know what constitutes the variation in the experience. I see this as a distraction. At this point, I think there are more useful lines of inquiry to follow.

Have you applied what you saw about future to past and self yet?

[idomebutami]

idomebutami wrote:
A sense of self remains throughout the seeing that a person or even time and space cant exist.

A sense of self remains with the experience of the senses.

A sense of self remains within the seeing that is no future.

I can not escape this sense of individuality. Even when i see it for the farce it is. Even when observing the autonomy of life..."I" still am there, and its felt...


You've spent your entire life cultivating this sense of self, it's not going to magically disappear overnight. And is it even a problem? If you've seen it is just a sense of self and not an actual self, that can be seen again each time the sense of self arises.

So your saying the only necessary thing to see is that an ACTUAL self doesn't HAVE to exist, just because there is a sense of self existing?

What really distinguishes the two from one another? An "actual" self answers to the "who" question? An actual self has a name?

As for the sense of self, it is more of just a felt aspect of my current experience. Of course now that begs the question, if the sense of self is experienced...than what is its antecedent?

[idomebutami]

Check your experience to see if location is actual, or just another thought/mental construct.

Can you lend anything on this?

[idomebutami]

Have you applied what you saw about future to past and self yet?

Yes. The past is as illusory as the future. To exist means to be existing. The mind is just the residual of this.

As for self, it's difficult to know what exactly to target in this particular line of inquiry. That's why I mentioned just above the distinguishment between an "actual" self and the felt sense of self..