Guidance requested.

[idomebutami]

I'd say they are inseparable. There is no awareness (separate thing) aware of sensation. There is just the sensation. Awareness is an attribute of senses and thought.

Awareness is an attribute of senses... So, if I am processing this correctly, ...the autonomy/constancy of the sensory field foments the illusion of "an awareness OF" sort of position.

So the newborn simply exists AS the sensory field?

[Chris]

Awareness is an attribute of senses... So, if I am processing this correctly, ...the autonomy/constancy of the sensory field foments the illusion of "an awareness OF" sort of position.

Don't process it, test it out in experience.

So the newborn simply exists AS the sensory field?

Nothing exists inherently. There are just senses and thoughts. It's not a field. They are discreet instances. Appear and disappear, illusory. Try to stop making flux into a solid thing. Sit quietly and feel this out. Observe. Experience. See if it makes sense to interpret experience the way I've described it.

[idomebutami]

Nothing exists inherently. There are just senses and thoughts. It's not a field.

And where does the sense of self fit in with the above?

[Chris]

Nothing exists inherently. There are just senses and thoughts. It's not a field.

And where does the sense of self fit in with the above?

Please explain exactly what you are referring to when you say "sense of self". Is it a mental construct? A feeling? A belief? A bodily sensation?

[idomebutami]

Subjectivity. The knowingness of the presence of what I am. The realization of existence.

[idomebutami]

This is still mental, but..does the sense of self arise just like thoughts? Because it is a phenomenon. So should i just treat this sense of self like all other observable phenomenon?

[Chris]

This is still mental, but..does the sense of self arise just like thoughts? Because it is a phenomenon. So should i just treat this sense of self like all other observable phenomenon?

Sense of self is no more special than sense of smell.

Please answer the following questions:

1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.

3) How does it feel to see this?

4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion.

It'll give us an idea where you are with the the "no self" realization. Thanks!

[idomebutami]

"Sense of self is no more special than sense of smell."

Yes, I can see that this is just another one of those channels you mentioned. This sense of self is watched.
I suppose the sense of self is just an artifact of the awareness of existence as imparted by the senses.

Would it be accurate to say that there is no sense of smell...there is just smell? Using the words "sense of" has a lot of personal connotations still.

Answers to questions:

1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

There is no ACTUAL ME, there cant be, and I cant find one. All there is is this "I" that cant find a "me". Was there ever a me...only in belief...not in actuality. Its so easy to muddy the waters of this "I" with old memories of a "me", but at the end of the day, I stand firm in the realization that there is NO ACTUAL me. When old "personal" conditioning arises, its very easy for me to look at it for what it is; Upon doing so it subsides into silence.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.

The illusion of a separate self starts at some point in youth when the oneness of existence becomes self aware as a separate experiencing entity. I don't know WHY this happens, other than its another manifestation of evolution. This sense of separation is reinforced by being given a name, and than further ingrained once the belief in oneself as the name is solidified internally. From that point, all experiences and the memories created from them, construct this entity/ego. This separate self is only an operative set of beliefs and interpretations as fueled by memory. From this point forward we never see Reality as it is, we only see "our reality" our personal reality through the screen of the ego/separate self.

3) How does it feel to see this?

I used to feel relieved upon the seeing of this, but now I just enjoy the openness and flexibility inherent to this seeing. If anything, and relativistically speaking, compassion for others and their illusions is ten fold. But of course, there are no "others". To be honest, I don't even know what to think of other people. They are what I am, they are me..but I don't experience this, I just understand this to be correct. It must be.

4) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion.

Refer to my answer of your second question. It would be along those lines. Of course, all things imparted should mold to the level of understanding of the one receiving it, so customizations and personalizations are employed.

Telling someone they don't exist is a paradoxical oxymoron. Non-dual humor :)

[Chris]

All there is is this "I" that cant find a "me". Was there ever a me...only in belief...not in actuality. Its so easy to muddy the waters of this "I" with old memories of a "me"

How do you understand this "I" that you are referring to in this statement? What is it, who is it?

[idomebutami]

The awareness of existence.

[Chris]

Was there some realization or turning point where it became obvious that there is no me that is the owner and doer of life? Do you feel that you've see what it is that is pointed to here at LU?

[idomebutami]

I've seen it. But what am i that sees it?

The autonomy of life, as far as understanding goes, is a given. But observing this on a constant basis is not my experience. I still have this ingrained sense of doership, regardless of what I've seen. And this of course fluctuates daily.

I'm less interested in fulfilling this forum's credo than I am about realizing my true nature. Because up to this point, we have been stripping away everything I am not, but still haven't landed on what I AM. Because I...infact AM.

If Truth is seeing that the illusion of an actual self is only a construct based upon the more irreducible and fundamental sense of self, than I am that. I, can no longer, with any conviction, believe that I am a "person". A "what" precedes my "I-am" statements, rather than a "who".

I feel like I am this awareness that watches "life" unfold, and every once and a while falls between some cracks of belief and conditioning only to "see" my way out of it.

[idomebutami]

So Aliveness is all there as an expression of Oneness. Everything is just happening.

A direct example: I am sitting here typing, meaning there is an awareness of typing. There cant be an awareness of ME typing because there is no actual me. So where do actions come from? If im not the chooser of decisions, than what force makes choices and what presents them as options?

So this typing action and the senses are just occurring automatically? And this sense of ownership (ownership of awareness and actions) is just some sort of a lens over Allness? The "I" is the lens that divides Reality into subject/object.

This whole time I have been approaching all of this from the position that the world (all objects and form) is an illusion and that everything is not real, but its only an illusion tho for the one who thinks its real. Otherwise, everything I previously thought illusion is just an autonomous consequence of evolution? But evolution is a force, so where do all the particulars (the things that just happen/evolve) come from?

Because Im good with seeing that no-one can be typing and that typing is just happening. But in seeing that "typing" is just happening, "typing" automatically includes the notions of "what is being typed", fingers, keyboards, the sounds of typing..etc. So many identifications remain when EVERYTHING is the Universe is recontextualized as autonomous.

But...is there where the illusion of cause and effect, past and present, time and space...all come in? Typing is only typing, not BECAUSE OF anything prior to it? Choices aren't chosen?

But "what" am I that can even "sit back/surrender" and recognize the autonomy of life? For that is still a duality.

[Chris]

There's no you that can sit back and surrender. There is no doer. There is just stuff happening.

There is a thought, "I'll sit back and watch typing". Then observation of typing. Then thoughts about the typing that was just observed. Etc.

There is no "what" that does any of this and there is no witness to all of this. No one owns these experiences, they just are. This stuff just happens and awareness arises with each of these little happenings for NO ONE. NO ONE! There's no witness, just because it "feels like" there is one does not mean there is. You haven't been able to find that witness yet, have you?

You are still seeing a duality because you can't seem to even conceive of the possibility that there is actually no one and nothing doing or witnessing or experiencing. And that is exactly what I've been trying to point out to you this whole time.

[idomebutami]

I can conceive of it. But its almost humorous. All things that are happening are just happening, and the happenings are the awareness of the happenings. The fact that something is happening doesn't mean that it has to happen TO a "me".

So than what can be said about the happenings?