Guidance requested.

[idomebutami]

How are happenings known?

They are not known, they are not separate, they just are? Theres the experience of powerlessness that accompanies that thought...is that just happening also? But if nothing is causing anything...than the experience of powerlessness just arises of its own?

But sooooo many non dual teachings talk about the illusion of form and identification. I can not seem to reconcile an autonomous reality with the understanding that all form must be a mental construct. How can there be "typing" and "powerlessness" without "something" that knows of both of them?

This is where "I" am

[idomebutami]

"What are the qualities of the known that are independent of the instruments (thoughts/senses) through which they are known? Everything apart from the Existence of an object is removed with the removal of the instruments."

That's Rupert Spira. That is exactly where we are at in "our discussion".
But I don't see how an object can still have existence once the mind and senses are removed from experience.

This is the current point of inquiry

[idomebutami]

There is only the expression of Existence as Existence. This awareness only comes into play once the expression becomes experiential. So essentially, to not know OF Existence is to "be" Existence?

As for appearances, the idea of something "appearing", the idea of something being an "appearance", must disappear once the belief in an individual existence is gone.

I can see that Existence simply is, but there's still this "I".

[idomebutami]

The posts from 3:32 and 4:11 are all that need to be addressed now.

Thanks Chris

[Chris]

"What are the qualities of the known that are independent of the instruments (thoughts/senses) through which they are known? Everything apart from the Existence of an object is removed with the removal of the instruments."

This makes no sense to me. How can it be known/theorized that something exists without knowing either through senses or thought that it is there. And how can we think, even hypothetically, about the existence of an object sans thought? Either I am missing something, or this is just stupid.

That's Rupert Spira. That is exactly where we are at in "our discussion".
But I don't see how an object can still have existence once the mind and senses are removed from experience.

Seems we are in agreement. :)

[idomebutami]

Unless he is pointing to just the sheer fact that an object (however illusory it may be) has an experiential existence. Just the fact that an illusion CAN be experienced. So maybe the point is to look to that which supports its existence rather than the illusory nature of what it "is".

I'm staying on this because I have no idea what to make of the world right now, and this "I" sense is the only stable thing.

I would also like your thoughts on my other post please.

Thanks.

Side note, do you not read any printed material on non-duality? Have you ever? Do you know of Rupert's writings?

[Chris]

There is only the expression of Existence as Existence. This awareness only comes into play once the expression becomes experiential. So essentially, to not know OF Existence is to "be" Existence?

? There is only experience as far I can see.

As for appearances, the idea of something "appearing", the idea of something being an "appearance", must disappear once the belief in an individual existence is gone.

There is no solid thing in existence. There is only ever flux. Looking for a what, an unchanging thing is an error. It's a wrong question. It's an idea with no basis in fact. This is why you can't find a self or a what. Appearance does not disappear, it is simply understood differently once the belief in a solid, constant observer (subject) as well as a solid constant observee (object) is seen through as false.

I can see that Existence simply is, but there's still this "I".

I is a momentary blip of thought. It is not a solid constant separate from flux. Seeing the impossibility of a constant inherently existent thing, it is seen that asking who and what are a wrong questions. It is the belief that there is or must be a constant that causes the question. If the belief is dropped, what happens to the question?

[Chris]

Side note, do you not read any printed material on non-duality? Have you ever? Do you know of Rupert's writings?

Was into nonduality/advaita for many years and read a lot of Spira's stuff in addition to many many others. More into buddhism now. It picks up where nonduality leaves off. There's more to the story...

[idomebutami]

I is a momentary blip of thought. It is not a solid constant separate from flux. Seeing the impossibility of a constant inherently existent thing, it is seen that asking who and what are a wrong questions. It is the belief that there is or must be a constant that causes the question. If the belief is dropped, what happens to the question?

So essentially...the "I" is only the thought that thinks "I"?

So the perceived constancy and irreducibility of this personal sense of existence, or "I" thought, is due to the Alwaysness of Existence?

I understand that Existence is flux and flowing, by its nature it must be. To exist means to be existING.

But I can never KNOW this. What's the benefit of understanding the flux of Reality if I will never experience it?

There is def a huge dynamic shift from where I am with non-duality and what you point me to here. All teachers say to stay as this I-am, that it is the essential fundamental nature of you and Reality. But now even that is an illusion?

I can subtract a personal sense from this existence, but this sense of existence remains. Doesn't matter who or what it's for or what it appears to.

My direct experience is more in alignment with the seeing of this timeless presence that is the backdrop for all phenomenon. Confusion occurs when I attempt to sort out "the world" and my relationship with it. I need to stay focused on this I sense. But you say it's a thought. So now what?

[Chris]

So essentially...the "I" is only the thought that thinks "I"?

I is only a thought.

So the perceived constancy and irreducibility of this personal sense of existence, or "I" thought, is due to the Alwaysness of Existence?

I is a thought that claims ownership or doership of another sensory experience or thought.

I understand that Existence is flux and flowing, by its nature it must be. To exist means to be existING.

Existence is a series of ungraspable, momentary blips of experience and thought. Existence is not a static thing.

But I can never KNOW this. What's the benefit of understanding the flux of Reality if I will never experience it?

It's all that's experienced. :)

There is def a huge dynamic shift from where I am with non-duality and what you point me to here. All teachers say to stay as this I-am, that it is the essential fundamental nature of you and Reality. But now even that is an illusion?

Not all teachers say to stay with this I am. The ones that do, do it to either work with people at their current level of understanding, or don't know to look any further and are themselves stuck is this belief.

I can subtract a personal sense from this existence, but this sense of existence remains. Doesn't matter who or what it's for or what it appears to.

You are looking at this from the belief that sense of existence is a thing that experience happens to or in or whatever. A constant that might somehow be experienced outside of experience. Again, do you see the duality in that belief?

My direct experience is more in alignment with the seeing of this timeless presence that is the backdrop for all phenomenon. Confusion occurs when I attempt to sort out "the world" and my relationship with it. I need to stay focused on this I sense. But you say it's a thought. So now what?

Confusion occurs because you believe that timeless presence is a thing in and of itself separate from experience. When you try to sort this out it doesn't work because you are starting with a false assumption. Relationships exist only as concepts. There is no subject/object split except conceptually.

[idomebutami]

Lets clear the chalkboard and freshen this discussion up with this:

I was just walking, and more or less came to see the illusion of distance, location, space and motion. It wasn't profound, but it was seen. There was all of this stuff that I am conscious of, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc etc..and even the sense of an individual me appears on this same "flat" multi sensory screen thats "glued to my eyes". I understand this is dualistic, but please meet "me" here and show me how this subj/obj distinction between whatever experiences and all that is experienced is an illusion.

There are thoughts superimposed on top of perceptions. This is the majority of the stuff that feeds the sense of a separate me.

So what are perceptions if I am not the perceiver of them? Hmm, just because something is perceived doesn't mean that there has to be a separate perceiver...

So what makes "me" different than this chair if we both appear as objects on this "screen" of Consciousness? If "this" I..and "that' chair are both appearances...than what is left to be seen?

[idomebutami]

Pondering over the idea of a holographic universe. With holographs, all spatial relationships are presumed, and their substance is nothing other than the light that makes them visible. The appearance of a "something" is a known quality, mental, personal, I-based.

So there is only Reality (not a solid thing, just using the word to describe that which cant be described), as expressed by appearances/perceptions. But the appearances, or known qualities, are secondary to the Reality of them. The Reality, regardless of nature of the appearance, is just the sheer fact that it is appearING, it has appeared, it exists, it is known. So Existence is self evident.

Its like watching a movie of an apple sitting next to an orange. The Reality is that they are currently appearing, the particular appearance is "what" they are appearing as. So appearances and objects are differ from eachother in the objective realm, but experientially they are exactly the same? They exist. They all have existence. WOW. Such a radical thing to grasp. You cant really identify the existence of all things you can only notice it, and than notice that the noticing of all of this is also Reality.

[Chris]

I was just walking, and more or less came to see the illusion of distance, location, space and motion. It wasn't profound, but it was seen. There was all of this stuff that I am conscious of, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc etc..and even the sense of an individual me appears on this same "flat" multi sensory screen thats "glued to my eyes". I understand this is dualistic, but please meet "me" here and show me how this subj/obj distinction between whatever experiences and all that is experienced is an illusion.

It's an illusion in that there are no inherently existent things like most believe there to be. There's not a static me that experiences static objects.

There are thoughts superimposed on top of perceptions. This is the majority of the stuff that feeds the sense of a separate me.

There are thoughts superimposed on top of perceptions. This is what feeds the sense of a separate me.

So what are perceptions if I am not the perceiver of them? Hmm, just because something is perceived doesn't mean that there has to be a separate perceiver...

There is sight, touch, smell, taste, hearing and thought.

So what makes "me" different than this chair if we both appear as objects on this "screen" of Consciousness? If "this" I..and "that' chair are both appearances...than what is left to be seen?

That there is no screen of consciousness separate from objects. :)

[Chris]

Pondering over the idea of a holographic universe. With holographs, all spatial relationships are presumed, and their substance is nothing other than the light that makes them visible. The appearance of a "something" is a known quality, mental, personal, I-based.

So there is only Reality (not a solid thing, just using the word to describe that which cant be described), as expressed by appearances/perceptions. But the appearances, or known qualities, are secondary to the Reality of them. The Reality, regardless of nature of the appearance, is just the sheer fact that it is appearING, it has appeared, it exists, it is known. So Existence is self evident.

Nothing is secondary and nothing is superior. Reality is not a separate thing that exists and is somehow superior to appearances. There are only appearances and they are fleeting. There is flux, there's no underlying existence or essence to appearances. They exist conventionally, but not absolutely.

Its like watching a movie of an apple sitting next to an orange. The Reality is that they are currently appearing, the particular appearance is "what" they are appearing as. So appearances and objects are differ from eachother in the objective realm, but experientially they are exactly the same? They exist. They all have existence. WOW. Such a radical thing to grasp. You cant really identify the existence of all things you can only notice it, and than notice that the noticing of all of this is also Reality.

Don't know exactly what you're seeing here, but I too have a WOW reaction sometimes at how amazing experience is. Just the very existence of it, whatever it is!

[idomebutami]

So how do you account for your sentience?