Could you guide me?

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hi Glenn I thought this was worth commenting on

Outside thought the conundrum vanishes because there's just what is, now. And I feel kind of helpless about that, as if I should be able to extract something wiser - but what to do?!

Who is there to feel helpless? What is it that thinks there is something 'wiser'? What gets to decide if something is more or less wise than anything else other than a thought?

What is there that can 'do' anything about anything?

I like this quote of Sri Ramana Maharshi: "If one surrenders oneself there will be no one to ask questions or to be thought of."

[nowitis]

Thank you Mark, I actually thought that I'd written you this morning saying 'It sounds as if you don't expect to hear from me for another week or so, during which time I'll see if it's possible to notice thoughts arising by themselves, and do the Rupert Spira meditation a few times.' Is that an accurate impression?

But you're really saying something a lot more radical aren't you Mark? Not a single damn thing of this entire experience is 'me.' If I'm anything (perish the thought!) I'm the noticing, which is actually inseparable from experience anyway, and only separable in thought, so perish it.

Surrenders oneself? To now, to all that really is?

[Jack'n'theBox]

.

Surrenders oneself? To now, to all that really is?

Surrender to whatever IS -- whether that be blissful feelings of non-duality or stressful arguments with the GF -- there's no 'you' there behind either experience.

[nowitis]

Hi Mark, thanks. And - I've asked you this before - if there's no 'me' behind any experience, who is - seemingly - engaged in all this looking, searching, inquiring? You've said - impactfully, for me - that I have to do this myself ("...because you have to do this yourself...[and the key is in direct experience]" 7.29.13). Seems like a bit of a paradox.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hey Glenn, this isn't Liberation 101 and you've been around -- so you know the answer to this question yourself. You saw in DE that there is no think-er behind the thoughts but you keep asking me to convince your rational mind that this no-self makes sense. It doesn't. We're not doing logic here. You know that you can't see through the illusion via the mechanism that produces it. Glenn, you're just making up stories so you can avoid looking and prolong this forever. Stop it! Are you going to look for yourself or aren't you? Just do it. Or don't. I say this with all compassion but if you're not going to put in the work and really look, then let me go so I can help someone else.

[nowitis]

Hey Mark, of course.

I actually don't know the answer to my question, but it doesn't matter. I could of course say 'There's no one engaged in all this,' but that would just be another's words. I wish, from the depth of my heart I could truly say that.

I really don't know what else to say. I'm not so far able to "just do it." My not doing it isn't because of the story making, avoiding and prolonging you imply, at least as far as I know (your perception that that is what I'm doing is of course accurate for you). If it was my reality, why would I feel so frustrated with this, after really closely attending to it for going on three months? Or perhaps it is because of what you imply - but then there's some kind of basic insincerity/unconsciousness/malfunctioning in what I'm doing here, or doing, period.

Perhaps I should let you go - after all, I have to do this myself and I very well know that. I've got 14 pages of guidance from you, all of it very well-aimed. Am I going to look for myself, or aren't I? I wish it was as simple as you imply, but perhaps that's the stark and inescapable truth. You have done it, so it's possible.

I feel torn between doing something I don't know actually how to do, and letting you go - and the latter I can do just by saying why don't you go and help someone else. I wish I had a better solution. May I be in touch with you if the need arises?

This is pretty uncomfortable Mark - but the fact that I think I'm uncomfortable after three months attempting to disassemble I perhaps is a measure of something like this isn't for me this lifetime, and I've always just been kidding myself. So much for longing, I guess.

Thank you so much for your help Mark.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hey Glenn I'm trying to give you a big virtual SHOVE to get you out of your head space and into your direct experience.

“Who looks?” is a “who” question – the question itself implies a “person” doing it. Language misrepresents reality. You already know that! It’s not rocket science. We also say “It rains” but you don’t spend your life trying to find the “it” doing the raining do you? So why get hung up on the “I” that supposedly looks? You’ve already seen in DE that there is no do-er behind the deed, no look-er behind the seen, no think-er behind the thought, but you tell me you keep believing the thoughts that say otherwise. They’re just thoughts, Glenn, “you” aren’t even thinking them. “You” is a thought! I’ve given you all you need to see this.

We've talked about how mind works before, right? It goes "blah blah blah bah" -- you've had glimpses of there being no-self behind thoughts, no do-er behind deeds, no feel-er behind feelings in DE but you come right back into believing mind's stories. Just stop it.

OK try this -- you know how you get an annoying song stuck in your head and it becomes the background music to a whole day? Treat these selfing thougths in just the same way -- you can't stop them -- you aren't thinking them! They run on their own program. Just treat them as background noise -- they are as insignificant as the stupid song. Get baxk into the DE exercises we discussed and just REFUSE to take the mind seriously. When thought tries to hijack DE just say 'stupid dumbass thought' because that's what it is -- thought is not running the show. No-thing is!!!

[Jack'n'theBox]

Glenn, an offering from another guide -- let me know if this helps.

An analogy might help... When someone first sees a rainbow, they would naturally assume that it really exists at some location in space, so they'll assume, for example, that it must be possible to travel to its base. You could say that they suffer from the 'illusion of rainbow'. Once they understand that it is a trick of light, they'll realise that it is impossible to get to 'the end of the rainbow' ... you could say that they have 'seen through the illusion of rainbow'. The thing is, they can still see the rainbow.

When it comes to the illusion of self, people often assume that, having seen through the illusion, all the 'sense of self' will vanish, perhaps one will be permanently in the kind of 'self forgetting' state that characterises artistic creation, or something .... However, in practice, all the experiences that made up one's "sense of self" can still come and go as they did before, it is just that now, there is the knowledge that there is no entity 'behind' the experience. Before, the 'sense of self' was believed to be a real self; after, the 'sense of self' is known to be just part of the flux of experience.

It is an important distinction - if you get the idea that we are trying to get rid of the sense of self, we'll be going round in circles for a long time.

[nowitis]

Thanks Mark, the latter posting was helpful: you tried to point this out to me (page 10) when you said What do you think a sense of no-self is like, duh? So someone talking about the futility of getting rid of the sense of self was clarifying....alongside the energy of your SHOVE - which prompted me to look and look today.

I did something a little bit bizarre today: I sat down in front of my bathroom mirror, pointed a camera at the reflection and spoke about the experience. In particular I contrasted the central experience, what is sometimes called the interior with what is visible in the mirror, that guy Glenn. I don't know what relevance the camera has, other than in some way to solidify the experience. But it helped.

There's nothing in the middle of this experience of I, is there? Or, what's in the middle of it is absolutely unnameable, has no objective dimensions whatsoever (and so of course couldn't even possibly be in the middle of it, but it's a figurative reference.) What is here is sights, sensations, and particularly thoughts referring to a central I - that turns out to be absent.

Everything goes on as before. The sense of myself - made up of body sensations sights, sounds and the constant stream of thoughts referring to a central I character - is just as it was. But it's just a cluster of experiences (none of which can be disentangled from the rest, in the moment of direct experience) happening by themselves. They are brilliantly alive, endlessly altering, self-originating (without there being any originator.)

And it's not as if I've never noticed this: Douglas Harding's work clearly points to just this - but objectifies it, or has done for me, which is probably why Fuck the Witness has been helpful. There really isn't any separate awareness but I've been hung up there for the longest time, endlessly objectifying something that at the very best is an apperception of emptiness. And turns out to be (nothing but) endlessly changing form. Fizzing sensations, blending into sounds, intermingled with the seen and my eyes moving, every move seeming to be 'mine,' and the thoughts endlessly affirming that this must be me moving my eyes and scratching my cheek.

I have been wrestling mightily with imagining I'd be rid of this sense of self. Not realizing that this sense of self is all there is to self - just there's no actual real solid enduring self behind the sense of self. It's just a sense of self, and nothing but transiency. Rather free to be "me"!

Now there are thoughts that this will go away, that this no-Santa recognition will vanish from view in due course. I've been boondoggled here for a while, in thrall of the thoughts, as you said, headspace.

Thank you again for everything Mark.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Yep, looks like you’ve got it. I should have shoved you five pages ago!

But you already saw this before, around p. 5, and then you freaked out because you felt you ‘lost it’ in a fight with the GF. So the important thing now is to realize – this is not a state – it’s a perspective – states will continue to come and go – and you will see that they are empty of any center ,do-er, think-er, experience-er – it’s just flow. If it’s bliss, enjoy it; if it’s pain, watch it blow through like a storm.

The next challenge will be the next fight with the GF or some other stressful event – all the old conditionings will arise as before – but this time it is seen that there is no-one behind them. Don’t deny the stressful feelings, don’t listen to thought saying ‘OMG you’ve lost it’ – remember the dumfuck mind trick. It’s important to fully experience whatever comes up – because that is your reality in the moment – just don’t judge it, don’t attach to it, and most important DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THOUGHT HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.

Notice how each thought creates a Me as part of that thought, so there are as many Me’s as there are thoughts. You have seen that there is no ‘Me’ outside the thought itself doing the thinking. As each thought comes, you can clearly see ‘a’ Me is created as part of it – and it is gone just as quickly. The ‘me’ is in the thought, not behind it!

I find it useful to try and notice how thoughts are labeling different experiences. It is particularly useful noticing thoughts that claim that experience should be otherwise (beware ‘should, could, or what if’ thoughts!). Once I notice just how much the mind loves to play its role as a labeling machine I find I am much less liable to try and push experiences away. It is the thoughts that are the root of suffering, not the experience itself. So try to do this when inevitably you get the next ‘I had it/I lost it’ scenario.
Let me know how things go over the weekend.

[nowitis]

Hello Mark. Thank you for your helpful input and reflections. Yes, something like a shift in context, or perspective. And I wonder if I might try and characterize what's going on today.

Or not going on, since the centerless center, the brilliantly obvious presence-emptiness continues to be the most palpable part of this experience. I knew it before, but it was boxed in a concept. And sometime in that day of intense looking, particularly as I gazed in the bathroom mirror the unmistakable experiential reality of this uncaused no-self escaped those confines and became...self-evident.

I want to say thoughts come and go in it, but a more accurate expression that I don't really understand with any kind of logical logic is 'thoughts come and go as it.' It's obvious it's not 'my' awareness, that it just is, even as the bottom line quality of it is not-ness.

And I've duly today had the dire stress with the GF, most unpleasant, and fully experienced in all its distressfullness - nonetheless all the while aware this backdrop goes nowhere, despite a couple of times of some very persuasive thoughts seeming to demarcate a me who's to blame, or is a victim.

I don't know whether the following is territory that you'd be interested in exploring with me, but I was listening to Rupert Spira http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjwBWE64fG0 on the nature of perception and he says at one point (16.57 in): Pure consciousness is only ever aware of itself - it never comes in contact with anything other than itself. And I guess my conceptual box around this remarkable presence hasn't fully opened because there's still lingering belief that there's some division between this cognizing clarity and everything that arises in it. Even though I know it can't be different than what I said above about thoughts: arises as it. That's that non-dual thang isn't it?

[Jack'n'theBox]

And I wonder if I might try and characterize what's going on today. Or not going on, since the centerless center, the brilliantly obvious presence-emptiness continues to be the most palpable part of this experience. I knew it before, but it was boxed in a concept. And sometime in that day of intense looking, particularly as I gazed in the bathroom mirror the unmistakable experiential reality of this uncaused no-self escaped those confines and became...self-evident.

I want to say thoughts come and go in it, but a more accurate expression that I don't really understand with any kind of logical logic is 'thoughts come and go as it.' It's obvious it's not 'my' awareness, that it just is, even as the bottom line quality of it is not-ness.

Hi Glenn, looks like something has shifted. That’s great. At this stage I don’t think it’s necessary to try to describe what’s going on – why not spend a few days ‘resting’ the mind and not feeding its tendency to want to grab onto and label stuff. Just being in nature, being silent, being alone is nice for a while. Give thought a rest.

And I've duly today had the dire stress with the GF, most unpleasant, and fully experienced in all its distressfullness - nonetheless all the while aware this backdrop goes nowhere, despite a couple of times of some very persuasive thoughts seeming to demarcate a me who's to blame, or is a victim.

OK good to notice that the mind likes to play the victim/blame game – this is a mental habit. Remember mind runs on its own program – it’s not ‘you’ thinking this stuff. You mention ‘distress’ – what is distressed? Remember ‘distress’ is just the mind’s label for a certain kind of energy occurrence – try to be with the energy in DE – not in the mind’s story about it.

I don't know whether the following is territory that you'd be interested in exploring with me, but I was listening to Rupert Spira http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjwBWE64fG0 on the nature of perception and he says at one point (16.57 in): Pure consciousness is only ever aware of itself - it never comes in contact with anything other than itself. And I guess my conceptual box around this remarkable presence hasn't fully opened because there's still lingering belief that there's some division between this cognizing clarity and everything that arises in it. Even though I know it can't be different than what I said above about thoughts: arises as it. That's that non-dual thang isn't it?

What we offer here at LU is insight into the falsity of the ‘personal self’ idea. No self implies no others – but that is a discussion for another day and we have groups on the other side for this kind of ‘deep looking’ and there are guides better suited to this stuff than me.

So before we go any further, let’s take stock of where we’re at:

Can you confirm that you’ve seen there is no self, no ‘me’ that is the ground or owner of each experience?
Did you have to do anything to see this?
Is there anything left to do?

Take your time with these questions and answer them from what you SEE not what you think.

[nowitis]

Hi Mark,

Can you confirm that you’ve seen there is no self, no ‘me’ that is the ground or owner of each experience?

Yes, that's repeatedly been seen: there is a fluidly mutable sense of self, but there is no enduring self - unless the characteristic-less presence of eternity is called a self. There is no owner or originator of these experiences. And, the sense of self relies on agency and ownership, but is gradually realized to flicker in and out of existence uncontrollably. A me thought, as you point out in your last post constitutes a me, for a while.

Did you have to do anything to see this?

Hmmm. Is this obvious without effort? Sometimes. And did I have to chant mantras, pray ceaselessly, or send my guru money to see this? No, this is self-originating, self-evident, intrinsically obvious. And, the tide of everything in the deeply believed in model of me-separate-from-the-world - that is, everything apart from direct experience - has to be held back for this to be seen. There's a certain kind of effort in doing this, an effort that makes room for effortlessness.

Is there anything left to do?

At the level of actually seeing this, nothing at all. Is there a yearning to see deeper, more, to inhabit infinity infinitely, and not stop? Yes, helplessly - and a delight in that.

I've taken a few days to get back to you with these answers because, once again, your presence to this brings a certain kind of concrete accountability that I've found quite profoundly valuable over the last three months. Thank you Mark - no matter whether 'I' (!) qualify to go further - or not - on account of the answers above.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hey Glenn, we don't hand out certificates so don't worry about not having the 'right' answers! What people take away from this proicess is, ironically, quite personal so we need to hear from each person in thier own voice. So let's have another go at the final questions, after which we'll invite some other guides to look over our time spent together and see if there's anything that we've missed that needs clarification. Again, take your time and write from what you SEE now not what you think:

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', 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 from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.
3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.
4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?
5) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything
happen? Give examples from your experience.
6) Anything to add

[nowitis]

Hi Mark,

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

No, there is no separate entity, nor was there ever.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

The seeming separate self is a cluster of experience, consisting of thought (usually a thought with I in it), and since most thoughts imply I, this has referents, which is other thoughts and an associated body sense. It starts - and grows in believability - as the child moves from direct experience to being a something in their mind. And, it starts moment by moment when there's believing in the existence of an I thought. This belief tends to become sustained, in my experience when there's emotional distress, and the feedback loop of I-thoughts and strong feeling each seem to prove the 'personal' existence of the other.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

Sometimes there's a sense of spaciousness and freedom - amazement, actually, and wonder. And, sometimes that experience is getting stuck in the spin cycle of I, one of the differences recently being that I can drop back to direct experience and recognize that none of what I was taking to be I is anything of the sort. It was also helpful to recognize that the sense of self doesn't vanish, even when belief in the existence of self does.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

It appears that each iterative noticing came after some desperation and a fierce resolve to see. So on Saturday I sat with some of your questions, with great intensity - then the idea arose of looking in the bathroom mirror, and I gradually realized - once again, once again - that the seeing is from nowhere, and nothing at all.

5) Do you decide, intend, choose, control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your experience.

This one is sometimes perfectly clear - and plenty of other times very unclear. I know the "correct" answer (namely, no control whatsoever), and there are periods when the mind is burbling on with all kinds of ideas of what's next - and completely different things then occur in actuality; but there's also times that of believing the plan to eat ice cream results in ice cream. And walking up to my house from eating said ice cream, having the thought that I'd like finally to get to these questions - and now they are being answered. So the direct answer is "no," and there's plenty of times when I believe all over again that I'm doing stuff. But the belief vanishes in direct experience and further exploration.

6) Anything to add

This process has been immensely helpful. And despite 40 years or more of mucking around in this stuff, I feel like I've barely begun!