Zen Of Chaos-this is your thread

[ZenOfchaos]

Sounds good :)

[s-p-a-c-e]

Apparently, Flashchat isn't working - so I'm off to make a pot of tea and we chat on here, or in some other chat place. :) See you in 5 mins. /John

[ZenOfchaos]

Milk,no sugar for me thanks :)

[s-p-a-c-e]

Me too. :) Lapsang Suchong, by the way. So, where shall we start? :)

[ZenOfchaos]

dunno, lol. the whole thing is disorientating and i feel quite lost with it all.

[ZenOfchaos]

Hi John,

thanks for talking with me the other day. A couple of days later I was driving home from work and had a long conversation with myself, lol.

The main focus in the conversation was about suffering. I had previously read Ilona's blog post about "where is the sufferer?". I'd read it many times before but i think the very act of talking out loud makes things more real rather than in thought where it's just thought perpetuating thought.

Anyway, I had never really understood no-self and not suffering because of the thought: "there may be no sufferer but there is still suffering". There was never a self so there is no self right now yet there is still suffering. I couldn't really figure it out.

I think several things clicked together, like you saying about the difference between sensation and thoughts about experience. having the conversation I started to realise that there is sensation (raw experience), even pain, it all happens in the body, even psychlogical stuff like dizziness. That's it. Just raw sensation in its visceral glory. That's NOT suffering. So one has pain, whatever it may be, then there is thoughts about it. E.g. this is sore, this is horrible, why me, what does it mean, what will happen if it doesn't go away, etc.

all those thoughts are centered around a psychological character. Not the body, not the brain, something else, some entity that owns the body. In the past it's a memory, in the future it's an image. in the present it's a 'psychological self', a construct. that's why there is a difference between raw experience and interpretation of experience. Because all those worry thoughts revolve around another thought form. No thought form, no story, no suffering.

the Buddha said that enlightenment was the end of suffering. The end of suffering implies the end of 'the sufferer'. No sufferer, no suffering. so if there is no separate self, then there is no stories about the seperate self. And if there are no stories then there is no suffering. The end of the separate self IS the end of suffering.

Now it makes sense as to why there is suffering now even though there is no self. It's because a belief in a me creates worries about a future me or gets sad about a past me, or gets utterly pissed about an inadequate present me.

I can also understand how the story needs to be seen through completely. If it isn't then the egoic self gets subtly identified with other things and one gets stories about that.

i hope this goes a long way toward facing no-self inquiry. I was very afraid to really look because of fear of what might happen to "me". At least that puts it into perspective a bit. The suffering arises from trying to protect a psychological self.

That was a couple of days ago. I don't expect the realisation to work wonders but maybe it will help. No realisations seems to stick around for long, so i hope that i explored that one deeply enough to have a lasting impact.

I really need to investigate 'the thinker' some more.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi ZOC,

Hi John,

thanks for talking with me the other day. A couple of days later I was driving home from work and had a long conversation with myself, lol.

hehe :)

The main focus in the conversation was about suffering. I had previously read Ilona's blog post about "where is the sufferer?". I'd read it many times before but i think the very act of talking out loud makes things more real rather than in thought where it's just thought perpetuating thought.

It does indeed.

Anyway, I had never really understood no-self and not suffering because of the thought: "there may be no sufferer but there is still suffering". There was never a self so there is no self right now yet there is still suffering. I couldn't really figure it out.

I think several things clicked together, like you saying about the difference between sensation and thoughts about experience. having the conversation I started to realise that there is sensation (raw experience), even pain, it all happens in the body, even psychlogical stuff like dizziness. That's it. Just raw sensation in its visceral glory. That's NOT suffering. So one has pain, whatever it may be, then there is thoughts about it. E.g. this is sore, this is horrible, why me, what does it mean, what will happen if it doesn't go away, etc.

all those thoughts are centered around a psychological character. Not the body, not the brain, something else, some entity that owns the body. In the past it's a memory, in the future it's an image. in the present it's a 'psychological self', a construct. that's why there is a difference between raw experience and interpretation of experience. Because all those worry thoughts revolve around another thought form.

No thought form, no story, no suffering.

You could have saved Buddha a lot of work with that little triplet. :)

the Buddha said that enlightenment was the end of suffering. The end of suffering implies the end of 'the sufferer'. No sufferer, no suffering. so if there is no separate self, then there is no stories about the seperate self. And if there are no stories then there is no suffering. The end of the separate self IS the end of suffering.

Now it makes sense as to why there is suffering now even though there is no self. It's because a belief in a me creates worries about a future me or gets sad about a past me, or gets utterly pissed about an inadequate present me.

I can also understand how the story needs to be seen through completely. If it isn't then the egoic self gets subtly identified with other things and one gets stories about that.

Yep!

i hope this goes a long way toward facing no-self inquiry. I was very afraid to really look because of fear of what might happen to "me". At least that puts it into perspective a bit. The suffering arises from trying to protect a psychological self.

That was a couple of days ago. I don't expect the realisation to work wonders but maybe it will help. No realisations seems to stick around for long, so i hope that i explored that one deeply enough to have a lasting impact.

I really need to investigate 'the thinker' some more.

"The suffering arises from trying to protect a psychological self."

Yes. Because we believe ourselves the BE this psychological self, the protection gets full-on at times and the pretend fear is like Hollywood style 3D. But when the projector is turned off...

No me.

And the brain does what the brain does - and worries and plans.

But this time, it's seen, and watched...it is un-owned. No-one, no-self to HAVE worries, yet worries play through.

Oddly, the detachment that comes from seeing this fiction, can bring more immersion in life.

So, in the space that has now opened up, imagine swinging the attention which is normally "out there" around 180 degrees and look straight through the place behind the eyes to the back of the brain and beyond and see no-one is there . But beautiful life.

Best wishes,
John

[ZenOfchaos]

i think if i answer this honestly...

there is nothing there. empty space, ungraspable. then mind jumps in to say ok if this is really seen then the mind wouldn't be producing so much "me" crap. lol

i think too there is an expectation that i will feel like awareness. Airy, presencey, or something else. Just feel different.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi ZOC,

i think if i answer this honestly...

there is nothing there. empty space, ungraspable. then mind jumps in to say ok if this is really seen then the mind wouldn't be producing so much "me" crap. lol

i think too there is an expectation that i will feel like awareness. Airy, presencey, or something else. Just feel different.

You do make me smile. haha :)

If you want to join the cloud-heads, there are plenty of videos out there of folk telling people they are made up of awareness. No escapism there then. :D

"The mind jumps in..." - ask it directly - "Who's mind? What if the mind is un-owned, wouldn't it carry on carrying on?"

That "empty space, ungraspable" - when that's seen and the mind jumps in - there is no difference. Neither the empty space or the mind belong to you.

Sit with that a while when you next do the 180 degree exercise.

Ta,
John

[ZenOfchaos]

ok, so i don't have an understanding of how these things relate and come together.

So there is no 'thing' at the centre of experience. It's life living as a human for a while. All happening by itself.

I can see easily how ego could take the role of awareness, Yet... emotions are felt, the seen is seen, sensations are sensed, experience is experienced. Not by a little self called ZOC but still they are experienced. It's very much alive and real. So doesn't that imply that, at the core, if there is no separation, we are the no-thing that experiences it all (i.e. the grand We, bis Self <-- capital S, buddha nature, awareness, consciousness, god, life itself)? Ramana, Tolle, Adyashanti, and co. can't all be wrong surely?!

Is awareness separate from form? is it the same?

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi ZOC,

ok, so i don't have an understanding of how these things relate and come together.

So there is no 'thing' at the centre of experience. It's life living as a human for a while. All happening by itself.

I can see easily how ego could take the role of awareness, Yet... emotions are felt, the seen is seen, sensations are sensed, experience is experienced. Not by a little self called ZOC but still they are experienced. It's very much alive and real. So doesn't that imply that, at the core, if there is no separation, we are the no-thing that experiences it all (i.e. the grand We, bis Self <-- capital S, buddha nature, awareness, consciousness, god, life itself)? Ramana, Tolle, Adyashanti, and co. can't all be wrong surely?!

Is awareness separate from form? is it the same?

Why do teachers clamber to say things like "we are the no-thing" or "you are the awareness".

Can you be aware of awareness? When they state things like that above, yes, they are wrong. If you were to ask them though, they would probably say they are doing their best to put into words what can't be spoken about. For me, I'd rather they shut the fuck up. That would be better than confusing people who then get the idea that unless they live their life in a haze of awareness, something is wrong.

Imagine soap bubbles floating through the air. One of those bubble might be "I'm feeling like ZOC today" or "absorbed in the footie". Attention gets fixated like a "bubble of awareness" and for a time, the walls of the bubble are the walls of experience.

But look. All the bubbles are floating around in a field, a space.

You are an appearance, you show up. At different times, you may shift from a "state of being aware" to being "locked into to a self identity". Both the awareness and the self are both appearances.

For example, where are YOU located. If Google were to plonk a pin on ZOC, the self, where would it hit. You may feel that the pin would land on your head, maybe to that sense of self behind the eyes. But without a label, that is pure conditioned sensation. That sensation is not you.

You can't be found. You in terms of the self.

Without a you to be found, where is the source of awareness? From where does awareness emanate? Who is aware? Fuck, there's no-one being aware and yet, stuff is showing up.

You might feel a transparency. You and stuff - all showing up in a field seen by no-one. And life going on.

It's bamboozling only when you think too hard. :)

It's unfathomable, mysterious, and NOT who you are.

Just because if feels like X, doesn't mean X is the case.

God, that was a rant. :)

Best,
John

[ZenOfchaos]

Hehe. A good rant clears up some space :)

Honestly I dont think ive wanted to see the truth more. I have to know for myself what this is all about. What am I reaaally.?!

a lot of this search, like most people, has been motivated by suffering and wanting to feel better. Now its just to know what the donald duck is going on.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi ZOC,

Hehe. A good rant clears up some space :)

Honestly I dont think ive wanted to see the truth more. I have to know for myself what this is all about. What am I reaaally.?!

a lot of this search, like most people, has been motivated by suffering and wanting to feel better. Now its just to know what the donald duck is going on.

It's one thing to "know what we really are" and another to "know what we're not".

If you set off (which many do) with a goal to "know what we really are" - good luck. :)

On the other hand, we can look at what is happening and what is being labelled and see that the map is not the territory, You can't eat the menu or point to an "I".

Actually, you can eat the menu, it's just not very tasty. But you cannot point to an "I", you can only STATE THAT YOU ARE AN I. That is it. The foundation of our identity is that we can say that are. Poor show isn't it.

If you look around you now, the sense of there being a Looker behind the eyes may come and go. Just notice this sense of a someone looking come and go, come and go, as you look around at the objects in the room or place around.

Consider that there is no looker, only the impression of a looker.

No looker. At all. Only an impression. Step into that space of there being no looker as far as it feels good to do so. Be no-one for a minute or too. Just sit in it. Watching, doing nothing, being no-one.

Till it's time to put the kettle on.

Share the experience.

Best wishes,
John

[ZenOfchaos]

It's one thing to "know what we really are" and another to "know what we're not".

If you set off (which many do) with a goal to "know what we really are" - good luck. :)

I understand what you are saying. I don't expect to find any'thing' though, and that's kinda my point. If what I really am is nothing, then great! There is no self but yet there is existence, so i feel a need to have an understanding of the two. It's not about the little me creating a new spiritual or super-inflated ego, but just to understand in an experiential and existential way how the nothing and the everything come together. What i don't want is beliefs about either.

What you do here at LU is finding out who "i" am not. That's cool. That'll be the focus.

On the other hand, we can look at what is happening and what is being labelled and see that the map is not the territory, You can't eat the menu or point to an "I".

Actually, you can eat the menu, it's just not very tasty. But you cannot point to an "I", you can only STATE THAT YOU ARE AN I. That is it. The foundation of our identity is that we can say that are. Poor show isn't it.

If you look around you now, the sense of there being a Looker behind the eyes may come and go. Just notice this sense of a someone looking come and go, come and go, as you look around at the objects in the room or place around.

Consider that there is no looker, only the impression of a looker.

No looker. At all. Only an impression. Step into that space of there being no looker as far as it feels good to do so. Be no-one for a minute or too. Just sit in it. Watching, doing nothing, being no-one.

Till it's time to put the kettle on.

Share the experience.

Best wishes,
John

there is just this wide open space full of colour and forms. the impression of a looker is a frame of thinking. a frame of reference. there isn't a separate looker from the looking in experience.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Hi ZOC,

I understand what you are saying. I don't expect to find any'thing' though, and that's kinda my point. If what I really am is nothing, then great! There is no self but yet there is existence, so i feel a need to have an understanding of the two. It's not about the little me creating a new spiritual or super-inflated ego, but just to understand in an experiential and existential way how the nothing and the everything come together. What i don't want is beliefs about either.

Let's look at If what I really am is nothing, then great!

What is the "I" in this sentence pointing to? What ideas are behind that "I" in the sentence? Write what comes up immediately.

there is just this wide open space full of colour and forms. the impression of a looker is a frame of thinking. a frame of reference. there isn't a separate looker from the looking in experience.

Spot on. See that frame and notice the frame showing up in a wider space/awareness. Just as the things in the room show up in a wider space/awareness. And the sense of self shows up in a wider space/awareness.

Immerse yourself in this wider space/awareness. Just for a minute.

Are you nothing? Maybe "nothing" is not what you thought it was?

Best wishes,
John