A guide would be appreciated!

[intothenow]

1.Ok,now I understand the exercise.
The thoughts were there and the body continued functioning. Nothing stopped.
It was realeasing as shouting is the same as a massage in a way.:) (but ignore this as this is different from the answer what we were looking for.

Just giving a command "stop" doesn't stop anything. Things happen, so perhaps let them happen.

2.
yes,I've done some meditation in the past. And yes, thoughts came and left. At the beginning I tried to stop them but of course I just created more.
Focusing on breath helped to decrease the thoughts.but still after some time,depends, the thoughts came again. then I was forced to learn to let them be and don't see them as my enemies. I learnt that, it's ok to have them as long as there is no cling to them.

Mira:)

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2

[eyeman]

Hi Mira,

Yes, you can see clearly how life continues even when we 'command' it to stop :-)

Let's now move to what happens when our senses sense the world of direct experience. If there's a 'self' then it follows that there must be a 'seer' in order to see, a 'thinker' in order to think, a 'hearer' in order to hear etc...

Please describe what is currently happening in your direct experience right now - try to avoid responding in an intellectual way, just what definitely IS, in experience right now in the simplest way possible, describe what's happening through the senses. Look at your experience and try to avoid adding labels (ideas).

Mike :-)

[intothenow]

Hi Mike,

looked out of the window & this is the outcome.
Watching - people, birds, trees etc...things are happening around "Mira".
listening - birds, airplain, cars...again things are happening around "Mira"
Smell - fresher air after the rain.
Touch- sense the cold on the skin
When I opened the window sensed the material of the handle. Cold,solid.

So things are happening and "Mira" sense them. Question: if there is a sensation then the experiencer must be there too who is "Mira"?!?!?.but when I look for the "I" I'm stuck,can't see it.

Mira:)




Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2

[eyeman]

Hi Mira,

looked out of the window & this is the outcome.
Watching - people, birds, trees etc...things are happening around "Mira".
listening - birds, airplain, cars...again things are happening around "Mira"
Smell - fresher air after the rain.
Touch- sense the cold on the skin
When I opened the window sensed the material of the handle. Cold,solid.

Nicely described - life is happening and it doesn't stop happening. Notice though that the mind labels each thing experienced - window, people, birds, trees, Mira etc... As the senses are engaged, even without knowing it, the mind labels and conceptualises - separating one object from another, and also subject and object separation.

So things are happening and "Mira" sense them. Question: if there is a sensation then the experiencer must be there too who is "Mira"?!?!?.but when I look for the "I" I'm stuck, can't see it.

Aha! Yes this is a great question, it shows that Mira is really looking for the truth, naturally enquiry which ultimately comes back to the belief and assumption that we have a separate self.

Now look very very closely at your in the moment direct experience, is there a 'seer' separate from the seen? Is there a 'hearer' separate from what is heard? Is there a 'feeler' separate from felt? Is there a 'thinker' separate from the throught?

To help with this, let's look at one specific example - if Mira hears a sound - perhaps the sound of a plane, where is it that the sound happens? Remember to avoid conceptualising this, just work on what feels to be true in direct experience.

You're doing really well Mira - look forward to hearing your response.

Mike :-)

[intothenow]

Hi Mike,

1.
"Now look very very closely at your in the moment direct experience, is there a 'seer' separate from the seen? Is there a 'hearer' separate from what is heard? Is there a 'feeler' separate from felt? Is there a 'thinker' separate from the thought?"

I'm really, truly looking at the laptop while I'm writing without labelling it. Stop writing and looking. hm.... can't see any separation. seer and seen. it's an experience. it happens. the "seeing" happens. hm.... If there is not separation then we are going back to the main question. Where is the "I"? So, if there is no separation there is no "I". Only the thoughts play the game, the game of the separation? But where the thoughts are coming from? yes, memory and where else?

2.
"if Mira hears a sound - perhaps the sound of a plane, where is it that the sound happens?"

WOW!!!
The sound happens in the mind.
If so, then the sound doesn't exist and it's just a creation of the mind. If the sound doesn't exist then the air plain either. But the plain is real, physical.
?!?!?!?

Mira:)

[eyeman]

Hiya Mira,

I'm really, truly looking at the laptop while I'm writing without labelling it. Stop writing and looking. hm.... can't see any separation. seer and seen. it's an experience. it happens. the "seeing" happens. hm.... If there is not separation then we are going back to the main question. Where is the "I"? So, if there is no separation there is no "I". Only the thoughts play the game, the game of the separation? But where the thoughts are coming from? yes, memory and where else?

Pure Reality is non-dualistic, things are not bound by dualism, separation or logic. The dualistic (separating) mind simply cannot see, know or contact pure reality, it only knows dualism. Also, Pure 'non-dualistic' reality does and cannot contain anything dualistic. The bottom line here is: no amount of reading, discussing, teaching can ever lead you to experience of pure Reality. And also, the moment you try to use words (the product of a dualistic mind), we instantly lose true pure reality - it simply cannot be translated.

Apologies if the above makes no sense due to not having previous 'knowledge' of these terms and ideas - the point is, it can be totally disregarded as the above is only ideas and logic. (but may answer some of your questions from a logical viewpoint).

Now let's get back to Reality!

WOW!!!
The sound happens in the mind.
If so, then the sound doesn't exist and it's just a creation of the mind. If the sound doesn't exist then the air plain either. But the plain is real, physical.
?!?!?!?

Let's look into this a bit deeper.

If Mira hears the plane in the sky above and can perhaps see it, then it's fair to assume that it's a real thing since we are using the senses as evidence of what is real and what is not. If a dog barks, and we hear it and or see it, we know that we can perhaps find it and touch it and be confident it's a real thing as opposed to imaginary.

When the sound happens of the plane or dog, or the sight happens of a car driving past, or we walk along and feel sensation as our feet touch the ground - again the question is: Where does all of this happen?

Let's look at the options:

1) It happens in the mind of 'Mira'.
2) It happens externally outside of the mind of 'Mira'
3) 'Mira' is just an illusion that the mind creates and in Reality, the world (life) that 'Mira' experiences IS one and the same as the mind of Mira.

If the answer is number 3, then there really is no possible way to describe where it all happens, it just IS, the ideas of 'inside' and 'outside', distance, location, time and separation etc... are only ideas (things imagined) which in reality do not exist at all!

Mike :-)

[intothenow]

Hi Mike,

Thank you for you explanation. yes, it answered my questions.

I'm so glad for these experiences. now I can see that I experienced one thing in 3 different ways. Contradicting "myself" all the time. :(
1.
listening - birds, airplain, cars...again things are happening around "Mira" - option 2 - t happens externally outside of the mind of 'Mira' - dualism
2.
The sound happens in the mind. - option 1 -" It happens in the mind of 'Mira'. - dualism

3.
"I'm really, truly looking at the laptop while I'm writing without labelling it. Stop writing and looking. hm.... can't see any separation" - option 3 - non-dualism.

hm..so it's just depends how we look. LOOKING, TRULY LOOKING with non-dualistic mind.

Mira:)

[eyeman]

Yes Mira,

It sounds like you can see exactly how it is :-) Once the mind gets involved, it 'needs' to make sense of it by creating duality, without it there is no logical sense. When looking at our direct experience, we begin to break the many years we've spent only seeing things in the logical sense - always dualistic, always labelling. The problem is, the dualistic mind also creates many illusions in order for it all to fit together and be believable. It's only when we begin to truly look at the evidence that many of these assumptions come crashing down.

At this point, let's become REALLY picky with words and terminology, obviously we use the words 'I' and 'self' to communicate but from now on, purely for clarity purposes let's be very picky:

I'm so glad for these experiences. now I can see that I experienced one thing in 3 different ways. Contradicting "myself" all the time. :(

Who or what is it that feels 'glad' for these experiences, who or what is it that experiences? Can you find this seperate 'I' anywhere in direct experience?

I'm really, truly looking at the laptop while I'm writing without labelling it. Stop writing and looking. hm.... can't see any separation" - option 3 - non-dualism.

Again, what does the 'I' point to here? What and where is it right now in direct experience?

Mike :-)

[intothenow]

ok, so lets be picky with words. I understand why you are asking me this, to break the old habits.

1.
"Who or what is it that feels 'glad' for these experiences, who or what is it that experiences? Can you find this separate 'I' anywhere in direct experience?"

So, who or what is it that feels "glad"?
a, .Mira feels glad. - answer by the dualistic mind
b, truly looking - hm... stuck on this again. The mysterious "I".

2.
"what does the 'I' point to here? What and where is it right now in direct experience?"

stuck....... nowhere....hm

Mira:)



In direct experience is no "I", option 3. no separation.

[eyeman]

Hi Mira,

Yes in Reality, the 'self' or 'I' is just an idea - the content of a thought arising :-)

Mira...... Have you seen through the illusion of a separate self? Are there any doubts or questions?

Mike :-)

[intothenow]

Hi Mike,

yes, I have a question.

At the beginning you said, thoughts are true, the context of the thoughts are not.
If "self" is an idea then thought is an idea too. so the only truth is there is the direct experience.

Please comment on this.

Thank you

Mira:)

[eyeman]

Hi Mira,

Just to be absolutely clear in terms of wording: The statement was: Thoughts are real but the content of thoughts is not. (content and not context).

What is meant by this is that we are able to see/notice, that thoughts really do arise and pass, if we sit quietly with our eyes closed, we cannot stop the constant flow of thoughts. However, what those thoughts contain, cannot be experienced directly.

An example would be that yes a thought arises - the thought content is perhaps a memory of a lovely summers day - we are able to see that the lovely summers day is not a real thing right now, it's purely an 'imagining'.

Another example of a thought content might be that we've read a book about another country, we feel that we 'know' about this other country but the truth is, we have zero direct experience of it, the knowledge we've gained through reading the book is purely symbolic, the writer has symbolised the experience of that country, then we interpret their interpretation. If you jumped on a plane and visited the country, your experience may be very different.

The content of thought can be symbolic of reality but can also be totally wrong: A good example of this might be as a child believing in Santa, it is a real thought but the belief (thought content) is wrong, once we know that Santa is not real, we never fall back to believing it again.

Does that answer the question?

Mike :-)

[intothenow]

HI Mike,

I did understand what a thought content is. My concern was the separation of the thought from its content. My understanding was, they are the same.

Thank you, your explanation was clear.

"it is a real thought but the belief (thought content) is wrong"

The thought as a whole and the content a story by chapter by chapter.
Anyway, it's not important any more. :)

Thank you:)

Mira:)

[eyeman]

Yes that's a good analogy Mira,

The thought is like a book and the story is like thought content

Mike :-)

[eyeman]

So the question remains:

Have you seen through the illusion of a separate self, or is there any doubts or questions?

Take as long as you like on this Mira, this is not the final question but is a vital one :-)

Mike :-)