Guide Available

[hylas]

This can be verified in any moment. Going upstream, rather than downstream takes us to the source.

This makes total sense. The only problem is that when I try to go upstream I can only do it by giving it my attention, at which point it’s no longer upstream. Of course, this “going” is the false self going. But, even accepting completely that the false self is the one that thinks it’s going, how can I go upstream, how to “pay attention” to it?

Right here is the trick, the trick of Maya as it were... We miss the undeniable background of awareness that is present in every moment, in every thing. We are always focused outward, in an almost aggressive stance, trying to grasp the assumed reality of thing and in doing so, we miss the fundamental ground that we share, Consciousness... or call it Awareness, or not anything, because it is not a thing. It is the ultimate subject, one without a second.

Maybe what I said above is the nature of this very trick. Here I am trying to aggressively grasp the upstream, the fundamental ground. But what else to do? How else to grasp but to grasp? Another thing I must address here, that implies that there is something to grasp and not a “not anything”: the fact that it’s shared. When you point me to the non-conceptual moment, I realize, of course, that there is nothing I know that is not perceived and in that very moment. But I again, how does this get me to “shared” and not to solipsism? I’m not rejecting solipsism as a possibility; I am just wondering how you have come to know that it’s a shared consciousness.

It’s worth saying that I understand, or think I do, that “grasp” here is not to be done with the intellect . . . but I assume it’s done with something . . .

The mind can't have this. You can only be this. In fact you are always this, but you have imposed a set of beliefs and misunderstandings *about* your experience upon the totality. All there ever is - is perception, and perception has awareness as its very basis. You are not any single thing. What you consider internal and external, or body, mind, and other, is comprised wholly of awared perception, or knowing perception, eternally. There are no objects of experience, only awareness knowing itself endlessly as an ever changing perception. This can be verified every time we look.

Again, this all makes total sense to me . . . except for one thing, that implies there’s something else to “get.” When you get to that “eternally.” I believe that, I trust you, but I don’t know what in awareness, in the perception that is all I know, implies this.

Is there anything in you experience that is not perceived? Are there ever any actual gaps in perception? Again, noticing that attention only happens because awareness is already present, does awareness ever disappear in your moment to moment experience?

There is nothing that is not perceived. There is perception itself, of course. Awareness itself that is not perceived beyond the things that arise to it. But if awareness IS those very things, then the answer is simply no, there is nothing that is not perceived. Certainly there are no gaps that I can detect. If there are gaps, there’s no awareness there to be aware of them. Awareness does not disappear in any way to the thing that I would call “me” though I no longer believe in him.

The awareness that is always present, is like this in terms of knowing, not known like when we have focused on an object, turned our attention to, if you would, but just there now, existing without a name.

This is very clear, very helpful. But of course, it’s just natural for me to turn those gears, to start cognating, trying to grasp the pre-conceptual. That awareness, as you so, is there as I grind. I see that. But I don’t know how to look closely beyond grinding and it’s alternative, meditation.

We are mesmerized by what we know. Every bit of what we know is conceptual, mind stuff. Every single name and word. Like and dislike.

Indeed! I’m mesmerized. Would be so convenient, out here, to have a way to simply turning off the naming of things.

What does space know?

I wouldn’t think space knows anything. I’m not sure whether you mean space in the conventioaln sense or not. After reading some Douglas Harding and Kant, I believe firmly that space is “the stuff of consciousness.” But no, space resists nothing, is not really different from the things that are in it.

Show me a self that exists independently and stands on its own

I certainly can’t. To come up with one, would just be my intellect spinning its gears for the sake of argument. Still, though, I’m not sure this hasn’t just become a belief that “I don’t believe in the self.” I don’t feel I’ve seen that ‘in stark relief.’

You are a dedicated and careful guide. And I appreciate all your efforts to no end!

[Josephkoudelka]

The only problem is that when I try to go upstream I can only do it by giving it my attention, at which point it’s no longer upstream. Of course, this “going” is the false self going. But, even accepting completely that the false self is the one that thinks it’s going, how can I go upstream, how to “pay attention” to it?

Just become aware of being aware, this is going upstream. Fall in love with "beingness." Beingness is a palpable felt sense of aliveness in that is aware of itself in the present moment. In this moment right now, you are aware that you are present, knowing, now. Simply be that. Whenever there is a doubt, look, and rest in this now. As we looked when we did the awareness and attention exercise, simply notice fi attention of anything is possible without awareness being already present.

But note also that we don't want to turn this into a practice that must be constantly done. Resistance and frustration might set in. When the thought arises to look, look. If it doesn't, don't worry about it. If looking is creating unhappiness, let it go at that time. The desire for truth wins the day in the end and you will find your self checking later anyway.

How else to grasp but to grasp?

Simply notice awareness of perception is present now. Notice "I am aware." Notice you know nothing that is not already perceived. Notice that the very act of perceiving is flooded with the light of aware knowing of that same perception immediately. Notice that this immediate knowing of your perception itself is non-conceptually a fact of this experience.

But I again, how does this get me to “shared” and not to solipsism? I’m not rejecting solipsism as a possibility; I am just wondering how you have come to know that it’s a shared consciousness.

Remember our primary purpose, no individual self. When wee look at out experience from this standpoint of perception knowing itself now, there is no end to it. There is no "out there" or "in here." The thoughts whose content says "in here" and "out there", rise in the light of this unending perception knowing itself. That is the very basis of knowing these concepts of "in here" and "out there." Same goes for a thoughts claiming a body separate from the rest of the entire field of knowing. Same also applies to thoughts about I am a mind. The claims made by the thoughts are not our actual experience, they are just belief in the claims, the content of thought itself. Knowing thoughts immediately as the perception that they are, is our actual experience. There is a big difference between knowing a thought as a percept and knowing the content of that that and believing the content is true.

Now, there are two distinctions about the solipsism thought that is plaguing you. One is that solipsism is a concept, and is never an actual experience. Two, that if there is no individual self, then there is no individual self to be found anywhere else either. That leaves only This right now. Perception knowing itself. Who needs to speak of shared or not shared? Shared is also a concept superimposed upon this reality as it is.

For a conceptual trip though... If there is only this one seamless field of perception knowing itself now, what is not shared?

Again, this all makes total sense to me . . . except for one thing, that implies there’s something else to “get.” When you get to that “eternally.” I

I can't say this enough - Eternal does not been a long time. Eternal is the quality of perception knowing itself endlessly in the present and only moment any experience is known.

How can you get what you already are? Right here is the *trap* of a seeking mind. The mind seeks knowing that which it is. Perception knowing itself. Everything else is a belief.

What is a belief? A belief is a concept that is held to be the truth of actual direct experience, rather than the actual experience itself. Whenever we look there is only perception knowing itself.

Where does this perception knowing itself begin or end?

There is nothing that is not perceived. There is perception itself, of course. Awareness itself that is not perceived beyond the things that arise to it.

Now you have gone and made Awareness into a thing, a concept. It doesn't matter what is "outside" of Awareness. Awareness is now. "Outside of Awareness" is a conceptual boondoggle. When is a perception not known? When is this not aware of itself?

...it’s just natural for me to turn those gears, to start cognating, trying to grasp the pre-conceptual.

In direct experience, describe pre-conceptual. Does this "preconceptual" exist in direct experience?

[hylas]

simply notice fi attention of anything is possible without awareness being already present.

No, no. Awareness is clearly always present. More and more I’m aware that the forms that exist outside my attention float in this kind of awareness. I wonder if this counts for anything: Walking by the park this afternoon, I saw a bundled up woman approaching me. But the way her head was positioned it was difficult to know whether her face was completely swaddled with a scarf or if she were just looking down. A few feet closer and then I knew the answer (she was looking down). It snapped into place. The concept, I’m thinking. Not unlike a 30-minute experimental movie I saw long ago. It was a single shot that started as blobs, shifting blobs. Over that half hour the shot simply became more and more focused, the blobs becoming sharper, changing, eventually revealing the outlines of a seemingly human form—until finally everything came into sharp focus, revealing that the blobs were a woman dancing on a beach.

Resistance and frustration might set in.

Oh, don’t worry about me. This is entire exploration is my idea of fun, frustration included. Am trying now to do just as you suggest: simply being aware of awareness at every opportunity.

There is a big difference between knowing a thought as a percept and knowing the content of that that and believing the content is true.

One thing about these thoughts, the endless chatter. You have said before not to make the mistake of reviling the poor thoughts. I’d thought that understanding that a) they are not me, and b) that they arise in consciousness like any other object was the point. But now I’m wondering . . . do thoughts do [ital]anything[/ital.]? Are they ONLY chatter, more or less after the fact? I think I’m writing thoughts here, but maybe my hands are just slapping down the words . . .

For a conceptual trip though... If there is only this one seamless field of perception knowing itself now, what is not shared?

I see your point, pretty much. But it seems consciousness could still be divided, not seamless, just as your body is a sack of water and my body is a sack of water and water is pretty much the same thing, but our sacks are not a single ocean. However, this line of thinking leads me nowhere useful. So ignore me, please.

Now you have gone and made Awareness into a thing, a concept.

Well, I didn’t really mean to do that. You’ve asked me a few times if my perceptions are made up of anything other than perceptions and I stated to think maybe I was missing something . . . that awareness was indeed thingy. No doubt, it’s ALL perception.

In direct experience, describe pre-conceptual. Does this "preconceptual" exist in direct experience?

By pre-conceptual I mean merely the blobs of the movie, before the snap of recognition, the color and forms of the old woman before her faced revealed what was what about her. Seems to me that on a far more subtle level this is going on with all objects.

[hylas]

More and more I am understanding that the idea of no self is a very basic, even mundane, thing to explain and understand. There will be, most likely, no feeling of disappearing (which I've been lead to expect from reading Steven Norquist). It's just the understanding that each experience and thought is its own thing. The idea that there is even an empty center around which they happen is an illusion. I look at each arising and see that this is true.

But there is a sense of surity that you and others have that I don't and I'm not sure I will ever get to such a point (or, if you like, this understanding will never be fully convinced). This may be the product of having a doubting, agnostic, argumentative mind. If you say that the objects before me are no more real than a dream, I can only say "yes, that could be, I'll never know, there's just this experience." If you say "just kidding, actually it's not a dream, but a virtual reality program and we gave you some drugs to induce amnesia to make it more real," I'll say "Ok, I can't know to trust you until the goggles come off, I've just got the impressions in front of me." In other words everything can be questioned, we can only know things based on certain given assumptions. So when you say I'll be done when I am abolutely sure there is no self, I can only say, well, I'm as sure as I could hope to be given these current experiences and this mind. But if an angel came to me next week and said "all that no-self stuff was a joke we threw in there . . . of course you have a soul that drives your experience" I'd just have to throw up my hands and say "ok, I have no way of knowing." Which is to say, it's tough to prove a negative.

I know this is just thinking, just conceptual stuff. It is not meant to show where there might be a self, or to turn to other "possibilites" that are, as you say, fairy tales. It is ony to ask how you get to such a point of surety.

[Josephkoudelka]

I’d thought that understanding that a) they are not me, and b) that they arise in consciousness like any other object was the point. But now I’m wondering . . . do thoughts do [ital]anything[/ital.]? Are they ONLY chatter, more or less after the fact? I think I’m writing thoughts here, but maybe my hands are just slapping down the words . ..

All thoughts are objects of consciousness. A lot of thought is useless chatter, and some thought is useful. For example, you have a conference to attend and it is across the country. You have to think to plan how you are going to get there, not only flight schedule, but from the airport to the conference site. You have to select a hotel, determine how to get from hotel to actual conference, ect... A lot of thought goes into this to ensure it happens as smoothly as possible.

Still, fundamentally there is no thinker, when we examine thoughts, they just happen. Thoughts are known instantaneously, only as they happen, not before. So on one level you have what seems to be a person thinking and planning all these events and directing thoughts and all, but when examined closely, the whole event is just happening. The only problem with thought is when we identify with it as "me." Thoughts die down when the "me" factor is seen to be an illusion.

In my experience, this is gradual. "There is no self", and that thought occurs instantaneously whenever suffering appears here, which is then followed by the thought, "look." Every time that happens, it is seen for what it is, perceptions happening that are known as they happen, without any discrete self at all, which translates into knowing devoid of a self.

Coming full circle we arrive at the next step. Whereas it is acknowledged that all perceptions are objects of consciousness or awareness, and awareness is the very basis for perception to occur, then that that knows awareness and its objects can only be consciousness/awareness alone. All there is is consciousness/awareness. And it, consciousness/awareness, is not an object or a thing.

Where is an individual self in that?

Even so, to understand no self, this level of understanding that is described above is not necessary. All that needs to be acknowledged, that needs to be seen concretely, is that a separate self exists in thought alone. A self can never be found in Direct Experience.

Seriously, show me a self that isn't a thought *about* Direct Experience. Describe a self in Direct Experience.

[hylas]

A lot of thought goes into this to ensure it happens as smoothly as possible.

Still, fundamentally there is no thinker, when we examine thoughts, they just happen.

Totally understood. I merely wanted to know if thoughts were a biproduct of things happening or also made things happen, the way hunger makes things happen. I had imagined a scenario where all that planning happened in some unconciouss way and that the thoughts sort describe it. I do understand that no self is driving the thoughts either way.

In my experience, this is gradual. "There is no self", and that thought occurs instantaneously whenever suffering appears here, which is then followed by the thought, "look." Every time that happens, it is seen for what it is, perceptions happening that are known as they happen, without any discrete self at all,

This very thing happens to more and more each day. Haven't been offended in months, and annoyance and anger are on the wain, with just this technique.

then that that knows awareness and its objects can only be consciousness/awareness alone.

Got it. No self in there at all.

Seriously, show me a self that isn't a thought *about* Direct Experience. Describe a self in Direct Experience.

I cannot, and know I never will be able to drum up some feeling or sensation that would be self and not a feeling or sensation. But the question of surety persists . . . the angel of the above post. Not, perhaps, an important one, but nonetheless . . .

It really would be nice if this would all come with a pop, or a feeling of dissolution or something. Mere understanding is so anticlimactic.

[Josephkoudelka]

But the question of surety persists . . . the angel of the above post. Not, perhaps, an important one, but nonetheless . . .

Where is this question in Direct Experience?

This whole thing becomes simple once we recognize what has happened. At some point early on we have substituted our thoughts *about* experience for experience itself. We substituted reality with a false narrative. Living through the false narrative we invariably suffer because we feel we are lacking something which we cant describe. A longing to be whole sets in. This very longing itself is possible because the truth is always evident in every moment of our experience. The simplest fact of our experience is overlooked.

Question each and every moment ruthlessly when possible. What is this actual experience now?

It really would be nice if this would all come with a pop, or a feeling of dissolution or something. Mere understanding is so anticlimactic.

Knowledge destroys ignorance. It is what sets human beings apart as a life form on this planet.

I'd like to say one other thing about these expectations of yours. Throw away Mark Leavitt's book, "Enlightenment: Behind The Scenes", leave it in the waste basket. Seriously, what a load of excrement. When we first began our conversation, I purchased the kindle version to get a feeling of what your expectations might be. This book is exactly the sort of thing that becomes an obstacle for seeing the simple truth of what is in front of our eyes, right here, right now. Living through an others description of enlightenment is suffering. If you desire experiences like this take up kundalini or a serious meditation practice of sitting on a cushion four hours a day with the knowledge you have gained now. You will get these kind of experiences. You may anyway, if you stay focused on the truth of direct experience. You have to fall in love with it, direct experience.

State your doubt concretely. Describe it precisely. Look it in the eye and then see if it is found in Direct Experience.

[hylas]

First, the excrement. Consider it excreted, into the virtual dustbin, since I have the Kindle edition too (don’t think it’s made it into actual print). I can only thank you for your diligence in checking it out just to see where I’m at. The thing about expectations is that they are what got me here in the first place. You’ve got to understand that I came form a completely un-believing background. And, I think somewhat to my disadvantage, as a result I didn’t seek much, in terms of spirituality or worldly success. “Nothing matters,” was already they mantra, if you will. Along comes the realization that I’m missing something. I plunge into the books and discover that the Upanishads, Buddha, and all the Leavitts, Lotts, Goodes, to say nothing of the Oshos and the Swatzs and . . . well you know the list—they are ALL saying, to an unbeliever, some PRETTY TRIPPY SHIT (excuse the language). The idea of no-self, to someone who has not seriously considered such a thing is just as trippy as the visions in Leavitt’s book. I’m in no way looking for weird experiences (if I were, I’d just take some DMT and be done with it), but the truth they seem to reveal. From an innocent’s perspective, it’s hard to know what’s essential. What’s byproduct, what’s simple, what’s to be dismissed. That said, I have, as much as possible, ignored my previous readings and put my trust in you.
All that reading certainly has set up some expectations, but I think a far bigger hurdle than the one set up by Leavitt is the impression I get from Norquist (http://www.spiritualteachers.org/norquist_article.htm). He describes no-self as an actual disappearance of the self. Of looking at a piece of paper and then not being there, just the paper being there. It’s the idea that there’s a sense of “just perceiving” that occurs---more than just an understanding---that keeps me “expecting something.” I try to put it out of my mind, but there it is.

Meanwhile, I spend much of the day doing as instructed. As always, there are no angels, conceptual or otherwise, in my direct experience. But I’m no good as sussing out the false narrative. My body is there in the school, picking up the kids. They’re the same kids I expected to pickup, my narrative doesn’t seem to lie, and in fact, I have no way of knowing how not to see the narrative, how not to recognize my children. I don’t know where the direct experience ends and the narrative begins, to be honest, when I really look at it.

People often write about seeing through an illusion, just as we see through an optical illusion, or one of those 3D images that pop out when we see it, or the snake and the rope. But it seems to me it’s the other way round. Do you know that illusion where a page looks like a bunch of blobs and then, after you stare at it awhile, a Dalmatian pops out. Once you see the dog, it’s impossible to un-see it. To me, trying to stick with Direct Experience is like trying to un-see the dog, trying to get back to a place where there’s just blobs.

I’m trying to look squarely at my doubt, but it will take some more time.

[Josephkoudelka]

He describes no-self as an actual disappearance of the self. Of looking at a piece of paper and then not being there, just the paper being there. It’s the idea that there’s a sense of “just perceiving” that occurs---more than just an understanding---that keeps me “expecting something.”

I visited your link, Norquist is spot on, not any more or any less than some of the other names you have mentioned. Some of the names I know personally have communicated with directly, in person, or through written means. The one thing I'll note is that each them actually state that this is the simplest thing but it is over looked by the mind. And that you are not a mind. This exactly what has been being pointed to here in our exchange that perceiving is all there is. Even more specifically, that perceiving knowing itself is all there is. Any thing beyond this is a story, even what Norquist writes. But he knows that.

Is there ever a time when you are not perceiving?

People often write about seeing through an illusion, just as we see through an optical illusion, or one of those 3D images that pop out when we see it, or the snake and the rope.

You are imaging what this might *look* like in experience. This imagining is the snake, seeing that what we imagine is not our direct experience is the rope. When the "no you" gets that, which obviously hasn't happened yet, you too will be like, duh, this is so simple. Seeing through the illusion is simply seeing that thoughts *about* our experience is not the actual experience in itself. Whenever we look at what we actually experience directly, we never find anything but thoughts, sensations, feelings, that are all perceptions... nothing more, nothing less. And this perceiving is always known instantaneously. Perceiving cannot be separated from the awareness of itself, the perceiving happening.

When imagining something, is it the direct experience of reality itself? Or is it the content of a thought *about* reality?

As always, there are no angels, conceptual or otherwise, in my direct experience. But I’m no good as sussing out the false narrative. My body is there in the school, picking up the kids. They’re the same kids I expected to pickup, my narrative doesn’t seem to lie, and in fact, I have no way of knowing how not to see the narrative, how not to recognize my children. I don’t know where the direct experience ends and the narrative begins, to be honest, when I really look at it.

And there you have it. You still believe your thoughts about direct experience, rather than looking and sussing out the actual experience itself. You prefer your inner narrative, your fairytale, to the truth itself. I'm not sure how I can help you then. I can't point to this in any simpler terms.

Thoughts *about* experience is not what is happening in direct experience. Look! There is no self!

I'm not sure where to go from here. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am only pointing to what is present now in your experience. How hard is it to recognize that you are not a thought? You don't even have control over any thought.

[hylas]

The one thing I'll note is that each them actually state that this is the simplest thing but it is over looked by the mind. And that you are not a mind. This exactly what has been being pointed to here in our exchange that perceiving is all there is. Even more specifically, that perceiving knowing itself is all there is. Any thing beyond this is a story, even what Norquist writes. But he knows that.

Perceiving is all there is. I understand. I recognize it in each moment. Memories, thoughts---these thoughts, this typing action that comes across via the tactile, visual and aural. It’s all happening now, and only now and that’s all there is. I see that. The friction for me, is the “any thing beyond this is a story.” I KNOW that there is no past or future in this moment. I know that any assumptions about them are thoughts, which are not “mine” in this moment. I KNOW that any memory could have been implanted seconds before by an evil scientist, that I might be a brain in a jar, that guessing as to the truth of why I remember or think anything is impossible. But the story isn’t necessarily false. This is the friction, this is the problem over HERE. I know there’s just this moment, but I am going to go to the school to get the kids. YOU know there’s just this moment, YOU will get your kids. You’ll recognize them! You’ll feed them! If you really disbelieve all but just the moment, that your memories that are happening only just now with no basis in something that happened that is not in this moment (even if that thought too is just in this moment) why are you going to get the kids at school?

I am not the mind, but I still have a mind, or at least thoughts. Just as I am not the body, but still have a body. This is right now what the thoughts are thinking.

Is there ever a time when you are not perceiving?

No, I get that. I really really get it. You’ve lead the horse to the water, I drank the water. I’m just perceiving these thoughts, or these thoughts are being perceived, and here they are for you . . .

You are imaging what this might *look* like in experience.

Absolutely true. I find that hard to help.

thoughts *about* our experience is not the actual experience in itself. .

I understand that this is true. But of course, thoughts about the actual experience are also an actual experience, and I’m having them now, this moment. I am having thoughts about a real or imaginary past right now.

But back to the school, back to recognition. Recognition happens (in it’s very moment) presumably because of memory and whatnot informing something that the face before it is what’s been seen before (a non-existent before). It happens and it happens instantaneously and it happens in the moment. For a fool like me, I don’t know how to separate that recognition from the visual blobs before me. You seem to be saying I don’t need to. But then aren’t I believing in the fairy tale?

When the "no you" gets that,

I guess you mean here an impersonal consciousness. This too, though, screws with my expectations. There’s something to get, there’s no me to get it, but there’s still something that will get it. This is not an easy thing for a fool on this side of the fence, however simple it may be once it happens.

When imagining something, is it the direct experience of reality itself? Or is it the content of a thought *about* reality?

No thought, memory, or imagined thing is anything but "about" reality. If I sit and worry about the future, or imagine eating a feast, or whatever, of course it has nothing to do with reality. The problem is sussing out what’s imagination on the more subtle level, like face recognition. I know you must thinki that giving up worry about an imagined future is simple and obvious, but you are surely NOT implying that I don’t go get the kids because my facial recognition is just as empty as any other day dreaming. Maybe I'm mistaken. But if you can see how RIGHT NOW I know I'm going to go get the kids and I know I'm going to recognize them, then you can see the power of the imagination. That may be a fairy tale, but I don't know how not to believe it, regardless of any preference.

You prefer your inner narrative, your fairytale, to the truth itself.

This is just not true. You’ve misunderstood me. I prefer nothing. I am pointing out the problems that are there for me. They may be intellectual problems; they may be useless when trying to view to direct experience, but these comments are efforts to show the hurdles before me. Logical contradictions (or things like them) are things I hope you will just explain away so that I can move forward. I realize that you are saying that such thinking is not the right path. But those are my sticking points. I can’t leave alone things that don’t make sense. I believe everything you say and am hoping that you make certain things makes sense so I can move on to a visceral understanding.

I'm not sure how I can help you then. I can't point to this in any simpler terms.

If it were so easy this site wouldn’t be needed. All the books and videos would pop us there with a short explanation. I’m sure it’ll be obvious soon enough. And I do apologize that I’m so foolish, stubborn, or whatever it is. But, presumably, this IS hard to see. Isn't this site filled with years-long seekers who didnt see? And anyway each thought I have and put down here had to happen JUST LIKE THIS.

Thoughts *about* experience is not what is happening in direct experience. Look! There is no self!

Agreed.

How hard is it to recognize that you are not a thought? You don't even have control over any thought.

I’m not a thought, but I’m having thoughts. I’m not these thoughts right here right now, but I’m having these thoughts right here right now. I don’t control these thoughts right here right now, but these thoughts are happening right here right now.

I have nothing but respect and gratitude for your help here. Nothing I say here is an argument against you. It's me just explaining what I hope you can help me resolve. I'd like to go on. I think of nothing else. I would think that I'm just a regular thinking person and that my problems are not unusual . . . But if you need to give up on me, so be it. Perhaps I'm just one of those weeds Jesus spoke of, that cannot be saved . . .

[Josephkoudelka]

I'm always interested in continuing. You wondered awhile back about me still needing to look. I get to look all the time when I am involved in this conversation. There is nothing other than this.

What we will do then is continue to look from various angles over and over again until there is no doubt. I'll followup more a bit later.

Joseph ♥︎

[Josephkoudelka]

Also, I don't have a time frame in which I think this should be completed. It is over when it is crystal clear, doubtless.

[Josephkoudelka]

As I reread through your last couple of posts, one thing still really sticks out, and that is that you are arguing for what conventional thought says *about* everyday run of the mill life happening. You are convinced that the story they tell is at least as good as direct experience because their claims are true. They are not.

I emphatically state that the stories about our experience are not true when their basis is ignorance, the belief that I am an individual with an individual life exercising free will. Period. This is the fundamental ignorance that prevents one from recognizing that they were completely mistaken about reality, and that something else has been happening all along.

I too, pick up my kids from school, go grocery shopping, pay bills, eat and shit, ect... I love my kids. More than any other. Everything looks exactly the same in appearance, except for one crucial fundamental difference. As grace would have it, I was able to look behind the veil(belief in thoughts about whats happening). I was able to disbelieve all my stories about everything and look at my direct experience of reality. I had to know the truth and wanted the red pill more than the blue pill. Your treasured thoughts are the blue pill. The funny thing is that you get to keep them when you see you never happened. You just no longer believe them. They work enough in the world of appearance... And a lot of them actually don't work very well at all, or you wouldn't suffer.

You dropped a lot of names in a post a few up. I challenge you to go find anywhere in their literature, their writings, that state that the one who is still deluded by thoughts of separation, gets the prize. Non-dual realization. Enlightenment. The BIG ENCHILADA.

Bring it to me. Quotes, page numbers author title, all that. Show me.

What separates the jnanis from the deluded is that they know what is real and what is not real. And not a single one will ever buy that your thoughts of separation are true. It is ridiculous to argue for this and as of this post I will not even answer or acknowledge anything that you trot out in favor of them. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. You can keep all your thoughts that support a truth of separation but you will be denied the kingdom.

So that is where you're at. Still wanting to believe the story.

THE SNAKE IS THE STORY, DIRECT EXPERIENCE IS THE ROPE.

There was never anything to fear because I am not doing it anyway and not a single thing as far as the eye can see.

Now on to the simplicity of this.

Describe in Direct experience where there is no perceiving happening. No stories. Look. Now. Describe.

[hylas]

As I reread through your last couple of posts, one thing still really sticks out, and that is that you are arguing for what conventional thought says *about* everyday run of the mill life happening. You are convinced that the story they tell is at least as good as direct experience because their claims are true. They are not.

.
You are surely right. I think the basic problem here is that I do not feel I can just “look at direct experience.” The basic thing you are asking me to do, which seems so simple to you, induces confusion in me. The basic sensory world that is about me in this moment comes separated, with concepts that separate them, even if I know those concepts are a veil. Never mind the self for a moment. I don’t know how to see anything as concept-free. There’s no thing that comes without a concept even when it comes without a name. The face recognition story was a question for you. What am I supposed to treat as false? You are telling me not to try to un-see concepts, but also to ignore the story. Where does one end and the other begin?

DE seems like part of conventional thought. I have known both perceptions and common sense the whole life through. The story is not true, but it’s true enough to get you to do your list of things just as I do mine. And this does not help to understand what seems to be essential: where DE end and where the story starts.

I emphatically state that the stories about our experience are not true when their basis is ignorance,

If you were just say “not true, just a dream,” that would be enough (maybe) to try to ignore the story. But then you add “when their basis is ignorance” as if ignorance or knowledge changes truth. The question here is just how unreal is the story? Is it ALL B.S.? Or is just the self B.S.? I it just a simple little thing I’m overlooking, or is the big enchilada?

the belief that I am an individual with an individual life exercising free will. Period. This is the fundamental ignorance that prevents one from recognizing that they were completely mistaken about reality, and that something else has been happening all along.

I understand completely that that is what I am here for. Two days ago I felt almost there. All this argumentative stuff puts me right back into the old self.

I too, pick up my kids from school, go grocery shopping, pay bills, eat and shit, ect... I love my kids. More than any other.

But why? Why isn’t this just a story, self or no-self? Not defending , or wanting any story to be true. Just trying to understand that essential conundrum.

Everything looks exactly the same in appearance, except for one crucial fundamental difference. As grace would have it, I was able to look behind the veil(belief in thoughts about whats happening). I was able to disbelieve all my stories about everything and look at my direct experience of reality.

I’d love to disbelieve all my stories. I just have a tough time doing that since it’s all I’ve known. Isn’t it true that even when there is no self “what’s happening” is still what’s happening? Isn’t that what you’re saying here? Does common sense evaporate? The answer may be yes, I’m not defending, I’m asking.

I had to know the truth and wanted the red pill more than the blue pill. Your treasured thoughts are the blue pill.

This is why I’m here . . . I just can’t find the red pill.

You dropped a lot of names in a post a few up. I challenge you to go find anywhere in their literature, their writings, that state that the one who is still deluded by thoughts of separation, gets the prize. Non-dual realization. Enlightenment. The BIG ENCHILADA.

Here you’ve just misunderstood me. Never in my right mind did I mean to suggest that these writers thought or wrote that a separate self is real or gets any kind of realization. I mention those names in relation to my expectations. They all of them to write about things that are strange and unworldly to the egoic mind. No-self is one of those things, Osho’s 1000 suns is another, space as an illusion is a third. Enlightenment tales abound, with energies escaping from the head and whatnot. That was my only point. The failure of language makes nondual writers write things that seem far out, however simple they might be in reality.

What separates the jnanis from the deluded is that they know what is real and what is not real. And not a single one will ever buy that your thoughts of separation are true.

I don’t ever mean to argue that thoughts about separation are true. As your post reveals, what I think I’m saying to you reveals something else to you. I don’t know anything! Thoughts that I think are trying to get through the story and toward figuring out what is really DE, you are labeling defenses of separation. I don’t defend it. I want it to end. Isn’t that the game here? I don’t know anything but the life I’ve been leaving. I can’t think anything but with the tired old reason I’ve used for 40-odd years. I don’t think separation is true. In fact, I never did. But I don’t get it in the non-thinking way. But you honestly seem to understand me more than I understand myself.

It is ridiculous to argue for this and as of this post I will not even answer or acknowledge anything that you trot out in favor of them. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. You can keep all your thoughts that support a truth of separation but you will be denied the kingdom.

Fair enough. In my heart I whisper “can’t you just show me how it’s wrong” but I’ll keep all conundrums of the old reasoning to myself. But I’ll stop, no more expressions of confusion or exasperation. I will obey.

So that is where you're at. Still wanting to believe the story.

No, really. Not WANTING to, no. Believing, maybe. I’m not defending this crap, please. I’m certainly in some purgatory where I believe in nothing. No longer believe in the self, or the apparent world, don’t know how to believe in the no self, or accept it with out belief. Don’t know what portion of what I know and see is real or not real.

The problem that I am trying to clear up is just how much is false. Half the time you seem (and everyone else) seem to be saying it’s ALL a dream, half the time you’re saying “it’s simple, it’s nothing, just no self.” But there always seems to be some element of life as I know it now that remains and is true? So how the hell is an ignoramus such as myself supposed to figure anything out?

I don’t know about the camel . . . I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m rich with.

Ok from here on in I will obey, to the best of my abilities.

In direct experience there is nothing I perceive that is not perception. Right now, nothing, a scraping sound outside. It’s just that sound, but I hear it as scraping as soon as I hear it. A wife at her computer sits across from me, she is actually just a blob of tan (skin, but that’s just the concept), with black surrounding it, purple beneath, I’d call it a shirt sleeve, it’s just the color, dark here, light there. But the dark and the light are just concepts, of course, but they look different in that way. More sirens. Voices outside. I assume they’re sirens and voices, but they are just those sounds that sound that way. Thoughts about how memory works and informs me of a concept without a specific memory coming into play . . . they drift through my mind, as do thoughts about whether I should put a comma here or there. Of course a comma is just a concept, a human construction for a human idea about rhythm, but of course, I don’t know even that, I can only assume a human constructed it, I can only assume what I see is there at all, I can only assume that this is not a dream. But what ever it is, I continue to perceive this screen, hear these keys, think these thoughts . . . colors, sounds, thoughts.

[hylas]

I think, maybe, for a guy like me, it might be ok to revile thoughts a little.