Hi Vivien,
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?
The first thing to say... It is difficult (thought) to answer this question without believing (thought) in the me (thought) that answers it. These thoughts create the story-of-me answering this question. They’re appearing regularly!
But in reality, there are only appearances appearing to no subject. Throughout this process, I began to see more objects and less of a ‘perceived-self’. Then, all objects and no self. The absence of any subject, left behind objects and the knowing of them. It is no longer accurate to call these
objects for two reasons: there is no subject to make them objects and there is an inherent knowing ‘with’ them. So now.... there are just appearances at one with inherent knowing. There is everything just happening. To whom or what? Well that’s the point... no one.
So, I see through the notion of an ‘I’ clearly because there is no subject. But as for ‘separation’... I am not sure what this points to? I guess the ‘I’ and duality? ‘I’ am not sure it is ‘seen’ in this ‘separate’ context. There is no ‘I’ and that’s as much is seen.
‘Was there ever a separate entity ‘self’ etc?’... Of course, past exists in time which is the creation of thought. This is where ‘I’ exists and this story appears regularly. However, as ‘I’ walk around the house, pictures appear and thoughts appear about a past. More and more, this is seen for what it is. Appearances. In this example, the picture and then the thought. But it’s ‘sticky’.
Perhaps, the most difficult ‘set of appearances’ to see clearly are those relating to ‘the past’. And this is even more so when talking with others about ‘a past’ in which ‘I’ participated.
In conclusion and using timeframes for the purposes of explanation... In the present, the ‘notion of an I’ is quite clear. So thoughts relating to ‘me’ now are seen. The future is very clearly seen as the appearance of thoughts. The past ‘I’ (thoughts appearing) is more difficult to see through. Of course, ‘I’ see that it is just appearance like any other but the content is ‘heavier’. It’s difficult to know your family’s reference to Robbie in the past as an appearance and any thought relating to this same past as an appearance. And this leaves ‘me’ wondering why it is more difficult to see family referring to Robbie in the past as just that... than it is family referencing Robbie in the moment. Different content but essentially all the same damn thing. Appearances-appearing-to-no-one-no-thing.
I have not really referred to the body, yet. But ‘I’ began to ‘know’ the body as an appearance some time ago. Most of the time, it does not appear. But... Sometimes, parts appear visually. Sometimes, parts are felt. Sometimes, the whole thing (a front-on appearance of the whole thing anyway!) appears visually. Enough said on this matter? Basically, parts of it appear from time to time and occasionally the whole thing (almost) is seen. Mostly though, it does not ‘appear’ much.
2) Share in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different now?
Can I assume the separate-self to be the same thing as a subject? If so, it is entirely conceptual and downstream of reality. Reality is what is. Isness. To ‘me’ this is not oneness or nondualness. ‘I’ know this as ‘just isness’. ‘I’ guess there is no separation but what is this idea of no separation anyway? A thought. In isness there is just isness. Anything beyond... and we (literally) enter the world of thought and conceptual creation in which the subject (notion of I) is created. It is so simple. Isness, then thought, and then the world in which ‘I’ am created and inhabit.
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.
It is early days! The realisation of no-subject to which any appearance ‘reports’ is still ‘my current seeing’. Of course, the implications are huge!
‘I’ felt huge frustration around the exercises of choosing and doing. Then came the pointings from Vivien... “to whom do the frustrations belong?” or words to that effect. And there was no one to be found. Everything appeared BUT to who/what? Just another appearance?! The subject fell apart and there was - just appearances and knowing. Just isness. And this is where the seeing is.
Since that moment, ‘I’ really feel as though there are two worlds. The world of ‘just isness’ and the world of ‘thought’. More often now, when ‘I’ appears it is recognised and seen as a sort of mini-dream, the sort of which takes place during sleep.
Unsurprisingly, it is difficult to integrate this seeing consistently in daily life. How to do this?
4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?
Being pissed off but being unable to find the person to whom this feeling ‘reported’!
As above, choice and decision was really difficult for ‘me’ and (note to Vivien please) ‘I’ would like to discuss this. Essentially, these were just thoughts/appearances appearing super thick-and-fast. But when asked to whom/what they appeared, there was no-thing!
5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.
‘How does it work?’ It doesn’t. These are descriptive labels. And anything that describes appearance is an appearance itself. Everything (including all these ideas of decision etc) appears to nothing. And even the word ‘nothing’ is too much of a ‘thing’!
Decision, intention, free will, choice and control... they’re downstream of ‘life’ and they belong to the ‘conceptual’ world. Robbie’s world.
‘I’ should add that there is no ‘knowing’ in terms of nondual and dual. There ‘just is’ and then there is this conceptual world in which ‘I’ exist along with a sort of dream-story.
In terms of examples:
In the conceptual world: I drive to the shops. The GPS asks me to turn right. I wonder if this can be right. I decide to continue on and take the next right instead.
But what really happened here? ‘I’ don’t drive anywhere. There is no ‘I’ to be found. Even to say the body drives to the shops is a belief (thought) in the entirety of the body. There is just driving. Decision needs a decider. There isn’t one. There are thoughts relating to the decision and a decider but to whom/what? No one. No thing. And this undermines the idea of a decider etc.
NB: ‘I’ really wrestled with decision, choice and control. This was until ‘I’ couldn’t be found and all ideas and beliefs that require an ‘I’ became ‘appearances’ to nothing.
b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.
There is no ‘I’. There ‘just is’. It is kinda hollow. There’s life taking caring of life. Just doing its thing. Appearing in its way. ‘My experience’ is part of life doing its thing. ‘My identity’ is part of the conceptual world. Put another way: ‘My knowing’ just is. Robbie though... is a conceptual construct. Make any sense?!
This is still a slightly murky area for ‘me’. Family and work are the cornerstones of ‘my’ life. The idea that ‘I’ am not responsible is realized and sometimes all aspects are appearances. But the ‘I story’ rises strongly in these areas and it is more difficult to ‘see through’. Especially when for instance I’m in the middle of an important presentation for work...!
6) Anything to add?
Everything appears to nothing. What to make of it? No ‘one’ can. And that’s it. End of.
What does all this mean for ‘me’? On the one hand, this seems like a ridiculous question. On the other... it’s fundamental...
Finally, a HUGE thank you for making your wisdom accessible. It’s life-changing. From one perspective to no perspective. As one door closes, another one opens. There’s more to know and see. It’s exciting!
RM
