Pre-Awakening

[Bananafish]

Very nice observations, Statum. :)

How is the sense of being a separate, concrete self felt now?

[Statum]

Very nice observations, Statum. :)

How is the sense of being a separate, concrete self felt now?

It is felt as very dynamic and changing. More of like an inflow and outflow process. “I” am what goes in to this center of consciousness and what comes out. There are thoughts associated with this and there is still a desire to articulate a belief. But there doesn’t feel to be any way that the belief scales up to mean anything more than another thought.

[Bananafish]

“I” am what goes in to this center of consciousness and what comes out.

Does what you call consciousness have a center?
Where is it?

[Statum]

Does what you call consciousness have a center?
Where is it?

As I look for it, no I can’t find a center. I can’t find where inside becomes outside or outside becomes inside. It’s just the sensations happening “here” with no one sensation being more of a sensation than the other. As I touch the desk that I’m sitting in, it is perceived like the inside and the outside meet at the sensation of my hand on the desk. But there is just sensation “here”. Hand, table, inside, and outside are labels. The sensation changes when my hand is moved off of the desk, but it doesn’t stop being sensation, it just changes sensation.

[Bananafish]

Is what you call "here" a location?

[Statum]

Is what you call "here" a location?

Hey Kento :)

I have spent some time feeling into what “here” is. It’s not a location that has starts and stops at a designated point. It doesn’t have qualities that I can point to. It isn’t separate from any sense. It is where thoughts appear.I don’t have to try to get there. It’s not measured. This is what I have noticed.

[Bananafish]

Hi Statum. :)

It is where thoughts appear

Is "here" separate from thoughts themselves?
Is "here" different from thoughts themselves?

[Statum]

Is "here" separate from thoughts themselves?
Is "here" different from thoughts themselves?

There was the thought that thoughts were separate and different from “here”. That there is “here” which is before thoughts, then thoughts appear “here”, and then go away into “here” from where they came.

From pure sensation and experience, there is no distinction between where and what or between “here” and thought.Thought and no thought are the same. There does seem to be a difference between physical sensation and no physical sensation though. The same isn’t felt now to be true with thought.

[Bananafish]

Hi again. :)

Let's get back to the sense of there being a concrete, separate subject called you.
How is it felt now?

[Statum]

Let's get back to the sense of there being a concrete, separate subject called you.
How is it felt now?

It’s felt not as a concrete separate sensation. It is felt as thought which comes and goes and is the same as “here” whether it is coming or going. The separate subject is thought and no thought because thought and no thought are the same “here”. Thoughts going or coming are the same, thought is the same regardless of the content. The thought of self and the thought of no self are the same because they are both thoughts. And thought and no thought are the same because they are both “here”; both are what “here” is.

[Bananafish]

Hi Statum. :) How does it feel to see that? Any kind of shift in perception?
(I ask this kind of questions often)

Does that understanding come from an experiential understanding
of thoughts, or is it more like a theory?

[Statum]

How does it feel to see that? Any kind of shift in perception?

Does that understanding come from an experiential understanding
of thoughts, or is it more like a theory?

It feels very confusing haha. This is an experiential understanding of thoughts, but the understanding can’t be communicated without contradiction. The sense of self is felt as thought and thought and no thought are the same. Thoughts appear “here”, but thoughts are not separate from “here” and neither is no thought. And “here” is not a location because there isn’t anything that I find in experience that is not “here”.

All this to say that the feeling and the perceptual quality is on that is confusion. There is no way that it can be how I explain it, but it just is that way with no way to explain it.

[Bananafish]

Thanks, Statum. :)

Could you elaborate on that "confusion," so that we could identify the point
where you are stuck at?

[Statum]

Could you elaborate on that "confusion," so that we could identify the point
where you are stuck at?

The thought says something like, “Ok so I can’t find a self in sensation. Not in sight, sound, taste, touch, or smell. And the self is not needed for any of these things to exist. But if any of them went away, I would still refer to myself as “I”. “I” doesn’t need the senses to be “I”. So that would leave “I” as a content of thought. And thought exists as thought, but the contents are only reflections of reality not reality itself. So looking at the content of thought, it’s sight without actually being sight and sound without hearing sound, etc. Where does it appear? Where does it come from? What’s doing the reflecting? How is the reflecting different from what’s being reflected?

This is all gibberish and mind babble, but I would say that to try to sum that up the place of confusion is what is the nature of the thought of self? Is the self a reflection of something in reality and how is that reflection separate from what’s being reflected? If this isn’t legible I can try to be more clear.

[Bananafish]

what is the nature of the thought of self?

This is a good question on which we could reflect.
Please observe the nature of the thought of self (not its content), and see
if that is any different from other thoughts, something like thoughts about today's breakfast.

Warmly,

Kento