Getting closer ...

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

We will look at the body later.

So, I feel like I want to point in all directions (including my body as well as everything else) to actually point to my 'true self'.

Who is saying that I have a ‘true self’?

Who has a ‘true self’?

Is there such thing as ‘true self’ and ‘not true self’?

Please reply without any speculation, analogy or metaphor.

Vivien

[Chris1001]

Hi Vivien

Please reply without any speculation, analogy or metaphor.

I'll do my best, but it's becoming hard now, as I am very aware of no-self vs true self debate here, from past teachings. Its really hard to just ignore that. I'll share pure observations first, followed by what might be speculation/analogy and then you can pick out anything that's useful.

Who is saying that I have a ‘true self’?

Who has a ‘true self’?

From observation there's not an individual, separate owner of this 'true self'. There's not something which is saying "I have a true self".

It is that after it is seen that there isn't a separate self, the definition of the self changes (are you gonna say this is analogy? I'm just trying to explain to you how I see true-self i.e. it is not just another way of me describing the separate self).

Is there such thing as ‘true self’ and ‘not true self’?

These are concepts and thus can't be found in experience as actual 'things'.

There's some resistance coming up here around whether the true-self is simply the same thing as 'what is'. But I struggle with 'what is' and the sheer simplicity of it. So I want to put some sort of 'self' label on things.
Hence....if we have seen through the illusion of separate self, then something else must then get the label of self, with the result that oneness, awareness or 'what is' all then become redefined as 'true self' (but is there anything wrong with that?).

My investigating so far does indeed point more and more towards there only ever being 'what is'. But it's too simplistic for me to accept at this point.

Chris

[Chris1001]

Just realised I ought to make clear that any speculations/analogy are contained in that last message. I don't have another message to follow.

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

V: Who is saying that I have a ‘true self’?
Who has a ‘true self’?

C: From observation there's not an individual, separate owner of this 'true self'. There's not something which is saying "I have a true self".

Have you actually looked for the one who supposedly has a true self, or you replied from a memory of a previous looking?

Can you CLEARLY SEE IN THIS MOMENT that there is nobody / nothing that could make the claim of ‘my true self’?

Is this crystal clear for you in this very moment as you look?

It is that after it is seen that there isn't a separate self, the definition of the self changes (are you gonna say this is analogy? I'm just trying to explain to you how I see true-self i.e. it is not just another way of me describing the separate self).

No. If you expect that the definition of the self would change, then it means that the self hasn’t seen through fully.

There's some resistance coming up here around whether the true-self is simply the same thing as 'what is'. But I struggle with 'what is' and the sheer simplicity of it. So I want to put some sort of 'self' label on things.

Can you see that you are talking on behalf of the me?
Can you see that the one that has the resistance of accepting ‘what is’ is the Chris character?
WHY is there a need to make a concept of ‘true self’ into something?
Can you see that all of these desire to name a ‘true self’ is on behalf of the me-character?

Hence....if we have seen through the illusion of separate self, then something else must then get the label of self, with the result that oneness, awareness or 'what is' all then become redefined as 'true self' (but is there anything wrong with that?).

Why should anything be labelled as ‘true self’?
Is there a ‘true self’ outside of concepts?
Isn’t wanting label something/anything as ‘true self’ is just a story about me?

My investigating so far does indeed point more and more towards there only ever being 'what is'. But it's too simplistic for me to accept at this point.

But WHO has a problem to accept it?

Please don’t say that there is no individual self, while you are clearly BELIEVING that it’s YOU who has the problem with it.

Chris, I have to be honest with you. You did some nice looking, and have seen that the self cannot be found. But the penny hasn’t dropped yet. You might THINK that you have seen through the self, but it’s not complete yet. It’s more of an intellectual realization rather than a deep experiential conviction.

So please don’t repeat that there is no individual self. All these desire to find something to put a label on to call as ‘true self’ is the sure sign that the self hasn’t seen through.

‘true self’ = the illusion of the self
There is no ‘true self’ and ‘individual self’.
“True self’ is the same as the individual self, just masquerading in the mask of ‘true self’.
There is no difference between the two.

Vivien

[Chris1001]

Hi Vivien

Chris, I have to be honest with you. You did some nice looking, and have seen that the self cannot be found. But the penny hasn’t dropped yet. You might THINK that you have seen through the self, but it’s not complete yet. It’s more of an intellectual realization rather than a deep experiential conviction.

Indeed. It needs to be a deeper conviction.

Please don’t say that there is no individual self, while you are clearly BELIEVING that it’s YOU who has the problem with it.

Yes, I see what you mean.

But then....I don't know what other words I could find to answer the questions. So....how do I answer all the questions?!

Maybe need to give it a bit more time to sink in.

Chris

[Chris1001]

p.s....Looking back at this dialogue from previously...I am a bit confused as to how much more penny needs to drop.

V: The only thing that changes is the RECOGNITION that there has never been a self there, it’s always just an imaginary character.
But nothing else will change.
The sense of self will still arise. The illusion of the self will still be there.
Chris-character will still live his life just as before.
He just will be known as a fictional character, that’s all.
So nothing will be lost, only a belief in the self will fall away.

There has been some recognition. And yes, sense of self is still arising, and Chris character continues to live life as before.

Chris

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

Please don’t ignore my questions. Go back to the questions I asked yesterday, and look and reply to them one-by-one.

[Chris1001]

Hi Vivien

I didn't ignore your questions.
I did them last night - diligently - straight after you sent them over. But I saved them into drafts, as they were so messy. I wanted to reflect on them more during the day and evening, which I did. I looked and looked, trying to find more clarity.
I have them in drafts and will send them over now.

Chris

[Chris1001]

Hi Vivien

Ok hold tight, this is a long one:

Chris, I have to be honest with you. You did some nice looking, and have seen that the self cannot be found. But the penny hasn’t dropped yet. You might THINK that you have seen through the self, but it’s not complete yet. It’s more of an intellectual realization rather than a deep experiential conviction.

I completely agree. And this is why I shared what I did in the last post. So that you could listen to where I'm at and re-point me.
It's not complete yet, for sure. It's a messy phase, this one.

V: Who is saying that I have a ‘true self’?
Who has a ‘true self’?
C: From observation there's not an individual, separate owner of this 'true self'. There's not something which is saying "I have a true self".
V: Have you actually looked for the one who supposedly has a true self, or you replied from a memory of a previous looking?

Right now as I look....it is thoughts that say "I have a true self".
Before, I may have been replying from previous lookings. I must try to avoid that.

Can you CLEARLY SEE IN THIS MOMENT that there is nobody / nothing that could make the claim of ‘my true self’?

Right now in this moment I can see that thoughts make this claim.

Is this crystal clear for you in this very moment as you look?

I cannot say that it is CRYSTAL CLEAR. Because questions keep coming up that get in the way - questions about true self. I am investigating this... There are body sensations combined with thoughts, right now. And the thoughts say "...but...but...there has to be something!"
or even just "but...but...but..."

So, this obviously needs more looking at.

C: There's some resistance coming up here around whether the true-self is simply the same thing as 'what is'. But I struggle with 'what is' and the sheer simplicity of it. So I want to put some sort of 'self' label on things.
V: Can you see that you are talking on behalf of the me?

Right now I can see that thoughts are happening around this subject.

Can you see that the one that has the resistance of accepting ‘what is’ is the Chris character?

Not clearly, no. Sometimes I can. But not always. In this moment, I really can't say for sure.

WHY is there a need to make a concept of ‘true self’ into something?

Good question. Massive curiosity is the immediate answer that comes up. If all there is, is 'what is', then why is there an apparent 'me' character relative to this? If 'what is' is Absolute, then why is there the relative and the absolute.
Of course this sounds like conceptualising...but
But...but...but (you see, there are the 'but' thoughts again - they keep popping up.)

Can you see that all of these desire to name a ‘true self’ is on behalf of the me-character?

I can see it a little bit. That's the most honest I can say. I shall keep looking.
But there is significant curiosity present.

Why should anything be labelled as ‘true self’?

Because it unifies the relative and the absolute. And then the resistance goes away and I can continue seeing non-separation again and again. Seeing the Whole and feeling a part of it. So it seems to help. (I used the word 'seems' so this must be conceptualising).
With more looking, I can see that there is no reason why anything need be labelled as true self - other than to protect the I/me. But this is only a fleeting 'seeing'.

Is there a ‘true self’ outside of concepts?

No (I just saw that clearly, for one quick moment).
But there are huge body sensations coming up, that the 'I' intuitively trusts.

Isn’t wanting label something/anything as ‘true self’ is just a story about me?

I don't think so. There's a genuine desire to look deeper here into the nature of reality.

But WHO has a problem to accept it?

Thoughts do. Body sensations do. Intuition does.

All these desire to find something to put a label on to call as ‘true self’ is the sure sign that the self hasn’t seen through.

What - even if the thing that is having this label put on it is Everything/All there Is/All I'm seeing around me/Everything in creation? Surely, if that is what is being labelled True-self then it's okay, isn't it? If not, then why not?

But WHO has a problem to accept it?

Probably the I/me.
Sorry :(

Vivien, do you remember that moment in an old post when you said something like "sure, there are sensations present" and I said "Ah, so you acknowledge at least that something is present". That was a breakthrough moment for me. And I feel like another one of those is needed. This has a similar vibe to it.
Curiosity is present. Around All There Is. And that's not a bad thing. You acknowledge that much, right?

Anyway, sorry for all the mess. If you want, I'll look at these questions again tomorrow, and see if I can craft a more succinct reply. Appreciate your ongoing patience.

Chris

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

Your comments are full of thinking / conceptualizing and philosophizing.

I said that we don’t go to any of those direction.
Why? Because they are utterly useless, pointless, futile if you want to see through the self.

And not just futile, but actually in the way.
All these intellectualization is done to prevent to see through the self.
Even if you can’t see it.

Before, I may have been replying from previous lookings. I must try to avoid that.

With looking, you ALWAYS have to LOOK AFRESH and NEVER RELY ON MEMORY of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

It’s the looking and looking and looking and more looking that brings about the realization.

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

There are body sensations combined with thoughts, right now. And the thoughts say "...but...but...there has to be something!"
or even just "but...but...but..."

And does it matter what thoughts ‘say’? Are you the thinker of thoughts?
Do you make these thoughts to appear?

You are clearly not seeing that all these intellectualization is made on behalf of the self. The self is still believed to be real, and thus comes this lots of avoidance to actually look.

Massive curiosity is the immediate answer that comes up. If all there is, is 'what is', then why is there an apparent 'me' character relative to this? If 'what is' is Absolute, then why is there the relative and the absolute.
Of course this sounds like conceptualising...but

Pure fantasy!

V: Why should anything be labelled as ‘true self’?

C: Because it unifies the relative and the absolute.

Are you serious? Do you think that this is a philosophy course?

With more looking, I can see that there is no reason why anything need be labelled as true self - other than to protect the I/me. But this is only a fleeting 'seeing'.

This is the only truthful comment in your post.
Everything else is just a conceptual avoidance.

V: Is there a ‘true self’ outside of concepts?

C: No (I just saw that clearly, for one quick moment).
But there are huge body sensations coming up, that the 'I' intuitively trusts.

The ‘I’ trust?
Can a fiction trust?
Or there is only a fictional story about an I trusting?

V: Isn’t wanting label something/anything as ‘true self’ is just a story about me?

C: I don't think so. There's a genuine desire to look deeper here into the nature of reality.

I DIDN’T ASK YOU TO THINK! I’m not asking your opinion.
I’m asking you to investigate your immediate experience without any fantasy or speculation.

V: But WHO has a problem to accept it?

C: Thoughts do. Body sensations do. Intuition does.

REALLY???? You are not looking at all.

You have to seriously reconsider what you want to get out of this conversation.
Because if you want to speculate and you are not willing to stop, or at least to put aside all of these conceptualization and to REALLY LOOK, then this is not for you. And we are just wasting each other’s time.

I’ve told you at the beginning that we are not going to intellectualize or philosophize.
There are plenty of opportunities for that on the internet.

V: All these desire to find something to put a label on to call as ‘true self’ is the sure sign that the self hasn’t seen through.

C: What - even if the thing that is having this label put on it is Everything/All there Is/All I'm seeing around me/Everything in creation? Surely, if that is what is being labelled True-self then it's okay, isn't it? If not, then why not?

Are you serious? Do you really want to conceptualize everything? Thinking and thinking and more thinking….
DEAD END!

Seeing reality as it is VERY-VERY SIMPLE!

You don’t need a single thought for that. Not a single one.

It’s very simple. I cannot emphasize the simplicity enough.

But if you want to complicate everything with theories, fantasies, speculations and not willing to LOOK at what is HERE NOW, IN THIS VERY MOMENT then this is not for you.

Reality is very SIMPLE.
Looking is very simple.
Simple, simple, simple.

see if I can craft a more succinct reply.

You don’t have to craft anything.

You just have to look at the SIMPLICITY of WHAT IS, here now, in this very moment.


Vivien

[Chris1001]

You just have to look at the SIMPLICITY of WHAT IS, here now, in this very moment.

Here now, what is...is just the physical world.

[Vivien]

Why have you ignored my questions again?

[Chris1001]

Because it's too much. It's so intense. I'm doing my best. I told you I hadn't wanted to send that reply as it was messy, but I sent in nonetheless and you just ripped it apart - some of the comments were mocking and sarcastic.

I'm doing my best here. Why can't you just go a bit easy on me at times like these?

[Vivien]

Hi Chris,

I sent in nonetheless and you just ripped it apart - some of the comments were mocking and sarcastic.

Of course I ripped it apart. That’s my job.
If I am here to help you, I cannot let you go to the wrong direction.

But I didn’t mock you.
If your interpret my words as mocking and sarcastic, then it’s a great opportunity to LOOK for the SELF/ME who believes and feels that.

I said before that I won’t leave you as long as you look. So the danger is not me leaving you, but rather that you might leave the inquiry if I say something you don’t like.

You feel hurt by my comments.
That’s all right.
But then look for the ‘me’ that is being hurt.

Also, please go back, and look with every pointers I gave you.

Vivien

[Chris1001]

I will go back and look at them, but first I am going to reply to this last message.

Of course I ripped it apart. That’s my job.

Right. Well at least we know where we stand.

If your interpret my words as mocking and sarcastic, then it’s a great opportunity to LOOK for the SELF/ME who believes and feels that.

And I did. I looked at the triggers and saw the impersonal body sensations and thoughts that comprised them - in realtime.

I said before that I won’t leave you as long as you look

Sometimes it's bloody hard for me to know what is looking and what isn't.
I will continue to try and look as best I can. But I can't guarantee you that every time is gonna be a perfect looking. So if those are your conditions, then it sounds like you may indeed leave the process if you don't get the level of looking you're requiring.
You know well enough that I am capable of half-decent looking, I've shown this on several occasions. But I can't just 'magic-it-up' at will.

So the danger is not me leaving you, but rather that you might leave the inquiry if I say something you don’t like.

That's not where I'm at right now. I'm still in this. As long as I'm allowed to be honest and you're still inviting that honesty.
But expressions of honesty aren't going to be expressed in the way that Lookings are expressed. So why invite honesty if you're just gonna rip it up?!

You feel hurt by my comments.
That’s all right.

At last, some compassion. Hallelujah.