Who wants to walk me through the process?

[mark_tywharton]

There is the perception of a physical form. Yes.
There is the sensation of an "I" perceiving it, knowing it. Yes.
Is there more to this "I" than a sensation?

Nothing else as far as I can tell < that's where it gets fucked

I just said I can tell so who is it doing the telling

That's the loop I am stuck in

I spent weeks on a seminar distinguishing IT

We distinguished IT as EVERYTHING and in that SPACE "Self" showed up

However...

The last sentence of the seminar is "of course there is no REAL self" or something like that

Yes I am an intelligent guy and I can play with language and run rings around my own identity, even use that process to create other identities which can do things in the World that embarrassed shy Mark can't

And whenever I get into a discussion like this, unless I am leading with the "there is no real you" stuff, there is a sense I missed something

By the way I can use Advaitic language if you like but it takes longer to depersonalise each sentence so let's not play that game.

So true. Look closely- not in thought, but in concrete experience. Is there ever an "I" that is not a thought about experience?

I don't think I understand the question

There is experience, awareness, what is happening

It is easy to conclude "I" am having this experience

The experience continues regardless of how "I" relate to it

The sense "I" seems to be there, in the same way as anger, or fear, or love it has a sensation associated with it

It doesn't have location, like anger would be in my stomach and tingling skin and tension

Yes, it's an idea. How does it come into being? Can you trace the chronology of it? How does something become yours? How can an idea own anything? How can an idea do anything?

Okay, a company is an idea. Exxon maybe or Shell are an idea and yet a company is treated in law in the same way as a person, it has individual rights, so in the same way a company can come into being, in language, through agreement, this is one explanation of how "I" got here - through a cultural agreement in language taught to me by society.

Okay, there's the logic out the way - great - there is no ME - I get it and it's not liberating!

Again- this ME that appears to be saying stuff, this ME that appears to be reasoning. That ME, what is its nature? Is it ever anything more than an idea? Has it ever been anything more than an idea?

No of course not, I got that far with Landmark, or Alan Watts, or Nisargadatta (he isn't saying the "I Am" is it, he is saying focus on the "I Am" and see it as an illusion then there is a void? behind the illusion?

And Adyashanti says... And Shinzen Young says... And so on...

And then the terminology switches from doctrine to doctrine so one person pointing says something that negates what another is pointing to and let's face it the ones who got it are all pointing to the same thing?

OR WERE THEY?

You're right at the edge of this, Mark, like you said. Now work it out.

I can't work it out. It makes perfect sense and has done for a couple of years and there have been more and more glimpses to the point that maybe it was so subtle it got missed entirely?

Circular reasoning. This is MY computer because it is MY computer. This is MY leg because it is my LEG.
Focus on this ME, this MINE. Where is it? What is it? Is it there at all?

As in, this is A computer and feeling a certain way about it makes it MINE?

Then I go to I CAN CHOOSE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT and make it NOT MINE then I WILL BE FREE

haha

look again

it's a feeling

Well... is this true? Not as a conceptual statement, but does this give an accurate description of the way things really are? Find out, Mark. Test it out in every conceivable way.

I cannot say if it is true that IT made me up

When thinking, is there a thinker?

Thoughts lead to other thoughts so there is only a thinker who thought the first thought?

Or when I stare into space and go totally blank to think up a solution, there is a ME waiting for a ME to give ME an answer from a kind of tip of the tongue databank somewhere in a very very long dark tunnel inside my head

So I have created a conscious / subconscious Freudian set up here with two ME constructs or I am schizophrenic or I have to give up more than one ME

That is making one ME feel sick - it's getting weird here!

When feeling, is there a feeler?

there is an awarer - a commentary reports on the sensational FACTS!

When doing, is there a doer?

NO - someone sets the intention for doing but it is carried out by muscle memory - nobody here thinks about every aspect of driving a car - the driver just gets on with carrying out the intention to go to the shop but the intention has personality - like I go to the shop to buy a certain brand of coffee because I like it.

When typing, is there a typer?

I don't know where all the keys are and I never need to look at them when I type so the conscious ME kind of directs stuff like typing and the typer does my bidding.

bring it on QWERTY slave

Let me know what you find. Take your time, there's no need to rush this.

That's okay, I have been at it for several decades LOL

Thanks

[mark_tywharton]

How about I get my mind out the way?

Can you structure your questions in such a way as I can enquire and only answer YES or NO ;-)

[Damon Kamda]

How about I get my mind out the way?

Good idea. Let's take this out of the realm of speculation, into the visceral, everyday experience.

There is experience, awareness, what is happening

It is easy to conclude "I" am having this experience

The experience continues regardless of how "I" relate to it

The sense "I" seems to be there, in the same way as anger, or fear, or love it has a sensation associated with it

It doesn't have location, like anger would be in my stomach and tingling skin and tension

Is there any more to "I" than being a sense, a sensation amongst others?

Okay, there's the logic out the way - great - there is no ME - I get it and it's not liberating!

If by being "liberating" you mean a magical disappearance of suffering, anxiety, fear, then no, that is not going to happen. The shift is subtle, so subtle that it might indeed even be overlooked.

someone sets the intention for doing but it is carried out by muscle memory

Is there someone that sets the intention to do anything? Sure, it seems that way, but is it true?

I go to the shop to buy a certain brand of coffee because I like it.

Is there someone that likes a certain brand of coffee? Yes, it appears so, but is it true?

the conscious ME kind of directs stuff like typing and the typer does my bidding.

Or is the typer an abstraction that comes after the act of typing?
"Your bidding"? What is the you in that statement? You seem to posit some controller behind it all, someone pulling the strings, issuing commands behind the curtains.

It is exactly that self, that controller, that we're trying to locate, to identify.

The suggestion here is that that self, that controller DOES NOT EXIST, has never existed.
The idea of a controller behind life is a false idea- it does not correspond to something that exists.

IS THIS TRUE, MARK?

That's okay, I have been at it for several decades LOL

Haha...

[mark_tywharton]

Is there any more to "I" than being a sense, a sensation amongst others?

Okay beyond what I should logically say given the lesson... When I look, Yes, concept. It has a past a present a future and a story. It has presence, quality. There are characteristics, traits. I is unique and separate and has boundaries.

If by being "liberating" you mean a magical disappearance of suffering, anxiety, fear, then no, that is not going to happen. The shift is subtle, so subtle that it might indeed even be overlooked.

Maybe this is where I say liberation hasn't happened yet. There is chasing the dreambus, the Buddha and an end to all suffering happening for poor autistic Mark, the sad freak, perpetually afraid.

Is there someone that sets the intention to do anything? Sure, it seems that way, but is it true?

Well cause, effect, reaction isn't that who I am? The reality of it is it is all conditioning and logically I can see that but experientially I can still find a me doing it, even if it is a me of my own creation.

You said get visceral? I've done all the Adayashanti meditations and I can be at one with the sensations in my body. What I am experiencing now is chair under my arse, floor under my feet, table under my elbows and fingers on keys. Awareness is such that all of them can be 'felt' simultaneously provided no individual area is focused upon. So my experience has no specific location it is everywhere right? But it is still experienced as a me. If I don't know where I end and the rest of the universe starts and my experience happens with the objects I perceive in the universe them 'I Am' the experience and if 'I Am' the sensation of say sound, or sight with the object, where am I?

Is there someone that likes a certain brand of coffee? Yes, it appears so, but is it true?

This SYSTEM forms preferences based on input so certain brands of coffee trigger aroma receptors and cause pleasure sensations - I can say there isn't anyone and it is merely a reaction but in perception there is an apparent choosing - it seems like "I" decide - I might even change my mind and drink tea?

Or is the typer an abstraction that comes after the act of typing?
"Your bidding"? What is the you in that statement? You seem to posit some controller behind it all, someone pulling the strings, issuing commands behind the curtains.

EVENT

My bidding is "I can't get my head around this" - that voice in my head doesn't come from nowhere it comes from a life time of reaction to reading this kind of material

If I am writing a song it is a variation of thousands of songs I have heard before, if I am not making choices, then why are choices being made about the instruments the structure the timing the notes etc

As I write this there is a flow if words coming into my mind and I am typing as fast as I hear them they seem to come from nowhere but the reality is there is a processor back there detailing this and figuring it all out

If that is not what makes me me, because this individual unit will come up with a unique subset of answers, then what the fuck is it?

I mean I can negate it in language and it would be very clever to do that

It can be seen that life and living are a reaction to life and living and they just happen there is nobody pulling the strings, just aliveness

It's a bit fucking boring though isn't it

It is exactly that self, that controller, that we're trying to locate, to identify.

I don't agree with EGO that is a stupid concept so I won't go there

I do think there are unconscious thought processes

I marvel at the complexity of the nature of the language this thing comes up with

I dunno if I am a controller so much as an observer - if I can get myself out the way of processes, then life flows better, I just get into a zone, or there is a zone and I respect it and let life live itself

The suggestion here is that that self, that controller DOES NOT EXIST, has never existed.
The idea of a controller behind life is a false idea- it does not correspond to something that exists.

Yeah, I got that and I told it, fuck off mate, you are not in control but I still take ownership for everything and set goals and use the language of I, me etc.

IS THIS TRUE, MARK?

Latitude and longitude don't exist but they are still useful reference points

Time doesn't exist

I get it that identity is conceptual and I get it there is no REAL me...

And this makes a difference?

I mean I can easily pass the Liberation Quiz and there is enough respect for your time and my effort here for that not to happen

I don't want the blue badge or the red badge that says liberated or liberator

I wanted to understand something and understanding doesn't help

Visceral?

Just sitting here looking for "who Am I"? or mulling over "I Am" and looking behind those things at what is there "fuck all"

I think I have seen enough posts in enough places with glassy eyed nutters talking about love and voids and bliss and freedom to think that I want that instead

If there is no ME there is still a pull for the FREE HEROIN the UNBOUNDED CONFIDENCE and LOOKING TWENTY YEARS YOUNGER

The ECSTASY and FREE LOVE

Where the fuck is that at?

I wanna find the NOT ME because ME wants THAT!

[Damon Kamda]

It can be seen that life and living are a reaction to life and living and they just happen there is nobody pulling the strings, just aliveness

It's a bit fucking boring though isn't it

Yes! Boring. Exactly. So boring that it's been ignored for decades.
There is precisely NOTHING special about what we are pointing to here.
No fireworks, no ecstasy, no trumpets.

Just a sober, calm and quiet recognition of the actual absence of self.

So stop looking for that and look at the boring reality.

I dunno if I am a controller so much as an observer - if I can get myself out the way of processes, then life flows better, I just get into a zone, or there is a zone and I respect it and let life live itself

Is it possible to NOT let life live itself? Ever?
Can you get in the way of life, obstruct it, block it?
For real?

IS THIS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE???

What's the difference between "being in the zone" and not "being in the zone"? Aren't these just more ideas?
Is there a you to be in any zone?

Yeah, I got that and I told it, fuck off mate, you are not in control but I still take ownership for everything and set goals and use the language of I, me etc.

Ok, you see that control is an illusion.
The question is: why is it an illusion?

Is it that the I is powerless, just observing everything, isolated, alone, separate?
Or might it be that control is an illusion because there is actually NO ONE to exert any control?

Look at the difference between these two statements.
Which one is it?

MARK- THERE IS NO YOU. AT ALL. IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!

You are an idea. Nothing more.

IS THIS TRUE????

[mark_tywharton]

Yes! Boring. Exactly. So boring that it's been ignored for decades.
There is precisely NOTHING special about what we are pointing to here.
No fireworks, no ecstasy, no trumpets.

No Angels? bugger - I had my heart set on Angels :-(

Just a sober, calm and quiet recognition of the actual absence of self.

So stop looking for that and look at the boring reality.

The boring reality is I just spent the last couple of hours assessing mixes on a friend's new album, listening, making decisions about which were my most favourite and least favourite songs. If that isn't entirely subjective then I cannot think of anything that is. And you are saying LIFE itself is just doing that. There is no ME in the decision process? The MARK SYSTEM has programmed itself to react in the ways it just did and on top of that has programmed itself to think thoughts like "I LIKE BLAH BLAH BLAH" and "HMMM THE BLAH BLAH BLAH AIN'T SO GOOD IN THIS SONG"

Is it possible to NOT let life live itself? Ever?
Can you get in the way of life, obstruct it, block it?
For real?

I could cut my wrists. Or would this be life winding up depressed and living out death?

IS THIS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE???

I don't know let me contemplate it LOL

What's the difference between "being in the zone" and not "being in the zone"? Aren't these just more ideas?
Is there a you to be in any zone?

There is efficient actions which take place when there is clarity or 'NO THINKING' getting in the way such as "SHOULD I SHOULDN'T I" like sex maybe? if I think my way through a sexual encounter it's a rigid clunky affair - if I let actions flow and follow on from other actions the whole thing is out of control (in a good way).

Ok, you see that control is an illusion.

YES, most of the time, unless I get caught up in a drama

The question is: why is it an illusion?

Because I don't really know the answer to WHY so I make something up to fill the gap?

Is it that the I is powerless, just observing everything, isolated, alone, separate?
Or might it be that control is an illusion because there is actually NO ONE to exert any control?

You make that sound like an either or scenario.

We can easily create an illusion of NO I for I by issuing a specific set of commands or instructions and placing them into muscle memory - like Tai Chi - once the moves are in kinaesthetic memory, I don't need to be there to do them but something had to teach them to kinaesthetic memory in the first place

The one the New Agers like to use is driving.

When I first drove it was a disaster. CONTROL was exerted over muscle memory to have driving happen without me.

When I look to see who did that - I find a sense of ownership which says IT WAS ME.

It is incomprehensible that IT WAS ME is not real.

It is logical that IT WAS ME is not real and intellectually I get it but like those coloured blocks which give the illusion of being two entirely different greys in the context of a shadow and are the same in natural light, how do I SEE this without the shadow?

WHERE specifically can I look?

Look at the difference between these two statements.
Which one is it?

And...

MARK- THERE IS NO YOU. AT ALL. IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!

You are an idea. Nothing more.

IS THIS TRUE????

NO

Sorry to be stubborn about it but NO

It is logical in the same way as 2 + 2 = 4

It is logical in the same ways as MATHS IS AN ABSTRACTION THERE IS NO 2 OR 4 OUT HERE IN THE WORLD

I can agree with you

But if I am not here???

How the fuck is agreement happening???

[Damon Kamda]

Sorry about the slow reply, Mark, busy day.

No Angels? bugger - I had my heart set on Angels :-(

Hey, I haven't said anything about Angels.
Angels may or may not be part of the deal.

If that isn't entirely subjective then I cannot think of anything that is. And you are saying LIFE itself is just doing that. There is no ME in the decision process?

I could cut my wrists. Or would this be life winding up depressed and living out death?

Once the moves are in kinaesthetic memory, I don't need to be there to do them but something had to teach them to kinaesthetic memory in the first place

But if I am not here???

How the fuck is agreement happening???

By all means, prove me wrong.
My contention is that there is no you, that the self, the controller, the observer, YOU, is nothing more than an idea, conjecture, abstraction, added as an afterthought.

WHERE specifically can I look?

WHERE do you look for an absence?

In the quotes above, you have provided ample sources of investigation.

In ANY decision process- where is the one making the decisions? As what does it exist, where does it exist? What is its shape, texture, location, history? What are its characteristics. What is it?

In ANY process of learning skills (driving, Tai Chi, driving)- where is the one learning? Who owns the skills?

In ANY process of agreeing or disagreeing- where is the agreer or disagreer (are those actual words? ;-)) seperate from the process of agreeing or disagreeing?

[mark_tywharton]

Sorry about the slow reply, Mark, busy day.

No worries I have been simmering along nicely! Playing havoc with exactly what it is that is writing a book

Hey, I haven't said anything about Angels.
Angels may or may not be part of the deal.

Ha okay, let's not go there.

By all means, prove me wrong.
My contention is that there is no you, that the self, the controller, the observer, YOU, is nothing more than an idea, conjecture, abstraction, added as an afterthought.

How do "I" know that then? It is not logical to say "I" am an afterthought is it? The afterthought still wants ownership of NOT ownership - the illusory controller is a control freak. Actually I think understanding what you are saying is probably the biggest trap I could be caught in.

WHERE specifically can I look?

WHERE do you look for an absence?

Well not in the physical realm, even in space you find the odd atom, so it can be seen that there is a physical form here, so we are not questioning that right? We are questioning the thought pattern that claims ownership, the identity.

In the quotes above, you have provided ample sources of investigation.

Well it can't be seen by thinking about it then ;-) Something is thinking the thoughts - neurons, surely neurons are thinking the thoughts - ah right, no individual, if a system is thinking the thoughts does it have a leader?

In ANY decision process- where is the one making the decisions? As what does it exist, where does it exist? What is its shape, texture, location, history? What are its characteristics. What is it?

There is seeing and sensations and thoughts everywhere - you know what - there is a fuck of a lot going on here - like more than any individual could possibly process - okay - that's very interesting and sheds some light on it

In ANY process of learning skills (driving, Tai Chi, driving)- where is the one learning? Who owns the skills?

Well, ONE isn't learning, each part of the physical whole plays a role in the process of say playing the drums - actually I can't play the drums - guitar - let's stick to guitar - the fingers on the left hand have learned processes that operate without needing to be looked at and the picking certainly happens way quicker than any OWNER could process commands...

Okay

In ANY process of agreeing or disagreeing- where is the agreer or disagreer (are those actual words? ;-)) seperate from the process of agreeing or disagreeing?

There's certainly a process and the agreement perhaps lies in the outcome of the process.

Still stuck with the ME thing though.

There isn't a ME there are loads of processes including anxiety, depression or panic attacks?

It's clearer but let me look some more - let me go play the guitar and see what comes up (for me)

I've done this before and FEAR tends to leave me clawing at any remnants of ME

What if I lose control etc

Eek

And thanks for working with me

[Damon Kamda]

Morning, Mark. How's it going?

And thanks for working with me

It's a pleasure.

Still stuck with the ME thing though.

There isn't a ME there are loads of processes including anxiety, depression or panic attacks?

Yes.
Are you necessary in order for anxiety, depression or panic attacks to occur?

I've done this before and FEAR tends to leave me clawing at any remnants of ME

What if I lose control etc

Eek

Ok, this is good. Very good. We're getting to the core of this.

This FEAR is the key.

Every time you come close to really looking at what is assumed to be you, a fear emerges.

Interesting, isn't it?

Now instead of distracting yourself, running away from that fear, how about taking a different approach?

Face the fear.
Face it completely.
Invite it closer, step into it as it were.
Feel it in its totality- where is it located, what does it feel like exactly?

Can you do that?

Then when you have allowed this fear to be completely present, dialogue with it as it were.

What is it protecting? What is behind that fear? Anything there?

[mark_tywharton]

Morning, Mark. How's it going?

There is an eagerness to proceed a "when I get this I will be..."

Which makes me wonder about any sense of this I previously had?

"I" am still watching the machine "I" understand from behind the veil of ME it seems?

Are you necessary in order for anxiety, depression or panic attacks to occur?

Probably?

Ok, this is good. Very good. We're getting to the core of this.

This FEAR is the key.

Every time you come close to really looking at what is assumed to be you, a fear emerges.

Interesting, isn't it?

Yes

Now instead of distracting yourself, running away from that fear, how about taking a different approach?
Face the fear.
Face it completely.
Invite it closer, step into it as it were.
Feel it in its totality- where is it located, what does it feel like exactly?

Can you do that?

Well, yes and no. You see I have a lot of strategies for coping with fear and most of them are mental processes, so I just end up thinking myself into acceptance with fear so metaphorically so to speak it's a dirty rocky road and might bring up more confusion than clarity.

Then when you have allowed this fear to be completely present, dialogue with it as it were.

What is it protecting? What is behind that fear? Anything there?

One can always find meaning in fear and meaning behind meaning, I think this would lead down a blind alley

Can I ask some questions?

There is no REAL me?

So the NOT REAL me is asking all these questions and getting fed up and putting its head in its hands and sighing at the computer screen and saying "I don't get it"

And when it can be seen to be an illusion?

By no-one? Just seen?

The sense of separation, that something is missing, that there is something to get that the NOT REAL ME doesn't get, will just stop?

I think I have too many instruction sets and expectations, not to mention the fact the mind is arrogant enough to think it already has this and we are wasting our time here.

AND I recognise that if it had been seen the mind wouldn't be doing that?

Or is that where I am stuck?

More confused than yesterday, sorry.

[Damon Kamda]

No, no, no, you're getting distracted again.
Evading.

When I say "face the fear", I don't mean analyze it intellectually.

I mean FEEL IT. Actually allow the fear to be present. Honor it as a natural mechanism, don't treat it as a problem, something to be avoided or a sign that *something must be wrong*.

Is the fear protecting anything substantial?

Can I ask some questions?

More distraction, evasion.

Face it, Mark.

[mark_tywharton]

More distraction, evasion.

Face it, Mark.

Okay thanks for the rapid fire response and for only engaging with what is relevant

There is no fear present right now so nothing to face

Now what?

[Damon Kamda]

My contention is that there is no you, that the self, the controller, the observer, YOU, is nothing more than an idea, conjecture, abstraction, added as an afterthought.

Is this true?

And don't come back to me with more cognitive concotions- give me something real.

[mark_tywharton]

What is behind fear is how other people out there in the world will perceive me

What is behind that is that somehow I will look stupid

I feel really stupid that I can't get this

I am afraid to reveal that

Actually maybe everyone else seems to be a part of something I am not

Like in on it

And I am alone

Trying to be clever to look like I am in on it too

[Damon Kamda]

That's what I mean, Mark. I appreciate your honesty.

What is behind fear is how other people out there in the world will perceive me

And that me that is afraid of being misperceived? Is that me something substantial? Or is it just a self-image?

What is behind that is that somehow I will look stupid

Who is there to look or be stupid? Who owns "being stupid"?

I feel really stupid that I can't get this

Do you? Do YOU feel anything, or are there just feelings arising, doing their thing, and then subsiding again?

I am afraid to reveal that

Same question. Does the fear belong to a discreet entity? Or does it just occur?

Actually maybe everyone else seems to be a part of something I am not

Like in on it

And I am alone

Trying to be clever to look like I am in on it too.

I know exactly what you mean. A very familiar feeling.
Just a feeling, though, like all feelings.
Now is it based on anything substantial?

The idea of "me here", "everyone else out there", that is what we're examining here.
Yes, this is what appears to be the case, but if looked at closely, is this really the way things are?

What is the I that is alone?
"I am alone"- what does it ACTUALLY refer to?
How does the "I" come into this picture?

You're doing great, keep going...!
And, remember, please, we're not looking for something spectacular to happen- just a clear insight into the way things really are...