At one with X

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

Why is the arm moving if not because there is a self that read the article and tried the experiment?

reading can happen, experiments can be done, arms can be moved... but LOOK at Experiencing, and see, is there a 'self' behind it?

pay attention to breathing, walking... can you find a 'self' that is doing any of this?

This is a picture of two things simultaneously. It is true that the pic is of a cup and it is true that the pic is of two faces.

Is it more accurate to say there is a seamless Experiencing, with Vision being the predominant aspect of Experiencing, then thought comes along and says "oh it's a cup... oh it's 2 faces... of it's true that there is a cup and 2 faces!"

That is where I am at: yes it is true that there is no agent or self controlling the arm, it is just happening and yes it is true that there is something that read the article and decided to to the experiment with the arm.

Okay... where in Direct Experience is this 'something' that is reading?

LOOK Deeply here...

is there a 'something' that reads? or just reading?
is there 'something' that decided to do an experiment? or just a movement to do the experiment
is there 'something' that moves the arm? or just movement of arm?

in Direct Experience, is it more accurate to say
- there is 'something' that is Experiencing?
- there is JUST Experience, and thoughts about "something that 1, 2, 3, 4", which is also Experience, so ONLY Experiencing?

I'd still like to know what it is that is being liberated, if not something related to a self.

Life believes thoughts about a separate self, person, "I", and then eventually discovers that these were just thoughts... Life is liberated from the binding assumption that it is a self, person or "I" that is separate from Life.

with Love.

[at1]

The autopilot can be turned off and volition and intent turned on.

What is it that caused the arm to move if not volition and intent to try out the experiences (experiments)?

Can there by volition and intent without a self? Yes.

pay attention to breathing, walking... can you find a 'self' that is doing any of this?

These activities occur without much conscious effort. These activities/experiences usually occur while on autopilot. Even deciding to start and subsequently stop walking can happen automatically.

Let's consider a different exercise. The experience of doing mathematical research. For example, the experience of finding a way to prove Fermat's Last Theorem (and let's pretend it's still an open problem). Here's where I am at right now. . . I see this experience, the experience of doing mathematical research, exposes that there is a self, though not necessarily a self in the conventional sense, that is experiencing the doing of something. Only sometimes does this experience "just happen" without an experiencer. In fact, when (not if--when) there is no experiencer, the researcher tends to have flashes of insight that come from "nowhere".

Much of math can be done by rote learning styles and in those cases solving a math problem requires no self or experiencer but what I'm talking about is solving problems no one has ever solved before (i.e., research). If you try my exercise of trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem and observe carefully your experience you will notice a mixture of ideas that occur to you spontaneously (these would indicate no self) and of ideas that something has directed (called focus).

For example, my first idea was to look up FLT on the web. Then I actually looked up FLT on the web. The first step involved no self and the second step involved a self (though again maybe not self in the usual sense).

Is it more accurate to say there is a seamless Experiencing, with Vision being the predominant aspect of Experiencing, then thought comes along and says "oh it's a cup... oh it's 2 faces... of it's true that there is a cup and 2 faces!"

No, what I was trying to describe was my position of there simultaneously being a self and not being a self just as that picture was simultaneously a cup and a face. So saying the pic is of a cup is not incorrect but it is incomplete description.

Life believes thoughts about a separate self, person, "I", and then eventually discovers that these were just thoughts... Life is liberated from the binding assumption that it is a self, person or "I" that is separate from Life.

What would be wrong with realizing that self is Life?

[cosmiK]

Hey,

So you are saying that there is a self sometimes, and then sometimes there is a self. Okay... you do realize that this process is about falsifying the commonly held assumption that there a separate self right? :) Are you satisfied with your conclusions?

When there IS a self, as you claim there to be, can it be located in Direct Experience?
Is it there outside of thought?
Without the thought "there is a self", is there ever a self?

Let's try something else...

are YOU the thinker of thoughts?
can YOU think and choose a thought?

http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... ughts.html

with Love.

[at1]

Hey,

So you are saying that there is a self sometimes, and then sometimes there is a self. Okay... you do realize that this process is about falsifying the commonly held assumption that there a separate self right? :) Are you satisfied with your conclusions?

It certainly seems that there is something that is making conclusions.

When there IS a self, as you claim there to be, can it be located in Direct Experience?

Well the experience for which a self is made visible that I gave as an example is basically thought-based and, as such, is located somewhere in the body (presumably the brain). I perceive my thoughts in direct experience but they are not necessarily my "self" as it were. My self is made visible in those times when I am not on autopilot, when I am directing my thoughts.

Is it there outside of thought?

If I understand you correctly, yes.

Without the thought "there is a self", is there ever a self?

Thoughts ordinarily don't change what is true. Even if no human alive knew that 2+2=4, meaning that no human has the thought "2+2=4," that does not affect the truth of the statement 2+2=4. So it's plausible that there is a self without the thought "there is self," but as I alluded to earlier, the self is made visible when not on autopilot such as when doing mathematical research (which encompasses having thoughts that no one has ever had before to some degree).

Let's try something else...

are YOU the thinker of thoughts?

Sometimes thoughts occur on their own and sometimes there is will directing thoughts.

can YOU think and choose a thought?

Yes. Right now I am choosing to think about thinking about thoughts.

http://this-is-cosmik.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... ughts.html

with Love.

I do not identify myself as the voice in my head, nor do I identify myself as the body. Even if there is a self, I do not view it to be separate from reality (as I described in my first post here).

But there is something that is or isn't liberated. There is something that either is on autopilot or is not. There is something that is thinking and watching the thinking and a something that is not thinking or watching the thinking. There is something that is leading to (in a sense, causing to appear) the words you are now reading. There is something that is making conclusions. There is something that does or does not, something that tries or doesn't try.

There, somewhere within that something, is where self is located.

That's where I am at right now. Thank you for your patience with me.

[cosmiK]

Hey at1,

so, then find this "something" in Direct Experience. LOOK right at it... is it there?

If YOU are choosing to think thoughts then where is this YOU that is thinking? Describe this thinker from Direct Experience.

There is a seamless Experiencing, a happening, and thought may label and conceptualize certain happenings or certain aspects of Experience as "automatic" and other things as "will" / "choice" / "intention", yet do you see that this is just a thought-abstraction that is superimposed on an Experiencing? Do you see that it is all happening, without a separate "You" that is in control?

with Love.

[at1]

Hey at1,

so, then find this "something" in Direct Experience. LOOK right at it... is it there?

I see me in the mirror of introspection. I see that which is on autopilot and I see that which isn't. I see that which is liberated and that which isn't. It feels like you're asking me to LOOK at the wind and since I can't see wind with my eyeballs wind must not exist.

If YOU are choosing to think thoughts then where is this YOU that is thinking? Describe this thinker from Direct Experience.

Plainly, not everything that exists has a location.

The ME that is choosing to think thoughts isn't necessarily physically located at any one point.

The DE of this thinker is that it is a witness participating in thinking. That's what is in my DE.

There is a seamless Experiencing, a happening, and thought may label and conceptualize certain happenings or certain aspects of Experience as "automatic" and other things as "will" / "choice" / "intention", yet do you see that this is just a thought-abstraction that is superimposed on an Experiencing? Do you see that it is all happening, without a separate "You" that is in control?

with Love.

Well, as Crowley wrote in the book of lies, all thoughts are false. That notion is not unfamiliar to me.

A lot of the time, it is all just happening without a separate ME that is in control. However, there are instances of when there is something that causes an experience to occur.

[Eloratea]

Hi at1,

I see me in the mirror of introspection.

What that "me" is? What is really observed which is labeled with „me“? And who/what is observer of that “me”?

I see that which is on autopilot and I see that which isn't.

Great.

I see that which is liberated and that which isn't.

Can you explain this more?

It feels like you're asking me to LOOK at the wind and since I can't see wind with my eyeballs wind must not exist.

Let's „look“ at the wind. It can be useful. You can feel it, or you can hear it.
But actually what is wind? It is also just a label for something experienced with our senses. There is no fixed entity – wind - that exists independently and continuously somewhere. Right? It is blowing that happens when conditions arise and it is inseparable from our perception.

Plainly, not everything that exists has a location.

Location is also just one of the relative concepts within greater space-time concept. Not so relevant for this inquiry.

The ME that is choosing to think thoughts isn't necessarily physically located at any one point.

Sure. There are appearances beyond this physical range of perception and usual space-time perception. Nevertheless, here is pointed for your mind to see its unconscious belief and identification with any kind of vague, limited, personal thinker.
Thinker, thinking and what is being thought are like ouroborus eating its own tail. Unity; one process, happening around “empty” core.

The DE of this thinker is that it is a witness participating in thinking. That's what is in my DE.

No one denies thinking and witnessing, but only points that thinker and witness are labels, personifications of these processes. It happens automatically in awareness without perceivable existence of some separate entity which is doing it.

Have some peaceful time with this, open your mind for those words and see if there is truth in them; If some sense of liberation comes with them.

A lot of the time, it is all just happening without a separate ME that is in control. However, there are instances of when there is something that causes an experience to occur.

I understand what you are talking about. There is a difference.
But, what is that something – is it separate, fixed, definable?

You can take this inquiry as a part of liberation of the essence of Life from limiting beliefs; it all happens ultimately on the mental level. Samsara and Nirvana are in the end just states of the mind.

Stay well.

[at1]

Hi at1,

I see me in the mirror of introspection.

What that "me" is? What is really observed which is labeled with „me“? And who/what is observer of that “me”?

ME is a lot of things, including the observer of that ME.

I see that which is liberated and that which isn't.

Can you explain this more?

That cup/face picture is my explanation of how I am simultaneously seeing there being a self and there not being a self. The former equates to liberation while the latter equates to non-liberation.

It feels like you're asking me to LOOK at the wind and since I can't see wind with my eyeballs wind must not exist.

Let's „look“ at the wind. It can be useful. You can feel it, or you can hear it.
But actually what is wind? It is also just a label for something experienced with our senses. There is no fixed entity – wind - that exists independently and continuously somewhere. Right? It is blowing that happens when conditions arise and it is inseparable from our perception.

Wind exists independently and most of the time somewhere...in many places in fact. I know this from inference. Inference is the DE of perceiving rational thinking.

Plainly, not everything that exists has a location.

Location is also just one of the relative concepts within greater space-time concept. Not so relevant for this inquiry.

cosmiK asked "where is this YOU that is thinking," and so my statement is relevant.

The ME that is choosing to think thoughts isn't necessarily physically located at any one point.

Sure. There are appearances beyond this physical range of perception and usual space-time perception. Nevertheless, here is pointed for your mind to see its unconscious belief and identification with any kind of vague, limited, personal thinker.
Thinker, thinking and what is being thought are like ouroborus eating its own tail. Unity; one process, happening around “empty” core.

As I said, thinking can be done on autopilot in that case the DE of perceiving one's own thoughts would indicate no self; however, it is possible to direct thinking, turn off autopilot as it were, and this activity would indicate there is a self of some kind. I do not claim that this self is separate from everything.

The DE of this thinker is that it is a witness participating in thinking. That's what is in my DE.

No one denies thinking and witnessing, but only points that thinker and witness are labels, personifications of these processes. It happens automatically in awareness without perceivable existence of some separate entity which is doing it.

Have some peaceful time with this, open your mind for those words and see if there is truth in them; If some sense of liberation comes with them.

It does not always happen automatically; at least not in my DE.

A lot of the time, it is all just happening without a separate ME that is in control. However, there are instances of when there is something that causes an experience to occur.

I understand what you are talking about. There is a difference.
But, what is that something – is it separate, fixed, definable?

I listed some attributes of this something earlier:

]There is something that is or isn't liberated. There is something that either is on autopilot or is not. There is something that is thinking and watching the thinking and a something that is not thinking or watching the thinking. There is something that is leading to (in a sense, causing to appear) the words you are now reading. There is something that is making conclusions. There is something that does or does not, something that tries or doesn't try.

There, somewhere within that something, is where self is located.

[Neal]

It's like they are arbitrarily separating self into "unreal" and "real" categories and placing anything abstract into the "unreal" category, thus forcing a conclusion that physical things are all that are real.

Their rejection of mental phenomena (intention, inference, imagination ect.) due to its recursive and fuzzy nature is labeled as "false" and since self isn't neatly quantifiable, they just lump everything mental together and dismiss it entirely.

The result is this boondoggle of absurdity and contradictions, like claiming to not have free will while talking about deciding to step through a gate (choosing to SEE).

[at1]

Welcome home, Neal.

like claiming to not have free will while talking about deciding to step through a gate (choosing to SEE).

"Choosing to see" and "deciding to step through a gate" might just be misleading abuses of language but I see what you are getting at. I think what you're saying is that there is a self that choose to see and a self that decides to step through a gate. Yes?

They have helped me realize that even in my thinking there is a lot that happens automatically.

I remember the scene in The Last Samurai when Nathan was dueling their top swordsman and the youngster gave him advice "no mind".

A lot of the time there is "no mind" but sometimes (intention, making some inferences, and imagining some things for example) there is a mind.

[Neal]

Either choice is involved in perceiving "no self" or not. I think what is misleading is these labels "no self" and "no mind". What is really going on is different states of mind.

[cosmiK]

Hey,

Firstly Neal - please stick to your thread with your guide. This conversation belongs to the client, and the guide.

Then, to At1:

I see me in the mirror of introspection. I see that which is on autopilot and I see that which isn't. I see that which is liberated and that which isn't. It feels like you're asking me to LOOK at the wind and since I can't see wind with my eyeballs wind must not exist.

There is an assumption here that there is a "ME" or a "something" that exists independently, and to investigate this assumption we have to stick purely to direct experiential evidence. When I point to Direct Experience, I point to that Experiencing, that simplicity, that noticing, and we are trying to see if there is an ACTUAL SEPARATE "me" or "something" that is ever there that does the noticing, the choosing, etc. What I am asking you to do is just notice simply. That's all. And when you get these messages and angles of inquiry... don't rush to conclude an answer, really take your time to LOOK & Notice... simply... like a child who knows nothing.

I see that which is liberated and that which isn't.

Simply look at 'that which is liberated' and 'that which is not'. Are these any more than abstract concepts superimposed in this seamless Experiencing?

Don't rush with this. Let your answer come with full respect to your investigation.

with Love.

[at1]

There is an assumption here that there is a "ME" or a "something" that exists independently,

Perhaps for most this is an assumption but not for me. I have experienced ME directly. It does not exist independent of other things though.

I see that which is liberated and that which isn't.

Simply look at 'that which is liberated' and 'that which is not'. Are these any more than abstract concepts superimposed in this seamless Experiencing?

No I think being liberated or not being liberated are pretty well-defined and concrete things.

[cosmiK]

Hey At1,

No I think being liberated or not being liberated are pretty well-defined and concrete things.

Can you describe in Experiencing, here and now, what it is that is not liberated, and what it is that is liberated?

Really LOOK in Experience, here and now, and answer from that. No rush to answer,

with Love.

[at1]

Hey At1,
Can you describe in Experiencing, here and now, what it is that is not liberated, and what it is that is liberated?

Really LOOK in Experience, here and now, and answer from that. No rush to answer,

with Love.

There is an observer. There is a perception or feeling that it is watching everything, thoughts, emotions, perceptions, what the body does and doesn't do, etc. My gut reaction is that the observer is liberated and what is being observed is not liberated.