Hi Sandra,
Mind can be calm or not. And yes becoming lost in thoughts will happen sooner or later.
What is happening, happens. We can only notice what is already over. When you think that the mind is calm or that you are lost in thoughts, you are looking to the story of a past. Could that past be any different?
No. The mind likes to dream and imagine stories about the past (or the future) of how it could have been better if I acted a certain way. Reality is that what happened happened and it`s not coming back.
So because of the fact I couldn`t stop becoming engrossed in the thinking process I`m not sure if I could ever see "my" self disappear.
Is this self a real self? An entity that exists inside a body, looking from the eyes?
What can this self do?
No. The self is not real. It cannot do anything except appear in my awareness When identification with thoughts happens.
I think here we need to have a chat about something. Something I should have cleared a long time ago but which I didn`t and I think that was a mistake.
The self is not real, but there is something which appears to be localized inside the body looking from behind the eyes.
It`s that presence that sees the thoughts, that senses the sensations inside the body, that is forever calm and simply observing what happens in the 3D reality.
I used to call it "the I am", or the Observer, or the Witness, or the Lucid mind. It`s what I mean by "awareness'. But what exactly is it?
I meditated for days on end and each time after clearing my thought I headbutted with this wall that never disappears. This is where I was stuck before being introduced to LU.
Then I read somewhere that the "I am" is just another thought, and for a while I actually thought it was the answer I was looking for. Afterwards I realised I was confusing this presence with the actual I-thought, the self. Big difference. This presence is not a thought. It doesn`t come and go.
It doesn`t identify with anything. This presence simply is.
So what exactly is this presence, how to label it, and how relevant is it in the process of liberation?
There will always be confusion until I figure out what to do with it.
It will always be there, waiting for me to lose my awareness in order to take charge.
Is this true? What if there is no self there when there is focusing in a story going on and there is no self there when there is awareness of what is present in the moment? Can you see that what you are saying is only a thought, a point of view explaining what the imaginary self does?
Good point. The self doesn`t exist when there is awareness. That`s easy to observe.
As to what happens when one is lost in the stories. Those stories do have a life of their own. They simply take charge.
There is no imaginary "I" controlling the stories. What happens is that after a story finishes, then the "I" comes and labels the story as part of the "I".
If that is not the best wording let me know so I can rephrase.
So the "I" is not an entity of some sort, not even a master-thought.
The "I" is not even those stories. The "I" is the label applied on those stories. The "I" seems rather pathetic actually. But yes I can see the "I" is just a thought.
In my opinion, liberation is the seeing that what is going on is happening without a self. It is also seeing that the story of the self isn't happening in the here and now - it's just a story!
Liberation doesn't mean that conditioning disappears or that you will became a different self. It's just the simple seeing that there isn't a you here - moment to moment. That can create a breathing space around the conditioning, a letting go, an acceptance.
I start to see liberation as a process and not as a one time event. I guess frustration for the identification with the self will diminish in time (by being observed and understood for what it is - a thought) and is mostly caused by expecting too much too soon. It`s the "I" that does the expectations so it makes sense there`s going to be tension.
Worse, it`s the "I" that looks for liberation hoping that liberation is actually a betterment, an improvement of one`s life. It`s the "I" that does the battle with itself.
I`m probably ranting but it helps me clear some confusion and old beliefs.
I`m getting more and more confused. Even in the book I read somewhere that there is a sense of self but there is no actual self. Yeah like I wasnt confused enough.
Yes, there is a sense of self :)
If I ask "Where is this you that you think you are?" there is a big probability that you will point to your heart or to your head. The certainty that there is a you there comes from the sense, the strong sensation, that a you exists. That's what makes you function - run when a car goes your way, avoid people you don't like, comb your hair in the morning, take care of yourself.
Is this sense of being a self a real separated self? Can you find this self anywhere?
Hmm, so is this "sense of self" a label for what I was talking above regarding that never-ending presence and which you can also name "the I am" or Witness and all that?
Because if so then yes there is a "sense of self" while there is no self and all confusion is gone. See why wording is such a drag? lol
Is this sense of being a self a real separated self? Can you find this self anywhere?
I can see this "sense of self". I can sense it (and without any logical, thought like interferences) so it seems to be real.
I don`t think calling it a "self" (any sort of "self") is very appropriate though. It looks like having nothing to do with the "I" or even the body. It looks independent. I`m prolly going to go new-agey on you lol and say it looks like a ray of light, like an orb of extra-terrestrial construct, like a soul lol. Anyway feel free to discard all my explanations because they are just thoughts anyway.
In consclusion I can see this thing you guys call "sense of self" and it looks real. I`m a bit weary to call something as DEFINITELY real or not because I don`t think there`s any certainty in life.
But it looks as real as it gets.
Can you find this self anywhere?
To be completely acqurate, the answer would be no.
I can feel it in the head area, but that might be a trap.
So I`m going to stop having any sort of expectations. They are useless anyway as there is no control over anything.
Yes, good (although there is also not control in having expectations!).
Indeed.
SEEING is being peacefull and calm, watching sensations inside the body, watching thoughts arising and dissipating, watching the breath in and out.
Yes and no. Seeing is also looking to identification, beliefs, strong "negative" emotions, tantrums, rage, fear, pain, suffering. It's not only about bliss and angels singing. Seeing embraces everything and anything.
Yes, indeed. I made a confusion there and let me explain.
I put the equal sign between SEEING and what you call "Sense of self" as SEEING happens mostly (but not all the time) when the "sense of self" is present, as in no thoughts or identification. I conceptualized "sense of self" as "positive"- peacefullness, inner silence, clarity. Basically I created a story without a basis in reality.
However SEEING and "sense of self" can also notice "negative" stuff. For instance theres SEEING that after a negative story took charge of the self, I was left with a sensation of fear. So yes you can SEE negative stuff as well.
Same about thought. I noticed that it`s usually thinking that gives birth to worries, or fear, which create a sensation of tension inside the body so I "labeled" thinking as being the baddie. But again it`s just a story I created. Thinking in itself is indeed just a mechanism and intrisically neutral.
The hand rests and the hand moves. That is also happening now. If there is a you making the hand move, is this you inside the body? Where can you find this you if you scan the body looking for it?
What I see is that Im sitting down at the laptop and the words appear on the screen to raise my left arm. The hand doesn`t raise as soon as the words have been read.
Somehow there has to be an "acceptance" or an order from somewhere. Where that order comes from I don`t know. It is a sort of intelligence rulling over the bodily function like breathing happening, blood flowing, etc. If there was no such intelligence then life would be impossible. You cant go on by intellectual deciding to breath in and out. Nothing else would be achieved. So the body has an intelligence of its own. (Actually it`s scientifically proved that every cell has an intelligence of its own. As all cells are connected then it makes sense that a meta-intelligence is managing the body.)
There is no "I" making decisions. If there was one then there was the danger that in case a "jump off the cliff" thought appear then the body would simply follow the command. So this Intelligence is one thing and the "I" and the other thoughts are something else.
If I was to lucky guess I would say this Intelligence has more to do with what you call "sense of self" than anything else. The "sense of self" seems to be an intelligence of its own.
Again sorry for this long explanation but it also helps me figure out things better.
So I can see the hand moves. I can see it is not because of an order coming from the self, which self doesnt exist. However I cant see who moves the hand.
If you take it logically it would be something along the lines:
the thought to move the hand appears --> the Intelligence decides on whether thats appropriate or not --> this Intelligence starts to move the muscles and ligaments that move the actual hand.
NOWHERE in the process there was a self involved. Nowhere.
So it makes sense that thoughts arise, sometimes accompanied by the "I" thought, but not mandatory. Thought is being seen by this so-called Intelligence (which might have something to do with the "sense of self" or not - it doesnt really matter) which decides whether to act on it or not.
Where can you find this you if you scan the body looking for it?
where can this Intelligence be located? I don`t know.
By following the logical course it can be the entire body, depending on where the action take place, the intelligence of some cells can fire together in that area (for instance in the hand) and create the actual movement. But that is just suppositions and not actual seeing, so its a bit irrelevant.
I do know it is not a "me" inside the body that takes this decisions. This intelligence is impersonal, just like the "sense of self".
Im not sure if you can make sense of everything I wrote on this topic but it did help me dispell some of the confusion.
No, theres no "I" making decisions, something else does it.
Look around you. Can you see the confusion you're talking about?
Seriously!
What makes the confusion exist in reality?
Other than a thought can you see confusion or a you that is confused? What makes both appear to be real?
Confusion is a label for a thought of "I don`t know" where you can also add some bodily sensations of tension for emphasis. So It`s thought plus sensations.
The thought is real. The sensation is real. "Confusion" is not.
What makes the confusion exist in reality?
Me believing in it. Me being lost in thought, in the story of "being confused".
So I can see it is just a thought I`m identifying with.
I will have to remember this next time I get "confused" again :)
Sorry for the novel! I really appreciate your help and the time you invest in this. I also like your style. It`s quite easy for me to understand you :)
Andrei
