In need of assistance here

[Freddi]

Hi JimmyG

WOW, yes it’s not ever the situation or the experience that creates suffering – it’s thought, always only thought…and thoughts are like clouds always changing and ultimately totally unsubstantial.

That’s clarity. Do I sense something shifting here? :-)

“There is no one at the helm.” If that would be completely comprehended, nothing else were needed.

Don’t take my word for it, ‘comprehending’ would just add another layer of acquired thought stuff. The mind will not get you there. We’re here to check for ourselves, ok?

How the observing is ultimately done, is not known. Who the observer truly is, is not known. What the observed ultimately is or where it comes from, is not known. No-thing “is looking” at no-thing

Your reply feels a bit theoretical. You start from the assumption that there is an observer and you look for it through mental deduction. This is how we replace one concept, ‘observer’, with another concept, ‘no-thing’.
Take another fresh look, as if you were a baby, and question all assumptions.
1) Is the space between the body and the screen observed or observed (looking or looked at)?
2) Look at parts of the body. Are the hands observed or observer? The end of the nose?
3) Can an observer be found, in direct experience? Is there an 'I' looking at the world from behind the eyes?
4) Can lines be drawn between these concepts of ‘observer’ and ‘observed’, in reality? Is it more like one movement?
5) Do these concepts of 'observer' and 'observed' actually point to a tangible, verifiable portion of reality, in your experience?

Warm wishes,

Fred

[JimmyG]

Good Morning Fred

Thanks for immediate reply. I will hang on it today.

This Saturday there's a German Non-Dualist teacher, Ranja Lucia Blau, giving a Satsang. She's not my teacher or anything. I wanted to attend before I connected to LU. It would be my first Satsang. 2 times 1.5 hours sitting...
Do you recommend that, what is your opinion?

Warmest Regards
JimmyG

[Freddi]

Hi JimmyG

At the beginning of our conversation, you agreed to put aside all other teachings, philosophies etc. for the duration of this investigation. Going to a satsang, reading a book, even watching a YouTube video may give Mr Thinky another belief to hang on to. What we do here is strip all that down, dust off any unquestioned assumption or belief and get down to WHAT IS.
I'll leave it to you.
Warm wishes
Fred

[JimmyG]

Hi Fred

Thanks for being frank.

Of course I totally agree. I prefer purely to stick to this dialoge.

Until soon
JimmyG

[JimmyG]

Hi Fred

I have some difficulties with these questions of yours:

1) Is the space between the body and the screen observed or observer (looking or looked at)?

2) Look at parts of the body. Are the hands observed or observer? The end of the nose?

Can you please elaborate on that?

Thank you very much.
JimmyG

[Freddi]

Hi JimmyG

I have some difficulties with these questions of yours

Put very simply, as there can be an assumption lurking around that 'you' = the 'observer' = 'the body', we're looking to check if that's true. By looking at an 'observed' object and bringing the attention closer and closer to the body, even including the body we can focus on debunking the myth of the observer as the body.

Look at the most obvious answers to the questions, as if you were a child. Don't look into your thoughts, scan what you observe, notice.
Look various parts of the body, the feet, the hands, the chest area. Are they doing the looking or are they looked at? And keep going while looking for that elusive observer.
Where is the observer? Can it be seen/touched/felt/sensed? Can it be experienced at all?
Are 'you' the observer?
Are 'you' the body?

Warm wishes

Fred

[JimmyG]

Hi Fred

I'm hanging in there, answers ready latest tomorrow morning.

Have a great day
JimmyG

[JimmyG]

Hi Fred

Here's what I come up with:

That’s clarity. Do I sense something shifting here? :-)

Yes, it was sort of an epiphany.

Your reply feels a bit theoretical. You start from the assumption that there is an observer and you look for it through mental deduction. This is how we replace one concept, ‘observer’, with another concept, ‘no-thing’.

That’s what I previously meant by my wonderful capability of theorizing. I’ m grateful for your pointing.

Take another fresh look, as if you were a baby, and question all assumptions.
Put very simply, as there can be an assumption lurking around that 'you' = the 'observer' = 'the body', we're looking to check if that's true. By looking at an 'observed' object and bringing the attention closer and closer to the body, even including the body we can focus on debunking the myth of the observer as the body.
1) Is the space between the body and the screen observed or observer (looking or looked at)?

By looking at the space between “my” body and the screen I recognize this field of awareness so that space and awareness are the same thing in which everything just happens. This space consciousness feels to me like the source of an all-pervasive something – nothing tangible, nothing measurable, just anyhow grasped.

2) Look various parts of the body, the feet, the hands, the chest area. Are they doing the looking or are they looked at? And keep going while looking for that elusive observer.

By looking at my body parts, or my body as a whole, I realize that it’s intrinsically interwoven in that above mentioned all-pervasive something. This perception of “mine” is wholly one something so that I can’t draw any line between, parts, body, space, things, forms…it’s all one something.

3) Can an observer be found, in direct experience? Is there an 'I' looking at the world from behind the eyes?

By gleaning behind my eyes when looking at the world there is truly this sense of all-pervasive something and…there is no “I”. The “I” comes in by naming, labelling, storytelling…truly amazing !!! Whatever this illusive “I” does or not does, I can clearly see that it has no effect on that mysterious something at all. In other words whatever I think, do or not think, not do, has no connection to that something, doesn’t mean anything.
As I discovered earlier this “I” cannot be located. This would point to nobody here whatsoever.

4) Can lines be drawn between these concepts of ‘observer’ and ‘observed’, in reality? Is it more like one movement?

I think the forgoing answer makes it clear, that absolutely no lines can be drawn whatsoever…

5) Do these concepts of 'observer' and 'observed' actually point to a tangible, verifiable portion of reality, in your experience?

Since absolutely nothing can be separated from this overall awareness (or overall something) I can see that no tangible object exists then, and since reality cannot exist in parts, no verifiable portion can exist.

Warm wishes,
Jimmy G

[Freddi]

Hi JimmyG

Thank you for your detailed and honest look. Honest looking is really all it takes …

Stay with your direct experience, what is alive, here and now. Step out of the mind stream, come back to your breathing. Look around the room. Notice what is seen, heard, touched, felt, sensed. Look at various object, point to them and name them.
Say, a table. Notice the word ‘table’, and the sound T-A-B-L-E. Now look at the portion of reality that label aims to describe.
Does it come close to the actuality of that four-legged thing you are looking at?
Have you noticed how other languages will apply different labels, ’Tisch’, for instance?
Is this sound, are these letters an accurate representation of this unfolding of reality you see?
Do this with other ‘objects’ in the room. A ‘lamp’, a ‘chair’, ‘floor’, ‘knee’, ’hands’. Look at what is, below the label, as if you had never seen them before.
Now point to a ‘self’. Where is the finger pointing to? What portion of reality is aimed at by that label?

Thanks!

Fred

[JimmyG]

Hi Fred

I am grateful that you are so patient with me and for your fast reply-mode:

Does it come close to the actuality of that four-legged thing you are looking at?

The label “table” is more like an idea, an idea which basically a four-legged thing. The label does not say anything about its earthly materials, shape, color, form, consistency, weight, height, width, length aso nor does it say something about its detailed functioning such as loading capacity or stability. So just to say table helps as a pointer but it’s far from its actuality. The communication is made simple – it’s short cut. Actuality in general can only be hinted. So I see that the language is far from actuality. I can’t really know what these things truly are.

Have you noticed how other languages will apply different labels, ’Tisch’, for instance?
Is this sound, are these letters an accurate representation of this unfolding of reality see?

No, to use another language does not help in describing actuality accurately. I can't make out a difference. All worldly languages must be just vaguely pointing towards a greater actuality, or some mystery.

Do this with other ‘objects’ in the room. A ‘lamp’, a ‘chair’, ‘floor’, ‘knee’, ’hands’. Look at what is, below the label, as if you had never seen them before.

By really looking at such various objects it becomes obvious that all such naming and labelling are just pointers towards an actuality which elude accurate description. More so stories are created to give the impression that things seen or unseen are mutually understood. The diversity and consistency of things such as lamp, chair, floor, knee and hands is simply too overwhelming than to be fully expressed in language, so we use this pointers. Hence we seem to be living in a world in which things are ultimately mostly obscured and unknown. I see that I am literally unconscious of what’s truly going on, in the something we name reality.

Now point to a ‘self’. Where is the finger pointing to? What portion of reality is aimed at by that label?

My finger points to things and traits which are known and experienced by me as the pointer. Indeed I can only see my stuff in that other “self”. Actually I cannot see the other self as independent, or separate of me, it’s more like a mirror image of my pointers. And my labels are aiming at these simplified things and traits which is an incomplete description of what actually is. Hence that mysterious “self” over there seems to be the same “self” over here.

JimmyG

[Freddi]

Hi JimmyG

No, to use another language does not help in describing actuality accurately.

Exactly, the very fact that each language barks a different sound to refer to a portion of reality is a big clue …

My finger points to things and traits which are known and experienced by me as the pointer.

What is that ‘me’ that can claim this experience? What is that ‘me’ that owns the finger? Can you look and tell me what you find?

Indeed I can only see my stuff in that other “self”.

What is that other ‘self’. Is there someone out there that has a self, even as a mirror to the self which you take to be ‘you’?
Can you describe it, in direct experience? Does it have a shape, a colour, a size? Stay with what you experience right here and now, what you SEE, not what you think.

Thanks!

Fred

[JimmyG]

Hi Fred

In between ususal highs and lows here is the next replying" for you:

"My finger points to things and traits which are known and experienced by me as the pointer."
What is that ‘me’ that can claim this experience? What is that ‘me’ that owns the finger? Can you look and tell me what you find?

The “me” appears to be a person (an elusive personality) – a voice in the head – that claims to inhabit and maneuver this body, with likes and dislikes, consisting of thoughts only, commenting almost incessantly, playing roles, claiming ownership of this and that including all movement of the body, playing victim of circumstances. The “me” claims to have a life of its own but once it’s truly stared at, that person disappears and obviously it is never there in the first place. Physically the “me” can’t be found and as far as science is understood, the functioning including all movement of the body is far too intelligent than to be helmed by this “me”. By a close look at the skin science states that the functioning of a single cell is already beyond any capability of human grasping. Hence the “me” certainly and most obviously cannot have anything to do with the functioning of the body. And since by inquiring the “me” completely dissolves, it can’t possibly be the doer of action as well. So by looking at this “me” I can’t find a thing.

What is that other ‘self’. Is there someone out there that has a self, even as a mirror to the self which you take to be ‘you’?

Considering the forgoing reply it becomes obvious that other ‘selves” equally cannot be found to exist. When I look at another self I can best see a happening then, appearing as person or personality which is also - by the above stated recognition – elusive. No other “me” there. What is the interaction then? Can there a line be drawn? By interacting with another “self” no line could be drawn – or where would that be? We’ve already seen that drawing lines between a “me” and some object is not possible. Interaction JUST happens then, mysteriously?

Can you describe it, in direct experience?

Since no person exists in the first place, “me” and “another” self cannot truly meet. The “me” talks or interacts with another “self” using concepts and stories in rudimentary language with rough pointers so that concepts – basically commonalities and contrasts – meet, or better say, “happen”. Hence no direct experience with another “self” is possible.

Does it have a shape, a colour, a size? Stay with what you experience right here and now, what you SEE, not what you think.

Due to the observation in the two forgoing replies this question is obsolete.

Thank you very much.
JimmyG

[Freddi]

Hi JimmyG

The “me” claims to have a life of its own but once it’s truly stared at, that person disappears and obviously it is never there in the first place.

Let’s drop this expression, ‘the me’, it sounds a bit like Tony Parsons or Eckart Tolle jargon. Let's not fall into someone else’s teaching, ok? You are your own authority here.

When you look for any evidence of the ‘I’ that claims to be in charge, you can’t see it. Did you check this for yourself or is this something you have heard/learned?
We are not looking to replace one belief with another here, we’re here to take a good honest look into our first-hand experience.
When you say that this ‘I’ claims to have a life of its own, what do you mean? What is this ‘I’ that claims a life? Is it any more than a thought?
Can a thought think/claim/inhabit/maneuver a body?

Physically the “me” can’t be found and as far as science is understood, the functioning including all movement of the body is far too intelligent than to be helmed by this “me”. By a close look at the skin science states that the functioning of a single cell is already beyond any capability of human grasping. Hence the “me” certainly and most obviously cannot have anything to do with the functioning of the body. And since by inquiring the “me” completely dissolves, it can’t possibly be the doer of action as well.

All this stuff about science is not warranted here. While it may be interesting as mind fodder, it is never first-hand experience, it is hearsay, so any logical deduction starting from a scientific statement would be wide open to questions, and would ultimately be found to reside only in … thought.

Since no person exists in the first place, “me” and “another” self cannot truly meet. The “me” talks or interacts with another “self”…

Same question as above. Can this elusive ‘I’ talk or interact with another self, in direct experience?
Next time ‘you’ interact with another ‘self’, as our thoughts describe, look at what is actually happening in direct experience. Describe, away from thoughts and spiritual jargon, what is taking place at the most basic level.
Notice the sounds of voices, the shapes, the colours, how it all moves, how it all vibrates and dances. When our thinking comments 'I interact with you', what happens, in reality?

Thanks!

Fred

[JimmyG]

Hi Fred

Thank you so much for your concise pointing out. That's what we're here for.

Let’s drop this expression, ‘the me’, it sounds a bit like Tony Parsons or Eckart Tolle jargon. Let's not fall into someone else’s teaching, ok? You are your own authority here.

Ok and yes I see that.

When you look for any evidence of the ‘I’ that claims to be in charge, you can’t see it. Did you check this for yourself or is this something you have heard/learned?
We are not looking to replace one belief with another here, we’re here to take a good honest look into our first-hand experience.

As stated in the introduction I had almost literally been drowning in Eckhart Tolle’s and other’s talks. So yes this conclusion is not learnt by myself. I have heard it so many times but I did not take the time to really check it. Thanks for your clear cut pointing.

When you say that this ‘I’ claims to have a life of its own, what do you mean? What is this ‘I’ that claims a life? Is it any more than a thought?

To explain or detect this “I” is only possible with a thought; it’s really nothing more than a thought. To explain or to locate this “I” more thoughts come up, but they’re only thoughts (ideas, stories) too. So the expression ‘this “I” claiming a life of its own’ is only a thought too. This “I” is nothing but a thought.

Can a thought think/claim/inhabit/maneuver a body?

I cannot think to move my fingers, it just happens. Any movement just happens without thinking. Yes, I can think to stand up now, but actually standing up just happens. I cannot think of every step in thought – standing up just happens miraculously. Then thought certainly cannot claim the body.
And when thinking and claiming do not move the body, I cannot see how thought could inhabit the body. Thought inhabit a body is just a thought too.
Now I see that even to most basic movement happens without ‘my’ thinking. This means that this body is moved or maneuvered by what? Not by thought. Not by this “I” which is nothing more but thought. Does this mean that this body just happens? Then there is no mover, no “I”? …so finally I am approaching here an insight given by all these teachers out there (and so far just heedlessly accepted but not truly grasped): “I am not the doer.” ...there is only movement happening, mmmh?

All this stuff about science is not warranted here. While it may be interesting as mind fodder, it is never first-hand experience, it is hearsay, so any logical deduction starting from a scientific statement would be wide open to questions, and would ultimately be found to reside only in … thought.

Yes, got that.

Since no person exists in the first place, “me” and “another” self cannot truly meet. The “me” talks or interacts with another “self”…
Same question as above. Can this elusive ‘I’ talk or interact with another self, in direct experience?

Since I cannot find the “I” here there is certainly no other “I” out there. So what is actually interacting then? If “I” meet another “I”, both are elusive, there’s no direct experience of any “I”. The best word I can come up here is “interaction happens” – but by whom? There’s no doer as seen above… This said, interaction just happens…

Next time ‘you’ interact with another ‘self’, as our thoughts describe, look at what is actually happening in direct experience. Describe, away from thoughts and spiritual jargon, what is taking place at the most basic level.
Notice the sounds of voices, the shapes, the colours, how it all moves, how it all vibrates and dances.

I saw an old friend yesterday. When he opened the door I noticed his look, his welcoming gesture, his joy, the touch of touching of hands and his particular way of movement. His voice has softened, a certain benevolence, more humble. These first moments were all about him, no concern whatsoever about me. Then I noticed one foot with slipper and the other with a sock. I reckoned him hobble to the wheelchair, then my instantaneous wonderment about what happened to him. Now he tells me about his motorcycle accident and how two weeks before that he’s mother died in a car accident. So my observations at the door were accurate. There was a kind of instant recognition or synch – no sadness or exaltation on my part – just a synch. Then we share ideas, stories, pain and pleasure. I noticed his facial as well as his body movements. During parts of our conversation, I now notice, I was totally unconscious of the surroundings. We sat on a balcony overlooking a shopping street section of his town. When he told me that his two sons still would not come to see him (they only live 2 km off in town), I was suddenly overcome by a strong kinship so it happened that out of the blue I basically told him that his sons were longing for him as a father too but they are kind of shamed to show up after a 3 year period of neglecting each other. Out of the blue I told him, when thinking of his sons, he sees them in perfect condition wherever they are and whatever they do, to wrap them in light. At this point it felt like being truly one if you know, Fred, what I mean – one happening, so to speak…

When our thinking comments 'I interact with you', what happens, in reality?

Well, I hope not to get into a theoretical discursion again…if my thinking comments ‘I interact with you’ that now looks more sort of an energetic movement or happening. I can’t see where to draw a line here. It looks like interaction happening as a whole…movements of “bodies, colors, shapes and so” without mover…voices and sounds without doer…like energetic explosions caused by? Right here, I am tempted to say, that there’s a silence there, a no-thing, that eludes sheer description – but I reckon the spiritual jargon of Eckhart. Nevertheless beneath all I kinda sense and somehow know that there most me a common ground, a something or nothing, that sustains it all – you name it...

Great to be with you, Fred
JimmyG

[Freddi]

Hi JimmyG

Great to be with you too, and thank you for your post. In see a lot of clarity in there! Something is definitely shifting…

Yes, I can think to stand up now, but actually standing up just happens. I cannot think of every step in thought – standing up just happens miraculously.

Over the next few hours I would like you to investigate how choice and decisions happen. Look at these events as they unfold, in real time, and describe what you see, as plainly as you can. Maybe when you choose to go out or stay in, the ingredients for dinner, what to wear. Give me two examples of any apparent decision-making events.
Ask yourself these questions:

1) As the choice unfolds, can a chooser be experienced? Are ‘you’ the chooser?
2) What factors are taken into consideration when the choice occurs?
3) Is there location of choosing, a choice point?
4) Do thoughts have an influence on what happens?
5) Do thoughts comment on what happens? When, in relation to the event, does the commentary come up?

Thanks!

Fred