Guides lets do this

[JimmyG]

is there another layer to this besides realizing there is no self?

Great question! Most of us at one point come to the believe that there must be more to life, a meaning or understanding of some sort, a summit where things don’t tackle us, a superiority, or simply another layer or layers of existence. But what does life constantly show us? This is it. It’s that simple, just this mysterious, indefinable, silencing happening. If we look directly without any mediating thought stream or story we get the raw experience as simple seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting and even thinking.

What to do then? Just go by the direct experience which is described in my current post to you and let me know what comes up.

Warm regards
Rolly

[olscrach]

Yes. It’s that simple - there’s no ‘I’ whatsoever! With no ‘I’, does that mean that seeing, hearing etc. just happen without doer, controller, experiencer?

Yes that is what that means. It seems as though we have established that. Shit happens as you stated in one of your previous posts. Do I need to go on to answer all the other questions?

[olscrach]

is there another layer to this besides realizing there is no self?

Great question! Most of us at one point come to the believe that there must be more to life, a meaning or understanding of some sort, a summit where things don’t tackle us, a superiority, or simply another layer or layers of existence. But what does life constantly show us? This is it. It’s that simple, just this mysterious, indefinable, silencing happening. If we look directly without any mediating thought stream or story we get the raw experience as simple seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting and even thinking.

What to do then? Just go by the direct experience which is described in my current post to you and let me know what comes up.

Warm regards
Rolly

direct experience show me things are just happening. The only reason I am looking for another layer is you keep telling me to look m8.

[JimmyG]

Olscrach wrote: direct experience show me things are just happening. The only reason I am looking for another layer is you keep telling me to look m8.

In the beginning you wanted to confirm whether you delude yourself or not. Our dialogue is a means towards this end of not getting deluded. If we truly look as in direct experience we lessen the probability of delusion and raise the 'level' of clarity - so to speak. We then pass the gateless Gate at some apparent end of this dialoge, when you most probably will be able to give appropriate answers. That's the sole purpose of all these questions and exercises. Just look and let me know what comes up, will you?

[olscrach]

will you?

sure

[olscrach]

Olscrach worte: The mind doesn't understand anything in present or future tense because that information hasn't been processed yet.


Your statement implies a something which is doing the processing. Who or what does the processing? How would that look like? Where are the things which yet have to be processed - provided there is such a thing? Or is all just a mysterious, indefinable happening? Look!

I didn't imply sir. I said mind. There is no self controlling the mind, but there is still a mind.

Physically that would look like a brain, eyes, ears, taste buds, nose, nerve endings. Understand I am not implying any entity has any control over what enters those things, nor does any entity control how those sensory inputs translate into anything.

The things that have yet to be processed are outside the reaches of the sensory receptors.

Yes it is all just a mysterious, indefinable happening.

Let’s look some more into your first-hand experience:

Look at an object in front of you, say the computer screen. Let’s call it the ‘observed’. And ‘you’, Olscrach, are the observer.
Can you draw a line between this observed, the observing and the observer?
What about the space between the screen and you? Is that observed or observer?
What about the hands? Are they observing or observed? What about the end of your nose? Is that observing or observed?
Where is this observer? Can it be experienced at all?
When our thinking and language say ‘Olscrach' is looking at the screen’, what is happening, in reality?

No I cannot draw a line between observed, observing and observer

The space between the screen and my form is observed.

The hands and tip of my nose are observing and observed. There are nerves on each that sense, and they can also be seen. No self is controlling what either is sensing. Nor is there a self dictating other actions that may result from what either is sensing.

The observer has no real physical location. The observer itself cannot be experienced.

In reality reflected and projected light is entering rods and cones in the eyes. That information is translated into "monitor" through a series of electro chemical reactions in the brain. No self controlled the reactions they just happened. To add to that no entity controlled the history the related sensory devices have that allows the translation into "monitor" to occur.

JimmyG wrote:In direct experience (which is seeing, hearing, smelling, touching and tasting), can you find an "I" that experiences experience?
Olscrach worte: No


Yes. It’s that simple - there’s no ‘I’ whatsoever! With no ‘I’, does that mean that seeing, hearing etc. just happen without doer, controller, experiencer?

Yes that is what that means

Olscrach worte: The seen and heard are interpretations of info received by sensory organs. There can't be a separation between the interpretation and the interpreter.


We are trained to structure sentences with subject, object and verb but that just can’t be verified by direct experience. Try to find a boundary between an object, subject and a relative doing, can you? Let’s check that out:

Look at a plant or tree. Can you draw a line between you, the looking and the tree. Is there any separation if there is no ‘I’ as you found out in the forgoing reply?

no there is just "tree"

[JimmyG]

There is no self controlling the mind, but there is still a mind.

Stop and LOOK, how is what you call 'mind' experienced right here and now? What is a 'mind', without referring to thoughts and ideas?
Is it any more than the current thought?

Physically that would look like a brain, eyes, ears, taste buds, nose, nerve endings.

What is a 'brain' in direct experience? How do you know that you actually have a brain? Don’t scan your thoughts, stay with direct looking.
‘Brain’ is included in the last section of this post, the ‘tree’-exercise.

Yes it is all just a mysterious, indefinable happening.

Rightly so.

No I cannot draw a line between observed, observing and observer

Hence there is no separation whatsoever. All of existence is a moving, vibrant event. If this is fully acknowledged, would you agree, that this is all that actually exist?

The hands and tip of my nose are observing and observed. There are nerves on each that sense,

How so?
Does the nose experience or is it experienced?
Pinch your nose, is your nose experiencing or is it experienced?
Touch your face, is your face experiencing or experienced?
Keep trying different parts until you see clearly which is true: Is the body experiencing or is it experienced?

The observer has no real physical location. The observer itself cannot be experienced.

Who or what is being aware or is observing? Is anything observing? Is anything doing the observing?

In reality reflected and projected light is entering rods and cones in the eyes. That information is translated into "monitor" through a series of electro chemical reactions in the brain. No self controlled the reactions they just happened. To add to that no entity controlled the history the related sensory devices have that allows the translation into "monitor" to occur.

All these assumptions are not warranted here. For this we scan what is experienced rather than thought and we rely solely on that, as our authority. Understanding does not work here.

no there is just "tree"

Just for a moment, step out of your mind stream, come back to your breathing. Then go outside to a tree. Notice what is seen, heard, touched, felt, sensed. Look at various object, point to them and name them.

Say a tree, notice the word ‘tree’ and the sound T-R-E-E. Now look at the portion of reality that label aims to describe.

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

Have you noticed how other languages will apply different labels, arbol (Spanish), for instance?

Is this sound, are these letters an accurate representation of this unfolding of reality you see?

Do this with other ‘objects’. A ‘stone’, a ‘flower’, a ‘hill’, ‘clouds’. Or with body parts, ‘knee’, ‘hands’, ‘eyes’, ‘ears’, ‘nose’, ‘brain’ etc. Look at what is, below the label, as if you never seen them before.

Again, stay with your direct experience rather than explanation nurtured by thought.

[olscrach]

Stop and LOOK, how is what you call 'mind' experienced right here and now? What is a 'mind', without referring to thoughts and ideas?
Is it any more than the current thought?

No, mind is conceptual, just a thought or label. It is not something that can be experienced.

What is a 'brain' in direct experience?

In direct experience it is a pink bloody mass animals have in their heads

How do you know that you actually have a brain?

I don't

Hence there is no separation whatsoever. All of existence is a moving, vibrant event. If this is fully acknowledged, would you agree, that this is all that actually exist?

I would agree sir

How so?
Does the nose experience or is it experienced?
Pinch your nose, is your nose experiencing or is it experienced?
Touch your face, is your face experiencing or experienced?
Keep trying different parts until you see clearly which is true: Is the body experiencing or is it experienced?

This exercise had demonstrated to me that the body is experienced

Who or what is being aware or is observing? Is anything observing? Is anything doing the observing?

I'm struggling with this...I think I get the definitions of aware and observing confused sometimes.
I would have to say the senses are aware, but there is no observing

Just for a moment, step out of your mind stream, come back to your breathing. Then go outside to a tree. Notice what is seen, heard, touched, felt, sensed. Look at various object, point to them and name them.

Say a tree, notice the word ‘tree’ and the sound T-R-E-E. Now look at the portion of reality that label aims to describe.

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

no

Have you noticed how other languages will apply different labels, arbol (Spanish), for instance?

yes

Is this sound, are these letters an accurate representation of this unfolding of reality you see?

no

If these answers seem short is because I just have nothing else to contribute. I am not trying to be curt. Please understand I am grateful for you contribution to this process.

[JimmyG]

Olscrach wrote: No, mind is conceptual, just a thought or label. It is not something that can be experienced.

So you see there’s no mind except in thought so that with no thought there’s no one perceiving, no one experiencing, no one doing anything. There’s no one at the helm.
Do you exist at all or is the ‘you’ that you think you are just that – thinking, thoughts?

JimmyG wrote: What is a 'brain' in direct experience?
Olscrach wrote: In direct experience it is a pink bloody mass animals have in their heads

There’s a great article on the Liberation Unleashed website that you might want to read:

http://liberationunleashed.com/articles ... xperience/


When the seen, heard, smelled, tasted and touched are just happening, how could there be any object out there or anywhere in direct experience.
Look, is there really any ‘brain’ in direct experience?

JimmyG wrote: How do you know that you actually have a brain?
Olscrach wrote: I don't

Yes, conceptually, we can’t know what anything truly is except by thought constructed concepts which lead into stories about what’s there, but in direct experience it’s impossible to know that there’s a brain. So, you’re correct, we truly don’t know.

JimmyG wrote: Hence there is no separation whatsoever. All of existence is a moving, vibrant event. If this is fully acknowledged, would you agree, that this is all that actually exist?
Olscrach wrote: I would agree sir

If there is absolutely no separation and that’s fully acknowledged, how do you react? There’s no ‘you’ out there and no ‘me’ in here. There’s just one movement, one happening. As a baby you didn’t make any distinction about anything before you learned to use sound, words with which to describe things. Language set in which is a mutual agreement on sounds for just stuff, different things, with which we have a tool to communicate.
Is there a ‘self’ in direct experience, was there ever?

JimmyG wrote: How so?
Does the nose experience or is it experienced?
Pinch your nose, is your nose experiencing or is it experienced?
Touch your face, is your face experiencing or experienced?
Keep trying different parts until you see clearly which is true: Is the body experiencing or is it experienced?
Olscrach wrote: This exercise had demonstrated to me that the body is experienced

Please ask yourself these questions one more time and sit with each one? Don’t rush, don’t look in your thoughts. Just notice what’s going on and write that down.

JimmyG wrote: Just for a mo ment, step out of your mind stream, come back to your breathing. Then go outside to a tree. Notice what is seen, heard, touched, felt, sensed. Look at various objects, point to them and name them.
Say a tree, notice the word ‘tree’ and the sound T-R-E-E. Now look at the portion of reality that label aims to describe.
Does it come close to the actuality of that multiple-faceted thing you are looking at?
Olscrach wrote: no

Do the same thing here. Sit with various object and take your time. Notice what is seen, heard, touched , felt, sensed. Look, really truly look and write down what comes up.

JimmyG wrote: Have you noticed how other languages will apply different labels, arbol (Spanish), for instance?
Olscrach wrote: yes

Have you really truly noticed how other languages apply different labels? What comes up, when you realize, that the sounds you use, are just sounds, some descriptive manner of in direct experience totally undefinable things and events?

JimmyG wrote: Is this sound, are these letters an accurate representation of this unfolding of reality you see?
Olscrach wrote: no

I sincerely invite you to take all the time you need to sit with this question – as all questions above – and notice what’s going on. Are sounds and letters truly an accurate representation of this totally mysterious unfolding of reality that you see? Consider it well and write down what comes up.

Olscrach wrote: If these answers seem short is because I just have nothing else to contribute. I am not trying to be curt. Please understand I am grateful for you contribution to this process.

Well, if you sit and ponder with each single question, with no rush at all, surely there will be a certain contribution that will manifest for you. Give it a good try, will you?
Let me know how you feel about seeing this? Has anything changed for you this far?

I curious to see you next post.

[olscrach]

lets shoot for saturday, I doubt I will be able to post anything today or tomorrow

[JimmyG]

lets shoot for saturday, I doubt I will be able to post anything today or tomorrow

That's fine with me, see you Saturday then.

[olscrach]

Do you exist at all or is the ‘you’ that you think you are just that – thinking, thoughts?

"You" and "I" are conceptual same way mind is. Can't be verified by direct experience.

Look, is there really any ‘brain’ in direct experience?

Not in direct experience no. I can not see, smell, feel or taste a brain right here right now. The article was helpful thank you.

Is there a ‘self’ in direct experience, was there ever?

No self is and always was a concept.

JimmyG wrote: How so?
Does the nose experience or is it experienced?
Pinch your nose, is your nose experiencing or is it experienced?
Touch your face, is your face experiencing or experienced?
Keep trying different parts until you see clearly which is true: Is the body experiencing or is it experienced?
Olscrach wrote: This exercise had demonstrated to me that the body is experienced


Please ask yourself these questions one more time and sit with each one? Don’t rush, don’t look in your thoughts. Just notice what’s going on and write that down.

I performed this exercise several times, My position is the body is experiencing. "Experienced" would mean there would have to be an "experiencer," and such an entity cannot be found.

JimmyG wrote: Just for a mo ment, step out of your mind stream, come back to your breathing. Then go outside to a tree. Notice what is seen, heard, touched, felt, sensed. Look at various objects, point to them and name them.
Say a tree, notice the word ‘tree’ and the sound T-R-E-E. Now look at the portion of reality that label aims to describe.
Does it come close to the actuality of that multiple-faceted thing you are looking at?
Olscrach wrote: no


Do the same thing here. Sit with various object and take your time. Notice what is seen, heard, touched , felt, sensed. Look, really truly look and write down what comes up.

I maintain my previous answer after performing this exercise repeatedly. The word tree is a sound or symbol used for communication. Any association between the sound/symbol and the actual material object requires thought. I will add that "what comes up" when looking at an object is a culmination of adjectives. When looking at a rock I wrote, round, rough, white...hence we can glean that nouns are just descriptive words as well, but they represent a culmination of descriptions.

Have you really truly noticed how other languages apply different labels? What comes up, when you realize, that the sounds you use, are just sounds, some descriptive manner of in direct experience totally undefinable things and events?

The sounds represent thoughts and concepts. If the sounds were accurate representations of objects all languages would be the same.

Are sounds and letters truly an accurate representation of this totally mysterious unfolding of reality that you see? Consider it well and write down what comes up.

I maintain that sounds and letters are not accurate representations of reality. Again if they were, there would be some consistency between languages. We see some similarities between some languages where a word is borrowed here or there, but with direct experience we see no similarities between the english word for tree and the mandarin word for tree for instance.

Let me know how you feel about seeing this? Has anything changed for you this far?

Since realizing there is no self, no decider, feelings of guilt and regret have diminished. I have been less stressed over all. I also engage in verbal thought less.

[JimmyG]

Olscrach wrote: "You" and "I" are conceptual same way mind is. Can't be verified by direct experience.

Very good, you are obviously exploring this honestly and authentically.

Olscrach wrote: Not in direct experience no. I can not see, smell, feel or taste a brain right here right now.

There’s no brain in direct experience.
Can ‘you’ be the senser and see, smell, feel or taste at all?
Or is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching without ‘I’ or ‘me’ just happening whatsoever?

Olscrach wrote: No self is and always was a concept.

Wonderful and clear.

Olscrach wrote: I performed this exercise several times, My position is the body is experiencing. "Experienced" would mean there would have to be an "experiencer," and such an entity cannot be found.

Very Good, nothing is experienced and no experiencer. Let’s see what you mean by “my position is the body is experiencing”. Is there any evidence for your position? When we go by direct sensory perception do you have to take a position? Who would do the positioning? Is the body doing the experiencing? Is there a separation between my position and the body?

Olscrach wrote: I maintain my previous answer after performing this exercise repeatedly. The word tree is a sound or symbol used for communication. Any association between the sound/symbol and the actual material object requires thought. I will add that "what comes up" when looking at an object is a culmination of adjectives. When looking at a rock I wrote, round, rough, white...hence we can glean that nouns are just descriptive words as well, but they represent a culmination of descriptions.

There is clarity in process. When there is no ‘you’, I’ or mind than obviously labelling just happens, a culmination of descriptions. Who or what does the commenting of reality, the labelling? Does thinking belong to you? Are you the thinker? Do you take receipt of thoughts? Can you do anything about thoughts? Are thoughts capable of doing anything? Do thoughts produce actions?

Olscrach wrote: The sounds represent thoughts and concepts. If the sounds were accurate representations of objects all languages would be the same.

This is very good. And since each language expresses a different sound for portions of reality is a huge pointer… Hence, can it be known what these portions of reality are, can reality be known?

Olscrach wrote: I maintain that sounds and letters are not accurate representations of reality. Again if they were, there would be some consistency between languages. We see some similarities between some languages where a word is borrowed here or there, but with direct experience we see no similarities between the english word for tree and the mandarin word for tree for instance.

What do you consider as accurate representations of reality? Is there any evidence of that? Do accurate representations of reality exist at all? Can reality be known or defined? And again, is there an experiencer of the experience of reality?

Olscrach wrote: Since realizing there is no self, no decider, feelings of guilt and regret have diminished. I have been less stressed over all. I also engage in verbal thought less.

Yes, when seeing happens, clarity begins.

Till next time.

[olscrach]

Can ‘you’ be the senser and see, smell, feel or taste at all?
Or is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching without ‘I’ or ‘me’ just happening whatsoever?

No there is no senser, just senses, senses are sensing without an "I".

Very Good, nothing is experienced and no experiencer. Let’s see what you mean by “my position is the body is experiencing”. Is there any evidence for your position? When we go by direct sensory perception do you have to take a position? Who would do the positioning? Is the body doing the experiencing? Is there a separation between my position and the body?

"Position" used in the context I used it in refers to my intellectual position on the matter, not a physical position.

Who or what does the commenting of reality, the labelling?

No one entity does the labeling, it just happens.

Does thinking belong to you?

No, there are thoughts in direct experience, however there is no entity driving or controlling thought, hence no ownership.

Are you the thinker?

no, thoughts just appear, no driving or controlling force is present.

Do you take receipt of thoughts?

There is no I to take receipt

Can you do anything about thoughts?

no, nothing drives or controls thought

Are thoughts capable of doing anything?

no

Do thoughts produce actions?

no, actions just happen

This is very good. And since each language expresses a different sound for portions of reality is a huge pointer… Hence, can it be known what these portions of reality are, can reality be known?

What do you consider as accurate representations of reality? Is there any evidence of that? Do accurate representations of reality exist at all? Can reality be known or defined? And again, is there an experiencer of the experience of reality?

Reality is relative to perception, there really is no such thing as "reality". There is only perceived reality. There is no experiencer. There is no experience of reality, only direct experience which falls within the limitations of the senses.

[JimmyG]

There is definitely some shifting going on. Thank you for your honest looking and clear answering. Let's just go into some details.

Olscrach wrote: No there is no senser, just senses, senses are sensing without an "I".

To clarify your statement: In direct experience can you extract your senses? Can you draw a line between the senses?
Or is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching just an indefinable happening?

Olscrach wrote: "Position" used in the context I used it in refers to my intellectual position on the matter, not a physical position.

Intellectual position is only possible by thinking and thought stream - we don’t look for thoughts. Can you nail down any position in direct experience? How does a position look like? Where would it be stored? Do you have a proof for any position?

Olscrach wrote:
No one entity does the labeling, it just happens.
No, there are thoughts in direct experience, however there is no entity driving or controlling thought, hence no ownership.
no, thoughts just appear, no driving or controlling force is present.
There is no I to take receipt
no, nothing drives or controls thought
JimmyG wrote: Are thoughts capable of doing anything?
Olscrach wrote: no
JimmyG wrote: Do thoughts produce actions?
Olscrach wrote: no, actions just happen

That’s clarity. Thank you.

Reality is relative to perception, there really is no such thing as "reality". There is only perceived reality. There is no experiencer. There is no experience of reality, only direct experience which falls within the limitations of the senses.

It sounds to me as though you have just seen here through a very important assumption. This is good news! I will ask you some questions now to explore this a bit more.

How would limitations of the senses look like? Where are the boundaries of such limitations? Do you have any proof that senses are limited or is there a story attached to your assumption?

I look forward to your posting
Rolly