Bodymind in the works

[ssplash]

Hi, Alex

Thank you so much for your insightful and thought provoking message. I see we are poking into the heart of the matter :) Yes, free will presupposes the existence of the self, of "me". Your exercise is extremely powerful, and it helps me to understand, or rather to see that there is no control or hardly any. We take material from our so called mind (the bundle of thoughts, memories, instincts, etc), and with the right stimuli thoughts pop up and actions are performed. I feel very close to relinquishing the idea of a self-directed "me" at this point. I am starting to see it more clearly, although whether that diffuses my dependence on the self or not is still a mystery :)

In your exercise I could not avoid noticing the most prominent occurrences, and even if I had decided to focus on my breath, for instance, that idea would have popped up from my mind also by chance from a multiplicity of choices.

Is there a decider that places attention anywhere or does it always move automatically and freely to whatever is most prominent at the time?

It is true that the decider doesn't seem to decide much!

How horrible would it be if there would be no control..? You would be completely at the mercy of what life has in store for you, wouldn't you? Does this idea scare you? Would you be afraid if there would be no "you" controlling anything?

I'm not scared of that anymore, I have been dis-attaching myself from my identity for a while now. It all started when I realised that stress was making me behave in ways that I didn't like, and I had thoughts about reality that I couldn't trust. Eventually I saw that even my actions and those many things I thought about myself were not real nor important. Eventually I also had to learn to deal with depression thoughts and behaviours, not feeling that they were "me".

The thing is that even if I say that I don't mind dropping my reliance on the self to operate in the world, I know that we so often act based upon fear, wanting to protect our sense of identity, physicality, etc, but I have pondered long and hard about losing "myself", and I'm ready. However, yesterday I found myself getting extremely angry at my 8 year old nephew because he was behaving in a brattish way for hours on end, and I don't want him to grow up as a selfish inconsiderate human being. My anger was very violent, and it flared up out of nowhere it seemed. I was able to stop it immediately and apologise to him without feeling I had to justify myself. I realised that I do want to feel in control of certain things, but at least I'm ready to understand that.

Sure, you can think "Ok, now I will focus my attention deliberately on to the cup of tea in front of me.". The thought came up because of..? Why? Because there is a cup in front of you? Because you read my post? Who knows... Its only important to find out if there was an I/self in control of this thought. Did "you" decide that it should show up?

It is true that I did not decide, the thought comes up as a response, like most thoughts, I feel. I was thinking about what happens when you make a decision, there is also a lot of randomness in the act of pulling some thoughts out in the open and not others, mmmhh.

Be 100% honest with yourself and don't believe anything thought says without double-checking if these controlling entities, that thought conjures up can really be found in direct experience... can they?

I'm trying to do this. It would be thought that creates the self then, I suppose. I could understand it mentally, but I don't know what it would take for me to truly live it, Alex. I guess it's a gradual change ...

I know, logical thought will say "Of course there is a separate ME, the subject, experiencing objects out there!", but is this really true? Does direct experience gel with this idea of how experiencing should be?
Maybe you have only learned and over time accepted this idea and it thus became an unquestioned belief... now its time to question this belief... is it true?
What if it is not true? What if there is no separate experiencer?

This separate me could be the beholder of these thoughts and experiences, this bodymind's history, the central organiser. I feel it separate right now, although I believe it's not. It makes sense that there is no separate experiencer, but the experiences I feel in my body, for instance, are not the same as those that other people feel. I say it makes sense because something is starting to awake to that idea, but I still have many doubts that anchor me to sensing my bodymind as unique.

It came from my psyche ...

How is "psyche" experienced? Can you find this entity anywhere in direct experience? Or are there only thoughts happening and we call them "mind" or "psyche"..?

Yes, the psyche is the word I use to refer to the subconscious, to the stuff stored or produced by the collection of thoughts we call mind, whatever it is that's pulling the strings behind closed doors.

I am very happy that I feel somewhat closer to realising within that all that's happening is just what's experienced, including decisions apparently chosen by our minds. Thinking this doesn't seem to change anything at the moment, I mean, I feel I'm discovering something new and important, but I don't know how this will affect my day to day. I feel a bit dazed, though. Let's keep on going, my dear Alex! Thank you ever so much for this opportunity and your zealous and caring guidance :)

Cheers,

Paloma

[Alexw]

Hi Paloma,

Thank you for writing in such detail and honesty. It is a pleasure reading your responses and I can see that you are gradually chipping away on your old beliefs... lets see whats left when they are gone :-)

This separate me could be the beholder of these thoughts and experiences, this bodymind's history, the central organiser. I feel it separate right now, although I believe it's not.

Isn't it the other way round?
You believe that you are separate (even you would like to believe that you are not) and thus you buy into the thoughts that state that there is a separate self that is the thinker and experiencer... You believe that certain feelings/sensations define how separation feels like, even when looked at you will find out that there is nothing special behind these feelings, just a few thoughts labelling them as a me that is separate from others...

Look at how thoughts arise and vanish... where is the me that is the beholder of thoughts? Try to find it now. Is there any separation between a thought and the knowing of the thought? Or is there simply thought happening?

Look at how sounds or sensations arise and vanish... where is the me that is the experiencer of these sensations? Try to find it now. Is there any separation between a sensation and the experiencer of the sensation, any border between the sound and the hearer of the sound? Or is there sound happening? Just sensations happening... no experiencer and no owner...?

It is true that the decider doesn't seem to decide much!

Haha... well... what does the decider decide at all? Maybe there is no such entity and thus also no decider making any decisions?

Try to observe how decisions seem to be made throughout your day. Some might seem very obviously made by "you" while others are not even classified as a decision... How many thousand "decisions" are made throughout your day that you don't even notice... You walk, you eat, you work, you shower... with all the things that have to be decided to even get up in the morning, do you really think that you could even get out of bed if you would have to decide every move and tiny little task that the body performs to get things done?
So you select a tiny fraction of this universal happening and classify this fraction as "my decisions". How funny! Isn't it?
Life flows and simply happens and we conjure up a self that has to be in control of (at least parts of) life. Not surprising that stress and even depression arises as this task is impossible - simply because there is no separate controlling self that could be in charge...

So, please try to find one or two decisions that you are perfectly sure have been made by "you". Note how the decision was made and how thought claims ownership etc etc... When a decision seems to be made, maybe something like "I will get up now and get a glass of water!" - was this a decision at all? Or was it only a thought that is commenting about a certain physical impulse? Would you maybe get up and get some water even without the "decision"-thought appearing? Do you need to think "Now I will jump on the break of my car!" every time before you break? Or does it simply happen and then a thought appears "Lucky I was breaking fast enough!"

Regards,
Alex

[ssplash]

Hi, Alex!

Thank you so much again for your true-hearted and shiny responses. Our dialogue is very special for me, and I can really see how it is clearing the rubble from the road ahead :-)

Isn't it the other way round?
You believe that you are separate (even you would like to believe that you are not) and thus you buy into the thoughts that state that there is a separate self that is the thinker and experiencer... You believe that certain feelings/sensations define how separation feels like, even when looked at you will find out that there is nothing special behind these feelings, just a few thoughts labelling them as a me that is separate from others...

Wow, the plot thickens! Lemme see ... I'm trying to get my head around this and it feels like ... Twister! :-) Separation is a belief of mine, you mean, rather than something I observe and report to you/me about. So that would mean that I know a lot about separation, or rather that I believe I know what separation is, perhaps from prior experience, or what I feel a need to operate in the world, perhaps.

Look at how thoughts arise and vanish... where is the me that is the beholder of thoughts? Try to find it now. Is there any separation between a thought and the knowing of the thought? Or is there simply thought happening?

Thought is happening and it cannot take place without knowing about it. In this sense both the thought and the knowing would happen simultaneously. I guess what feels like the beholder is the memory of those thoughts, being able to recall them as having happened. I am prepared for you to tell me that the memory of a thought is just another thought! ;-), but then again it's like the placing of attention we discussed earlier. Both memory retrieval and decision making are closer to random actions than to acts of will, in a way. These ideas are kicking in my mind since yesterday, trying to find some room to bloom. If we are talking about free will and how it ends up relating to randomness, memory could be seen in a similar way. What do you think about memory?

Look at how sounds or sensations arise and vanish... where is the me that is the experiencer of these sensations? Try to find it now.

The sounds feel more like they are experienced, rather than me hearing them as such. Maybe because they are external, it's easier to say that.

Try to find it now. Is there any separation between a sensation and the experiencer of the sensation, any border between the sound and the hearer of the sound? Or is there sound happening? Just sensations happening... no experiencer and no owner...?

I still feel there is some separation, but just because I'm not a sound :) or that which hears is not a sound. I just feel that if I move away from the sound, I wouldn't hear it. So that's why I'd say the sound it out there wherever and I'm here.

ssplash wrote:
It is true that the decider doesn't seem to decide much!

Haha... well... what does the decider decide at all? Maybe there is no such entity and thus also no decider making any decisions?

Maybe there is no decider, it makes sense that there isn't and that the centralised intelligence that makes sense of it all is just more of an organiser ... We do make some sense of the world, don't we? I mean, all these experiences are put together in some kind of order, narrative (however mistaken) so that we know that the shop attendant we saw today is the same one we've been seeing every time we've been at the shop.

So, please try to find one or two decisions that you are perfectly sure have been made by "you". Note how the decision was made and how thought claims ownership.

So then, Alex, what would be the difference between a decision and a thought?

Let me write this to you now, and go back to the last part of the email tomorrow. I'm very impressed by what you've written and I want to talk about it properly. I don't feel that life just happens (yet), but I hear you. It is definitely true (at least for me) that it's too much to try to keep it altogether, to control life the way I've wanted to so far. Something tells me to stop and smell the flowers.

Are you actually saying that a thought is produced, not by us, and that, because another thought pushes us to believe this, then claim it to be a decision we've made? It sounds really twisted, doesn't it? Where does thought come from? I need to "think" about these things!! ;-) Will reflect on it today.

Thank you so much, Alex. I don't know what I think anymore! :)

Cheers

Paloma

[Alexw]

Hi Paloma,

Thank you so much, Alex. I don't know what I think anymore! :)

You are welcome! That is a great place to be! Use the confusion and find out what is real.

Thought is happening and it cannot take place without knowing about it. In this sense both the thought and the knowing would happen simultaneously.

Yes, well seen! They are the same!

I am prepared for you to tell me that the memory of a thought is just another thought! ;-)

You are getting good at this game... Yes, the memory is just another thought happing now - not in the past or the future - now! Do you agree?

So then, Alex, what would be the difference between a decision and a thought?

There is none. Its only the conceptual, thought-based, framework that is supporting the thought which makes it into a decisions. Otherwise there really is no difference...
Its a bit like saying that this sound that I hear right now is more special then another sound. One sound belongs to me - I have chosen that this sound arises - while other sounds are not in this special category... Does this categorisation make one sound more special than the other?

The sounds feel more like they are experienced, rather than me hearing them as such. Maybe because they are external, it's easier to say that.

Sit down and close your eyes. Listen. Now try to find the border between inside and outside. You might feel a certain tingling sensation that you label "My skin." and thus another thought comes up "This is where I start. This is inside of me!". But is it really? Isn't this tingling just another sensation that arises and really has no information or property like "inside" or "outside" attached to it? Does a sound have any information about inside/outside attached to it or is this only a thought that draws this conclusion?

I still feel there is some separation

How does "separation" feel like? Please explain.

We do make some sense of the world, don't we?

Yes, sure we do. We do this based on whatever you have learned since this organism was born. The knowledge that you have accumulated shapes your reality, doesn't it? A baby has no idea of world, shopkeepers or even a separate self... you learn this stuff over the years and you simply don't question this knowledge anymore as everybody else has the same conditioned knowledge and thus we all make the same "sense of the world"... We see ourselves as separate individuals - separate from a world out there - as we have learned and now believe that this is so...
This conceptual knowledge is not a bad thing at all - it mostly works fine in your daily routine, but it also results in suffering, selfishness, depression etc etc simply because we don't see the "omnipresent essence of reality" anymore...

Are you actually saying that a thought is produced, not by us, and that, because another thought pushes us to believe this, then claim it to be a decision we've made?

In a way... Is thought "produced by us"? Where is the "us"? Can you find this producer of thought?
When something is believed, is there a "you" - a separate entity - that believes or is there only a new thought "Yes, true, I believe that!"? Look at this process and see what you find.

Something tells me to stop and smell the flowers.

Please do! What is holding you back?

I will be travelling for the next 2 days, back on Monday, so take your time. Have a great weekend!

Regards,
Alex

[ssplash]

Hi, Alex

Thank you again for your fantastic mind-boggling message and your merciless line of questioning :) I'm truly indebted to your efforts to help me see what's behind the veil. I feel as if I'm seeing light spilling through the cracks, and what happens around me is also trying to find its way through the enquiry.

So, please try to find one or two decisions that you are perfectly sure have been made by "you". Note how the decision was made and how thought claims ownership

Well, I'll tell you about yesterday. I was meeting two people for the first time who were interested in renting out a place we own, and for some reason I felt a very strong feeling of rejection and distrust towards them. It didn't feel right to be so judgemental with complete strangers, nor fair not to give them a chance, but my mind kept producing these thoughts. I hadn't decided to think that way and couldn't stop it either. I could pause and look, but the thoughts had already been poured.

That made me think well, ok, I hadn't decided this and it still came along, it's not that much different from deciding to examine a situation and coming up with the thoughts about it.

With regards to making a decision, I could think that there are indeed many examples of things that I decide to do just because I feel like it at the time. I see how it would be possible to make the claim of ownership about the decision, or even doing something without stating to myself that I'm about to do it. It could be good in terms of economy of action to stop thinking so much sometimes and just get the stuff done. Thank your for your examples, they really help to see what you mean.

Free will is such an important topic. It does seem that life is all about choices and decisions, right ones, wrong ones. One would like that their loved ones made the right decisions, did what was good for them ... In short, we would want the world and life to be a certain way. We feel we make decisions because we want to have control over some of the things that happen to us. Accepting that life just happens to us, or that there is no "us" means relinquishing the idea of control.

ssplash wrote:
I am prepared for you to tell me that the memory of a thought is just another thought! ;-)

You are getting good at this game... Yes, the memory is just another thought happening now - not in the past or the future - now! Do you agree?

Yes, that's true. If you don't retrieve it now you can't tell it's there.

Does a sound have any information about inside/outside attached to it or is this only a thought that draws this conclusion?

Thought draws this conclusion, but then again thought keeps going and keeps commenting on the world. Some of that commentary must be "right", I suppose. I mean, if I distrust thought completely I end up with no tangible reality, including experiencing. Say that I'm cooking and on handling the pot handles I feel I'm burning my hands, and I say to myself: "Nah, it's just thought that's telling me this". How will I know what's real and what's not?

How does "separation" feel like? Please explain.

Separation makes me feel that I'm not the computer monitor I'm looking at, for instance. It makes me notice objects as individual things, and my awareness of them as something else.

This conceptual knowledge is not a bad thing at all - it mostly works fine in your daily routine, but it also results in suffering, selfishness, depression etc etc simply because we don't see the "omnipresent essence of reality" anymore...

What is the "omnipresent essence of reality", Alex, and in which way does it differ from "the world" as we see it

ssplash wrote:
Thank you so much, Alex. I don't know what I think anymore! :)

You are welcome! That is a great place to be! Use the confusion and find out what is real.

?

How??

In a way... Is thought "produced by us"? Where is the "us"? Can you find this producer of thought?
When something is believed, is there a "you" - a separate entity - that believes or is there only a new thought "Yes, true, I believe that!"? Look at this process and see what you find.

I am starting to lose track of the producer of thought, it still feels that thought somehow emanates from "me", but I'm not so bothered about it. I mean, I don't give it so much importance as before, there is a growing knowing that doesn't attach me so much to the thinking process. I'm listening and witnessing more,

I'm suspending judgement a bit more as well, but I feel a bit blind and incomplete without that judgement, without making sense of the world, as we said. In a way since I don't feel I rely so much on thought, I feel more open-minded, but also a bit detached, out there in the wild, feral, even awkward and not as intelligent, almost dopey. I guess I'll just let it be, but I'm notincing that I'm not particularly sensitive to the nuances of things, my understanding of them feels a bit blunt. Maybe things are like this, I don't know; I had more information and more detail when I trusted my thoughts about them! I feel like a fish out of water.

When something is believed, is there a "you" - a separate entity - that believes or is there only a new thought "Yes, true, I believe that!"? Look at this process and see what you find.

I can see how this constant inner narrator would say or imply that, the narrator being the narration and hence thought. But, Alex, the problem I see with all this is that without having that kick in the butt it seems as if nothing would get done. If I don't care about things because they just flow and I don't make decisions anyway, what's the motivation (or stress) to get stuff done? Also, if I don't worry about something that needs my attention or my intervention I would have to deal with the consequences. Say I don't want to worry about being late and I make my appointment wait. That person is not going to be happy with me. Is it possible to hurry up without suffering? Sorry if this sounds very basic or if you don't feel you qualify to answer something like this. What do you think, anyway?

Thank you so much for everything. I will ponder this weekend, or maybe just smell those flowers, ha?

Cheers, Alex

Paloma

[Alexw]

Hi Paloma,

Accepting that life just happens to us, or that there is no "us" means relinquishing the idea of control.

Yes, true. What would be so bad about it? If its just an idea, thus not real, its as simple as giving up the belief in Santa, isn't it? How do you give up a belief? You simply see that its not more than a belief - not real outside the realm of thought. This does not mean that you can't use the belief anymore. You can still "make decisions" as you always did, while knowing at the same time that things basically just happen. Maybe this frees you from pondering over decisions for hours and maybe days and you simply make a decision based on your first intuition. "Decision made" - no more thought about it required...

Thought draws this conclusion, but then again thought keeps going and keeps commenting on the world. Some of that commentary must be "right", I suppose. I mean, if I distrust thought completely I end up with no tangible reality, including experiencing. Say that I'm cooking and on handling the pot handles I feel I'm burning my hands, and I say to myself: "Nah, it's just thought that's telling me this". How will I know what's real and what's not?

Yes, only thought draws conclusions, but this does not mean that natural reactions like taking your hand away from a hot pot wouldn't happen anyway.

You are right though, that if you "distrust thought completely" you end up with no tangible reality as without the relativity/duality that thought introduces there is no way of separating experience into things, into a subject and objects, is there?
When you perceive the world one can simultaneously see the unbroken whole, which can not be contained by thought, as well as the world of things, which again is purely thought based... One coin, two sides...
So whats real and whats not? One is absolutely real and the other only in relative terms. The absolute contains all while the relative can never contain the absolute. While you always see the absolute you can only comment about it in relative terms...

Sit down and look at an object on the desk in front of you, maybe a cup.
What do you see when neglecting thought about the experience?
Is there a "Paloma" looking at a "cup"? Where is the border that separates you? Do you experience the cup at a certain distance from you? How do you experience distance at all? Does seeing itself tell you that the cup is 50cm away from you? What does?
Still... seeing happens... colours and shapes are seen. What sees them? Is there a seer that is separate from the act of seeing?

Separation makes me feel that I'm not the computer monitor I'm looking at, for instance. It makes me notice objects as individual things, and my awareness of them as something else.

Look again... What is the "I" that feels that its not the computer monitor?
Can you experience a thing called "separation" and does it make you notice things? Or is "separation" just another word for "thought" ?

You are welcome! That is a great place to be! Use the confusion and find out what is real.
? How??

Because when you are confused logic might lose its grip and intuition might shine.

I'm notincing that I'm not particularly sensitive to the nuances of things, my understanding of them feels a bit blunt. Maybe things are like this, I don't know; I had more information and more detail when I trusted my thoughts about them! I feel like a fish out of water.

What kind of things? Thought based stuff, ideas and stories? Or are you talking about this current experience?
When you look at the world, with all senses wide open, without constantly following analytical thinking about the experience, doesn't the experience itself intensify? Look...

If I don't care about things because they just flow and I don't make decisions anyway, what's the motivation (or stress) to get stuff done? Also, if I don't worry about something that needs my attention or my intervention I would have to deal with the consequences.

Do you think constantly worrying about things will get them done?
Why not do things, when they have to be done, to the best of your ability and then let them go... you have done it and that's it.
When you plan to do something in a week you don't have to think about it every day, do you?
Not thinking about stuff doesn't mean that you are now neglecting things - rather the opposite - you have a free head to attend to what you are doing NOW. Things will work as they always have, maybe even much better.

Also, letting life flow doesn't mean that from now on you decide to make no decision anymore. That would be another decision, wouldn't it? "From now on I just sit back and be silent - no more decisions!"... Hahah.... what a funny decision!

Alex

[ssplash]

Hi, Alex

I hope you had a nice trip. Thank you for replying to me today :) I was eager to read your response, and I'm thinking long and hard about these issues.

Maybe this frees you from pondering over decisions for hours and maybe days and you simply make a decision based on your first intuition. "Decision made" - no more thought about it required...

I like the sound of that :) I have been thinking a lot about ideals and how they exist only in our minds, and noticing how some people in my close circle are literally gasping for air because of the impossibility of having the world match their ideals (of course, their neurotic attitude reminds me of myself at times!). If the idea of control is just a thought, not a reality, it makes sense to "give up" on it. The only problem about this is that we still want certain things to happen, and we wish that other stuff wouldn't. We don't want people getting angry at us, suffering because of something we've done, etc. What's the way to full acceptance of things being the way they are?

This does not mean that natural reactions like taking your hand away from a hot pot wouldn't happen anyway.

So natural things just happen anyway, that's what you mean. I'm trying to get my head around "happening". What does that mean exactly? Does war happen, accidents happen, worry happens, people angry at each other happens ...? Are decision making and free will not included in this happening because of the randomness quality of events?

If you "distrust thought completely" you end up with no tangible reality as without the relativity/duality that thought introduces there is no way of separating experience into things, into a subject and objects, is there?

I'm trying to see this. Do you believe that in order to experience the world as an unbroken whole it is enough to notice with your intuition that thought doesn't refer to the absolute reality? Alex, how do we "see" this? You said that we always see the absolute, and I've also heard that before. What are the manifestations of the absolute?

So whats real and whats not? One is absolutely real and the other only in relative terms. The absolute contains all while the relative can never contain the absolute. While you always see the absolute you can only comment about it in relative terms...

So, Alex, does that mean that it is useful to see the world in relative terms? I am familiar with the metaphor of awakening as seeing two images in the same picture, and in this case the brain can only choose to see one at a time, like the Rubin's vase. Can we actually operate in the world without this relative reality?

Sit down and look at an object on the desk in front of you, maybe a cup.
What do you see when neglecting thought about the experience?

I was tempted to say that I saw colour and shape, but that's what my brain is telling me I see if I don't use the word "cup"!

Is there a "Paloma" looking at a "cup"? Where is the border that separates you? Do you experience the cup at a certain distance from you? How do you experience distance at all? Does seeing itself tell you that the cup is 50cm away from you? What does?
Still... seeing happens... colours and shapes are seen. What sees them? Is there a seer that is separate from the act of seeing?

I'm not seeing the border, but I feel difference; I see Paloma more as the space that experiences. The cup is "here" with me, and in a way if I look in the distance at the view outside my window it is both close and far. My senses experience distance when things are far, when I see their scale being modified by the space between me and them. My eyesight sense provides my brain with the scale information, and my brain interprets distance. There is the experience of seeing and the space for seeing, rather than the seer, perhaps.

Look again... What is the "I" that feels that its not the computer monitor?
Can you experience a thing called "separation" and does it make you notice things? Or is "separation" just another word for "thought" ?

The space I have to welcome and take in the information about the computer monitor is the I. I don't experience separation as a thing, but I feel I am not the computer monitor, which means that the space for experiencing the monitor is different than the monitor itself. Separation is a thought as well because it is a concept.

Because when you are confused logic might lose its grip and intuition might shine.

That would be wonderful! :)

ssplash wrote:
I'm noticing that I'm not particularly sensitive to the nuances of things, my understanding of them feels a bit blunt. Maybe things are like this, I don't know; I had more information and more detail when I trusted my thoughts about them! I feel like a fish out of water.

What kind of things? Thought based stuff, ideas and stories? Or are you talking about this current experience?
When you look at the world, with all senses wide open, without constantly following analytical thinking about the experience, doesn't the experience itself intensify? Look...

I'm not sure, Alex. I'm talking about the fact that I'm bearing this enquiry in mind in my everyday life, and I feel a bit awkward in my thinking lately, because I'm questioning the effectiveness and veracity of thought. I don't feel the experience intensifies, I'm probably more open in some ways, perhaps preempting, ready for something to occur.

Do you think constantly worrying about things will get them done?.

Nooooooo, of course you are right. What about having to do something that you don't like and you are dreading it? Sometimes the worry has to do with a feeling of discomfort at having to do stuff, at having to face a situation.

Not thinking about stuff doesn't mean that you are now neglecting things - rather the opposite - you have a free head to attend to what you are doing NOW. Things will work as they always have, maybe even much better.

Mmmhh, that's a very healthy outlook on life! :)

Also, letting life flow doesn't mean that from now on you decide to make no decision anymore. That would be another decision, wouldn't it? "From now on I just sit back and be silent - no more decisions!"... Hahah.... what a funny decision!

:) :) :)

Thank you, Alex! So much to not-think about!

[Alexw]

Hi Paloma,
I had an accident and am in hospital right now... Will write when I am back at home. ...and please don't worry it's not life threatening
Alex


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ssplash]

Alex

Please, do take care of yourself. I hope you are ok.



Big hug,

Paloma

[Alexw]

Hi Paloma,

Thank you for the lovely teddy! It made me smile (laughing hurts too much at the moment :-)

What's the way to full acceptance of things being the way they are?

Seeing clearly that there is no separate self, nobody there that could change a thing. The question of acceptance makes no sense anymore once you see that there is no separate you and thus no separate other/anything thats not "you"...

So natural things just happen anyway, that's what you mean. I'm trying to get my head around "happening". What does that mean exactly? Does war happen, accidents happen, worry happens, people angry at each other happens ...? Are decision making and free will not included in this happening because of the randomness quality of events?

It depends from which angle you look at it... If you look at things from the point of view of the separate person then all these issues are relevant - like the dream-problems are relevant to the dream-character in your night time dream. When you look at these (dream)issues from the point of view of the dreamer itself then all of them are recognised as being just a dream - not separate from you, but also not affecting you in the slightest way...
When something happens in a dream - does it really happen? It sure seems so when you are dreaming, but when you wake up, have you done anything?

You said that we always see the absolute, and I've also heard that before. What are the manifestations of the absolute?

As the "absolute" is by definition everywhere, omnipresent, no place where it is not... how do you think you can escape it? How can you not be it? If there would be a place or time where it is not, this would mean that it is not the absolute, right?

Now... when you experience this moment through the senses, do the senses deliver any relative information? When you close your eyes and feel all these sensations... do they have a place, border, owner, time or any other qualities attached? Or is there only thought that adds some meaning to them? If there is only this unconfined sensation - what separates it from the "absolute"? Maybe just a thought?

Can we actually operate in the world without this relative reality?

No, you need relativity to operate "sanely" in this world.
But you can be aware of both levels at the same time. You operate in relative reality but you are perfectly aware, that all these forms are just a temporary arising of the eternal formless.

What gives the formless form? Does seeing and hearing or smelling and feeling give it a form? Or is it always thought that adds properties to the formless. Could we even say that thought = form, or thought = matter?

I was tempted to say that I saw colour and shape, but that's what my brain is telling me I see if I don't use the word "cup"!

Yes, very good! Shape and colour is as far as you can go with thought. Below that there is no thought based information left. When colour and form disintegrate whats left..? There can be no visual borders any more, right? This is why thought can't touch it - it can no distinguish between this and that anymore, thus there is nothing left to think or say... like in deep sleep...

'm not seeing the border, but I feel difference; I see Paloma more as the space that experiences.

What tells that there is a space that experiences? Or even that "Paloma" is this space? Does the experience tell you that or..?

The cup is "here" with me, and in a way if I look in the distance at the view outside my window it is both close and far.

What makes a cup close or far away? Isn't this only your knowledge about a cup, its specific size, that makes it possible for thought to state "Aha, the cup is very small, so it has to be far away!". If the cup would be very big, what would thought say?
Imagine you sit in empty space, no other objects around, all black. Suddenly a white cup floats past. Now, based on your information of a cup you could guess the distance, but it could as well be possible that the cup is very very far away as its the size of our moon :-)
So how do you know about distance or size? Is it seeing itself or only applied knowledge?

My eyesight sense provides my brain with the scale information

You sure? As far as I know it only delivers electrical impulses - no inherent meaning in them - that are later on interpreted based on your acquired knowledge - like a pattern matching computer program...

There is the experience of seeing and the space for seeing, rather than the seer, perhaps

Are you sure? How is the space separate from the experience of seeing? Maybe "space" is just an idea? Can you experience this space at all or is this just a thought about how this experience should be functioning?

I don't experience separation as a thing, but I feel I am not the computer monitor, which means that the space for experiencing the monitor is different than the monitor itself.

What tells you that there is a computer monitor and that you are not it? Does seeing itself tell you that?
How do you know that "space" experiences something that is separate from it, like the monitor? This is just an elaborate story, right? :-)
Or can you verify this in direct experience?

Alex

[ssplash]

Hi, Alex!

It's great to hear from you :) Thank you so much for taking the time to write to me. I really appreciate you carrying on with our work, it means a lot to me. I hope you are doing better, and, please, don't tax yourself too much with the effort.

ssplash wrote:
What's the way to full acceptance of things being the way they are?

Seeing clearly that there is no separate self, nobody there that could change a thing. The question of acceptance makes no sense anymore once you see that there is no separate you and thus no separate other/anything thats not "you"..

I am starting to understand and take that in as I'm moving through the motions of my day to day with a different attitude, more open, trying to approach whatever happens without questioning it too much, just experiencing it. I can't entirely see yet that I can't change things, but by seeing what happens when I don't even try I'm starting to notice the potential of acceptance. You are right in that it intensifies perception, it makes it more 3D, fuller, closer, although I've only started to feel this, it is a growing sensation.

I would like to find out more about the concept of no separation. What does it really mean? I know it refers to the fact that there is no self, but weird enough I am starting to feel the phoniness of what I thought was "me", but I still feel "others". I can't quite assimilate the idea of oneness. How would you define oneness, Alex?

When something happens in a dream - does it really happen? It sure seems so when you are dreaming, but when you wake up, have you done anything?

In which way is life like a dream? I would understand that if I'm part of everything this "I" is not particularly affected by individual actions or events, although I can't help but think that if this body I have is somewhat affected by something (say heat or cold), my perception would be affected, because the body is the tool through which my awareness delves into physical experiences.

You ask if I have I done anything after the dream. Well, if the I doesn't exist, then "I" haven't done anything, but I'm aware of this which is happening right here in this room, and not of other stuff that's happening to my next door neighbour, for instance.

As the "absolute" is by definition everywhere, omnipresent, no place where it is not... how do you think you can escape it? How can you not be it? If there would be a place or time where it is not, this would mean that it is not the absolute, right?

Now... when you experience this moment through the senses, do the senses deliver any relative information? When you close your eyes and feel all these sensations... do they have a place, border, owner, time or any other qualities attached? Or is there only thought that adds some meaning to them? If there is only this unconfined sensation - what separates it from the "absolute"? Maybe just a thought?

Thought would add meaning to them with all the information delivered by the senses. I seem to go back and forth between feeling very tied up to those qualities attached, and not feelings just like a living organism. I guess that when I think about it I can de-construct and challenge my experience, see the thoughts building up the reality that gets interpreted by the brain, but in real life the jigsaw gets remade and I don't take on board this new understanding.

No, you need relativity to operate "sanely" in this world.
But you can be aware of both levels at the same time. You operate in relative reality but you are perfectly aware, that all these forms are just a temporary arising of the eternal formless.

What gives the formless form? Does seeing and hearing or smelling and feeling give it a form? Or is it always thought that adds properties to the formless. Could we even say that thought = form, or thought = matter?

We could say that thought = form / matter. From what you have been saying it sounds as if everything is turned into thought, but apparently I could take my hand off that burning pot handle without thought ... Neurophysiologists now say that thought comes in later to explain what's happened and to make us aware of the reason we had to "do" it ... miliseconds after the fact! It then creates the information that there was a decision making process going on. Are you saying that the information taken in by the senses may not be decoded into thought but still be there, perhaps as part of the raw level of experiencing? Do we need the senses to feel the absolute level of awareness?

Shape and colour is as far as you can go with thought. Below that there is no thought based information left. When colour and form disintegrate whats left..? There can be no visual borders any more, right? This is why thought can't touch it - it can no distinguish between this and that anymore, thus there is nothing left to think or say... like in deep sleep.

When you say there is nothing left to think or say, is there still experiencing? What type? I guess THAT'S what we are talking about. Presumably we feel it, it's going on all the time, but thought and self blocks our experiencing of it, right?

What tells that there is a space that experiences? Or even that "Paloma" is this space? Does the experience tell you that or..?

I just feel it, but I don't know if I "think" that I feel this because I've run out of possibilities to attribute this agency to thought. Thought does not give me vague, intuitive feelings ...

What makes a cup close or far away? Isn't this only your knowledge about a cup, its specific size, that makes it possible for thought to state "Aha, the cup is very small, so it has to be far away!". If the cup would be very big, what would thought say?
Imagine you sit in empty space, no other objects around, all black. Suddenly a white cup floats past. Now, based on your information of a cup you could guess the distance, but it could as well be possible that the cup is very very far away as its the size of our moon :-)
So how do you know about distance or size? Is it seeing itself or only applied knowledge?

Fascinating, Alex! Seeing is applied knowledge, for sure. So distance is also a concept, like size, colour, etc. I read a very interesting article about someone who'd been blind most of his life and got to see through a new surgery procedure. He had no idea about what he "saw", and he had to relearn his map of the world afresh.

ssplash wrote:
My eyesight sense provides my brain with the scale information

You sure? As far as I know it only delivers electrical impulses - no inherent meaning in them - that are later on interpreted based on your acquired knowledge - like a pattern matching computer program.

Yes, you are right.

ssplash wrote:
There is the experience of seeing and the space for seeing, rather than the seer, perhaps

Are you sure? How is the space separate from the experience of seeing? Maybe "space" is just an idea? Can you experience this space at all or is this just a thought about how this experience should be functioning?

I meant space as figurative location for the experience of seeing, the awareness that makes it possible. Physical space is an idea, yes.

ssplash wrote:
I don't experience separation as a thing, but I feel I am not the computer monitor, which means that the space for experiencing the monitor is different than the monitor itself.

What tells you that there is a computer monitor and that you are not it? Does seeing itself tell you that?
How do you know that "space" experiences something that is separate from it, like the monitor? This is just an elaborate story, right? :-)
Or can you verify this in direct experience?

Mind boggling, Alex. This hit home in a very emotional way ... Would you believe it's made me cry? I don't know what to say. I'm shaken. It would be lovely to feel things as not separate from us. Can we take on the burden or blessing that we are everything?

Thank you, Alex :)

Keep well,

Paloma

[Alexw]

Hi Paloma,

I would like to find out more about the concept of no separation. What does it really mean? I know it refers to the fact that there is no self, but weird enough I am starting to feel the phoniness of what I thought was "me", but I still feel "others". I can't quite assimilate the idea of oneness. How would you define oneness, Alex?

Well, what does separation mean... Its concept that has a certain meaning that is specific to your definition of this concept. I would define it in a different way than you do - simply because different thoughts arise. Our conditioning is different, thus our concepts differ...
But, yes, it is always based on the idea that there is a separate entity I/self that stands apart from others. The questions is if this is only an idea, a conceptual thought, or if this is also reflected in direct experience? Is it?
Sit down and look, hear, smell, taste, feel... where is separation to be found? In any of the senses or always only in thought?
Define one-ness: No separation :-)

if I'm part of everything

Is there a "you" that is part of everything? Where is the you and where is the everything?
When you put your hand on the desk in front of you and simply experience the sensation... where is the you in this sensation? where is the everything (e.g. desk) in this sensation? Are there any parts that make up this sensation?

my perception would be affected, because my body is the tool through which my awareness delves into physical experiences.

Why is it "my perception" or "my body" or "my awareness"? What tells you that these entities belong to anyone?
Do they have an owner? Show me this owner of the body, of perception and awareness.

Well, if the I doesn't exist, then "I" haven't done anything

Well.. if... does the "I" exist? Can you find it anywhere outside of thoughts about it?

I'm aware of this which is happening right here in this room, and not of other stuff that's happening to my next door neighbour

Are "you" aware? Or is there simply awareness present... not belonging to anyone...?
If it doesn't belong to anyone does it happen to anyone?
You look at this issue from the point of view of the individual person, but what if there is no such thing?

but in real life the jigsaw gets remade and I don't take on board this new understanding.

Give it some time and be alert. It will gradually change.

Do we need the senses to feel the absolute level of awareness?

There are no levels of awareness. There are only thoughts that define certain states, but awareness is never touched.
You can not experience the absolute directly, you can only experience the relative aspect of it. An experience requires thought to be known - if there is no thought about the experience it can not be cognised or talked about.

Imagine you sit in your room and start reading a book. You hear the TV thats on next door. You focus on the book and the noise of the TV is gone. An hour later you stop reading and suddenly the TV noise is back... Was there no experience of sound at all, did no sound happen? Or was there simply no thought about it?

Presumably we feel it, it's going on all the time, but thought and self blocks our experiencing of it, right?

Hmm... the issue is not the experience itself, it is what thought states about it. This does not mean that a thought that states "There is a car approaching from the left!" is a problem, it rather means that thoughts like "I don't like this place! I hate it!!" stem from questionable conditioning and that the beliefs that these thoughts are based on should be dragged into the light. Look at the core belief of "I am a separate entity" and see if its based on fact. Is it?

Thought does not give me vague, intuitive feelings ...

Are you sure? What makes a feeling into specific or a vague feeling? Even an intuition... is an intuition an intuition without a thought saying "It feels like I should do A over B!"?

It would be lovely to feel things as not separate from us. Can we take on the burden or blessing that we are everything?

:-)
Maybe no-separation feels exactly the way you feel right now... maybe its only thought saying something else, but the underlying experience is always one of no separation..?

Sure we can - we always have. It seems we have only forgotten about this basic fact and now rather believe in the veil of separation that thought places over That...

Alex

[ssplash]

Hi, Alex

Thank you so much again for your fantastic reply :)

Well, what does separation mean

When I'm dealing with people I feel my separateness because I sense that human relations rely on so many expectations, fixed ideas of each other, etc, and on any human interaction I have to manage that. I feel no silence in my head, I just react to the projection of me and of them, and most of what is said or done is performed in the matrix. I think that's why I loved holding my baby nephew in my arms so much for hours on end. He didn't require anything complicated from me, he wouldn't ask me questions, request anything. It was simple. I would like to be able to be relaxed with people and be "me", but I get stuck with the ego version of this bodymind and it feels stressful.

I know that the separate entity is just a conceptual thought, as you said, but I can't come through to people in the way I'd like, oozing this true me, whatever it is. I feel too much pressure, and I keep on being reactive instead of just present which I suppose would be the path. I think I'm getting better at this, because I'm starting to deal with people with less noise in my head, I don't push my ideas in a conversation nor expect people to behave the way I'd like them to.

My direct experience of separateness is the drilling sound in my head of the rules that society wants followed, the constant flow of interaction of selves. I would like to watch all this (and my virtual self in action as well) from a distance, and see the bigger picture, but I get swallowed in. I get too involved, I guess.

Lately I'm just feeling that I see egos floating all around me, human monkeys expressing themselves as bodyminds (me being one of them, of course).

Is there a "you" that is part of everything? Where is the you and where is the everything?
When you put your hand on the desk in front of you and simply experience the sensation... where is the you in this sensation? where is the everything (e.g. desk) in this sensation? Are there any parts that make up this sensation?

Today I might be feeling a bit more connected, more fluid, less separate. I understand what you are saying about that "you" that wants to be part of everything. The sensation feels whole, closer to a definition of everything without an "I"...

ssplash wrote:
my perception would be affected, because my body is the tool through which my awareness delves into physical experiences.

Why is it "my perception" or "my body" or "my awareness"? What tells you that these entities belong to anyone?
Do they have an owner? Show me this owner of the body, of perception and awareness.

I see what you are saying, but what relevance do you give then to the fact that "this" body that is felt is the one that's processing the information from the senses? It's still not feeling the next door neighbour's headache. That's what makes Oneness difficult to envisage ...

ssplash wrote:
Well, if the I doesn't exist, then "I" haven't done anything

Well.. if... does the "I" exist? Can you find it anywhere outside of thoughts about it?

I'm starting to feel the illusion of the I at some levels, but, as I said to you, when it comes to everyday living, it's harder not to be submerged in the dream.

ssplash wrote:
I'm aware of this which is happening right here in this room, and not of other stuff that's happening to my next door neighbour

Are "you" aware? Or is there simply awareness present... not belonging to anyone...?
If it doesn't belong to anyone does it happen to anyone?
You look at this issue from the point of view of the individual person, but what if there is no such thing?

There is awareness present that it doesn't happen to anyone, but this awareness is not of those events going on next door, and that confuses me ...

ssplash wrote:
but in real life the jigsaw gets remade and I don't take on board this new understanding.

Give it some time and be alert. It will gradually change.

Looking forward to that! :)

Imagine you sit in your room and start reading a book. You hear the TV thats on next door. You focus on the book and the noise of the TV is gone. An hour later you stop reading and suddenly the TV noise is back... Was there no experience of sound at all, did no sound happen? Or was there simply no thought about it?

Sound happened, I guess, but there was no thought about it.

Look at the core belief of "I am a separate entity" and see if its based on fact. Is it?

It isn't based on fact. The conditioning that stemmed from that statement is slipping away slowly. However, the emotional conditioning is still there: feelings of alienation, fear, wish to belong, desires, etc. I was experimenting with what my thoughts told me about my body, and as I felt cold I just said to myself that it didn't matter. I didn't have to like it nor dislike it, just experience it. What's the way to see through the conditioning, Alex?

ssplash wrote:
Thought does not give me vague, intuitive feelings ...

Are you sure? What makes a feeling into specific or a vague feeling? Even an intuition... is an intuition an intuition without a thought saying "It feels like I should do A over B!"?

I was saying this because I write literature, and I don't always see art as mediated by nor originating from thought. I guess I was just trying to talk about this natural intelligence that works through life. It has sometimes been equated with intuition, isn't it?

ssplash wrote:
It would be lovely to feel things as not separate from us. Can we take on the burden or blessing that we are everything?

:-)
Maybe no-separation feels exactly the way you feel right now... maybe its only thought saying something else, but the underlying experience is always one of no separation..?

Sure we can - we always have. It seems we have only forgotten about this basic fact and now rather believe in the veil of separation that thought places over That...

Does the underlying experience get covered up by thought?

Thank you so much for everything, Alex.

Paloma

[Alexw]

Hi Paloma,

I know that the separate entity is just a conceptual thought

Ok, great! Keep that in mind :-)

I can't come through to people in the way I'd like, oozing this true me, whatever it is

What if there is no "true me", at least not on the relative level? What if this me/self is always just based on conditioning and thus changeable depending on the situation you are in as well as the conceptual structures that you rely on?
Don't wait for a "true me" to show up from somewhere. If its true then it is already here. Now.
What is here, right now?

My direct experience of separateness is the drilling sound in my head of the rules that society wants followed, the constant flow of interaction of selves

How would you define a "self", or rather this illusion of a self, after the few posts that we had so far?
Are there real entities, real "selves" interacting at all? What happens when you talk to another person? Is your "self" talking to another "self"? What is going on?

Lets maybe come back to the dream story... when your dream character talks to other dream characters, do these characters have separate selves? Or is there only one dream - one Self - that seems to take on the role of these little selves that seem to be discussion something...

I see what you are saying, but what relevance do you give then to the fact that "this" body that is felt is the one that's processing the information from the senses? It's still not feeling the next door neighbour's headache. That's what makes Oneness difficult to envisage ...

Thats a sticky point for you, hmmm... it actually is for basically everyone, so don't worry :-)
The issue is that thought wants to experience something, or rather conceptualise an experience (thought never experiences anything, does it? it only talks about experience, right?) of one-ness... There is the belief that once I am one with everything I will have access to all thoughts, sensations, experiences etc.. I will then know what my neighbour thinks and feels. It wants one-ness but at the same time retain its self-ness. It wants to experience from an ego-point of view and have absolute omnipresence at the same time. Do you see that this idea or expectation will never be fulfilled? As long as you believe in a self having any kind of experience (a thought having an experience???) you will have the question "Why don't I experience what other selves experience?" - once you realise that there really is no self having any experience at all, that there is no owner of an experience, then the questions makes no sense anymore. Who would be experiencing the neighbours headache? He doesn't. You don't. Its simply an arising in consciousness belonging to no one...
To understand this you will have to drop the belief in a separate self - otherwise the confusion will remain :-)

I'm starting to feel the illusion of the I at some levels, but, as I said to you, when it comes to everyday living, it's harder not to be submerged in the dream.

Ok, great!
The best tool to remain awake is to remain consciously present as much as possible. You will go to sleep (being caught up in thought world) a lot, but you will also notice when you become present again. Hang on to this position of the observer/witness and use it as a tool - at least for now as long as this is not your natural state.

Alex

[ssplash]

Hi, Alex

I hope you are feeling better. I really appreciate your keenness and loyalty dedicating time to our exchange despite your ailments. Thank you again. I want to tell you that I am working very hard with what comes out of this, and it informs my day with hope and understanding :)

ssplash wrote:
I know that the separate entity is just a conceptual thought

Ok, great! Keep that in mind :-)

Yes, thank you, Alex. The thing is that this relative level, as you call it, is very pervasive, and it sticks! I am aware that I might just have a conceptual understanding of it, but not truly live it ... How would I know/go on if this is the case?

What if there is no "true me", at least not on the relative level? What if this me/self is always just based on conditioning and thus changeable depending on the situation you are in as well as the conceptual structures that you rely on?

Well, yes, that's true. Maybe this true awakened me is just another version of "me" in my head, and as long as I envisage it as something concrete, I'm still buying into the idea of reliance on a fictional self. But I do try to imagine what it would be like to be aware of the relative level and the absolute at the same time, and what freedom it would offer (not in a utilitarian way). Just what it would be like to relate to other human beings without the identification with the self. Both Krishnamurti and David Bohm spoke of the possibility of a different type of dialogue and interacting between people without the selfishness and reductionism of an ego-driven perspective. What's your experience of this, Alex?

Also, Alex, would you mind telling me your definition of conditioning, please?

Don't wait for a "true me" to show up from somewhere. If its true then it is already here. Now.
What is here, right now

I'm still trying to figure it out, see it shining through. I'm not sure about what is here, right now, as you say.

How would you define a "self", or rather this illusion of a self, after the few posts that we had so far?
Are there real entities, real "selves" interacting at all? What happens when you talk to another person? Is your "self" talking to another "self"? What is going on?

For the past few weeks I've been walking around in a daze, looking at people around me and being aware of my interactions with them, my thoughts, my reactions, wondering why I'm so stuck on the relative level, still too watchful of what people may think of me, still judging their attitudes, etc. Our selves are just a bundle of thoughts sustained by a bigger thought: the conviction that they belong to a unique entity. So, yes, when I talk to another person it is all happening in Oneness, and my feelings are arising in there too. The interaction is just the Self in motion, but I still feel compelled, this bodymind still strongly follows the compulsion, the belief of being driven by the ego.

I cringe when someone occupies the whole sidewalk and won't give me enough space to pass despite there being room for two; I get stressed when members of my family get too emotional or anxious about something and they want me to join in their feelings of frustration not taking respectful silence or compassion for an answer; I still judge my own bodymind too harshly if I don't get to complete the activities that I would have liked for that day due to lack of drive or motivation ...

I guess the way to go is to keep on becoming an explorer of the world and keep on viewing life and relationships between people from the Self's point of view, as an open field of feelings and small events that shouldn't pull you in one direction or another too strongly. Even these feelings that I have, these reactive feelings are just happening here, and I should not take ownership of them. I suppose that with time the relative level will lose its pull and the veil will fall. Not that I'm waiting for "the event" necessarily, as I imagine that it could also happen quite smoothly, even unnoticed. Is that right, Alex?

As long as you believe in a self having any kind of experience (a thought having an experience???) you will have the question "Why don't I experience what other selves experience?" - once you realise that there really is no self having any experience at all, that there is no owner of an experience, then the questions makes no sense anymore.

Right, so experiences have no owners, they arise, and the belief of Oneness being a certain way is a concept. So many questions and doubts come from the idea of self being there in action, it's amazing :) Thank you for this exposition, Alex. It's very helpful. Oneness is a mystery, anyway. The only thing is that I have to keep on coming back to the understanding that there is no experiencer, that the experience and the experiencer melts into one. I just forget about this, and my idea of self claims the ownership of the experience once and time again. I think I'm clear on the grasp that there is no separate self, but obviously I haven't really dropped the belief yet :-P

The best tool to remain awake is to remain consciously present as much as possible. You will go to sleep (being caught up in thought world) a lot, but you will also notice when you become present again. Hang on to this position of the observer/witness and use it as a tool - at least for now as long as this is not your natural state.

I am not sure that I notice presence, Alex. Do you mean being aware of the relative level?

I'm around tomorrow if you feel like posting, Alex, but, please, do not feel obliged to do so. I hope you enjoy some time off for your full recovery. Thank you again for everything.

Paloma