I'm ready

[danny7]

Now how does the nucleus become you?

Through a sense of movement and isolation.
It is in the mix of life.
It is part of the all.
But it still is an IT.
Particular.

What does the word, the notion "you" actually refer to in this process?
Does it have a referent in reality?

Not as an identity.
Just at that center.

[Damon Kamda]

OK, Danny. This is getting way too abstract as far as I'm concerned.

Could you rephrase your experience in terms that ANYONE could relate to and understand?

Where and in what way, in your experience, is there a self, a you?

[danny7]

Well,I've tried to be as simple as possible.
I will try to rephrase it using most of what I've already said cause there's not much more I can say.
I know I don't exist on any level as identity.
There is a witness.
Thoughts are neither originated or produced or controlled by me.Nor the witness.

In that movement which is life I sense a center,non-personal.
This center isn't me otherwise It would have an identity.
But if it can pause thought and process it, it must be there.
This nucleus is sensed by me.
I don't identify with it,it is just sensed.
Because I don't identify with it,it's hands and organs don't feel the same as when I thought this center to be my body and as thus mine.
This is the simplest way I can try to explain it.

[Damon Kamda]

Thanks for the clarification, danny, I appreciate it.

I know I don't exist on any level as identity.
There is a witness.

How do you know there is a witness, rather than just the obvious process of witnessing or observation? How is there a witness as an entity? Where is it? Does it actually exist?

This center isn't me otherwise It would have an identity.

This nucleus is sensed by me.
I don't identify with it,it is just sensed.

Do you see the confusion in your words?
It's screaming to be resolved.

You are not the center, the witness.
Yet this center, nucleus, is sensed by you.

How is this possible?
Where, who, what is this you?

[danny7]

You are not the center, the witness.
Yet this center, nucleus, is sensed by you.

How is this possible?
Where, who, what is this you?

It is possible because it's not me.
It is impersonal and non-identity because it needs not be.
If I label it, it may begin to feel as a person again.
With a story that repeats itself ad nauseam.
As it is left alone it is just remotely seen.

So there is no me in there.
"Me"being quite the silly word and sillier concept.
I don't yet know that I am what I see.
But I do know that I am that which is Unknown.

So In essence there is that point in the universe that I can see.
I call it a center or a nucleus.
In reality it is just a tiny little thing that moves.
Almost imperceptible.

[Damon Kamda]

I feel there's no me as identity but I also feel I'm a center of which everything emanates.

It is possible because it's not me.

You're contradicting yourself again and again.

With a story that repeats itself ad nauseam.
As it is left alone it is just remotely seen.

Ok, that is clear. There is the perception of an apparent center to life, experience and it is through endless stories that it becomes an identity. That's it. That's the entirety of what needs to be seen- now IS THIS SEEN or just understood intellectualy?

I don't yet know that I am what I see.
But I do know that I am that which is Unknown.

What does the word I refer to? You use it five times in te above sentences- in various manners. What does it refer to?

So now you know what you are not.
Is the I an elusive, subtle, far-off Unknown?
Or is it nothing at all?

[danny7]

You're contradicting yourself again and again.

Yes I might be,for it is a human trait.
Maybe the contradiction would cease to exist If I only knew.
But if I knew I wouldn't be here would I?

There is the perception of an apparent center to life, experience and it is through endless stories that it becomes an identity. That's it. That's the entirety of what needs to be seen- now IS THIS SEEN or just understood intellectualy?

I never said anything about stories.
In fact,I've tried to make it clear that I do not identify with this center as a 'me".
And that it is remotely seen.
Now you speak of something that needs to be seen.
But I cannot see through your eyes.
And if there is an underlying collective truth to all,I would think that it can only be reached through unseeing.
This is why I came here and from the first post spoke of what I was seeing or perceiving...
this center or nucleus which I was identifying as an obstruct to my "clear-seeing",
whatever that may be.

[Damon Kamda]

I never said anything about stories.

You did.

I'm trying to get a clear lock on where you're coming from and I'm having some trouble understanding you.

Now you speak of something that needs to be seen.

Yes. Through a process of negation you've come to an understanding that you are not the body, the identity, the thoughts. Now it is possible to remain at this position and consider the self to be the great unknown, or it is possible to clearly see the truth of what the self is. I cannot see this for you, yet I can keep pointing you in the direction in which to look, which is all i've been doing, and all I will continue to do.

There's some issues in my previous posts that you haven't adressed fully yet:

What does the word I refer to? You use it five times in te above sentences- in various manners. What does it refer to?

How do you know there is a witness, rather than just the obvious process of witnessing or observation? How is there a witness as an entity? Where is it? Does it actually exist?

Where and in what way, in your experience, is there a self, a you?

What does the word, the notion "you" actually refer to in this process?
Does it have a referent in reality?

That's all you need to focus on for now. And don't rush this- deeply look into this, not by thinking about it, but by checking your experience, in the most mundane circumstances or activities. Every time the notion of I arises- ask the question: what does it refer to, how does it come into being, what is it, is it real?

Let me know what you find.

[danny7]

What does the word I refer to? You use it five times in the above sentences- in various manners. What does it refer to?

The conceived I as it relates to the structure of a sentence.

How do you know there is a witness, rather than just the obvious process of witnessing or observation? How is there a witness as an entity? Where is it? Does it actually exist?

I do not know that there is a witness.
Neither do I know there isn't.

Where and in what way, in your experience, is there a self, a you?

You're equating self with a you.
I can just Be without a structured identity.
This I am is what I call self.Not necessarily mine.
It is not construed through self-identity.

What does the word, the notion "you" actually refer to in this process?
Does it have a referent in reality?

I have said no on multiple occasions.

[Damon Kamda]

Thanks, danny, now we're getting somewhere.

I do not know that there is a witness.
Neither do I know there isn't.

Well, care to find out? That is why you're here after all, no?
Sit down, slow down, shut up and look. Is there a witness to reality? Can there be?

You're equating self with a you.
I can just Be without a structured identity.
This I am is what I call self.Not necessarily mine.
It is not construed through self-identity.

Yes, the way I see it "self" as commonly understood is exactly the same as "you" commonly understood, yet I understand there are some esoteric definitions of self that go beyond folk psychology (Ramana Maharshi etc.).

This "I am" you're speaking of (that you call self), would it be correct to assume you are referring to the simple feeling of existence, of being?

I have said no on multiple occasions.

Great- so, you're at the point where you can honestly say there is no you. Yet you consider the perception of an apparent center a stumbling block?

Without mentally labelling this sense of a center, just allowing it in the field of perception completely, honouring its occurence as it were, does it have any special significance whatsoever? In what way is it an obstacle?

[danny7]

Sit down, slow down, shut up and look. Is there a witness to reality? Can there be?

There has got to be.
Otherwise who would you be asking to look?

This "I am" you're speaking of (that you call self), would it be correct to assume you are referring to the simple feeling of existence, of being?

Yes.

Without mentally labelling this sense of a center, just allowing it in the field of perception completely, honouring its occurence as it were, does it have any special significance whatsoever? In what way is it an obstacle?

I perceive it as the witness.
So that is the significance of it.
It is not a me.
It is what makes me an I am.
I don't know if it's an obstacle.

[Damon Kamda]

Otherwise who would you be asking to look?

Finding this out is the whole point of this forum, danny. When I ask you to look at anything (objects in the room, clouds in the sky, the witness) WHO IS LOOKING?

A widely-held assumption is that in order for looking to happen, there must be someone doing it- a looker. I'm inviting you to, right now, find out if this is in fact so. When I ask you "Look at the object in the room you're in", what happens? Can you closely observe the process and tell me if there is someone involved in this process at all- someone that is not merely an assumption. Check it.

In looking- is there a looker?
In choosing- is there a chooser?
In witnessing- is there a witness?
In thinking- is there a thinker?
In writing- is there a writer?
In perception- is there a perceiver?

[danny7]

the witness) WHO IS LOOKING?

Ok this clicked.
Good one.
If the witness is looking at the witness and that at the witness ad infinitum it's because there is no witness.
Which in my sphere would translate to:
If a center is looking at a center ad infinitum it's because there is no center?
Am I getting there or am I just rambling?

[Damon Kamda]

If a center is looking at a center ad infinitum it's because there is no center?
Am I getting there or am I just rambling?

You'll have to tell me if it's just rambling.
Is there an actual center?
Don't answer this as a philosophical inquiry but as a report of actual experience.

[danny7]

There cannot be.
The "I" is only used through the corruption of the propriety sense of language.
There cannot be an I that looks if it can be looked at.
Hence,only the experience remains.
The center I was fixated on came through fear of dissolving.
Cowardice at letting it go.
That is the root.
Escapable in the realization of the no-self.
Inescapable in the long term as Mind will always creep back in.
So the matrix is really inside?
Ahh..no wonder we don't wanna look.
LOL