The fear of losing the illusory self

[Matthew]

When the identity arises, then the belief of karma on that identity arises.

So when there is no identity, then there is also nothing on which the belief in karma could cling to.
When there is no one there, then there is no one steering actions. No one to accumulate bad or good karma.
When there is no thinker of thoughts, then there is no one to commit a sin.
There is also no one, who has ever made a bad decision and is supposed to feel bad about it.

That would be quite something, wouldn't it!
Truth is.. This is already going on. Always has been. Whether it is clear or not.

There never was a self.

Thought tells stories about this "I". But does "I" react?

No, it can't react. It's completely separate from thoughts.

This is going a little bit in an unfortunate direction.

The baseline question is and remains:
Does "I" exist as an entity? Or is "I" just a thought.
Instand of "I" you can also insert [whatever the name is].

Please bring up the thought "I like birds"
Three words: "I" - "like" - "birds"
Repeat that a few times.

What is "birds"?
Clear. "Birds" is just a word, a thought.

What is "like"?
Also clear. "Like" is just a thought here.

And what is this "I" here?
Does this "I" really like birds?
Is this "I" something besides, above or behind that thought?
Or is "I" just a thought as "like" and "birds"?

[blizzified]

Does "I" exist as an entity? Or is "I" just a thought.

No, there is no "I", it is a thought, a very habitual thought.

Please bring up the thought "I like birds"
Three words: "I" - "like" - "birds"
Repeat that a few times.

What is "birds"?
Clear. "Birds" is just a word, a thought.

What is "like"?
Also clear. "Like" is just a thought here.

And what is this "I" here?

"I" doesn't exist at all, it has no basis for even existing.

Does this "I" really like birds?

No, there is nothing behind the face of "I" so how can it like birds?

Is this "I" something besides, above or behind that thought?

"I" arises simultaneously with "like".

Or is "I" just a thought as "like" and "birds"?

"I" is a thought just like "like" and "birds".

[Matthew]

How does it feel to see this?

Is there a thing or a one, which could realise something here?

[blizzified]

How does it feel to see this?

Is there a thing or a one, which could realise something here?

It feels very tricky. I still have a sense of an I that is perceiving that there is no "I" if that makes any sense. So what I tried was to move backwards and even stop using the word "I". But there remains a witnessing. A function of witnessing.

[Matthew]

But there remains a witnessing. A function of witnessing.

Yes of course. There is witnessing. There is noticing. There is knowing.

Is it the "I" which is doing this?

I still have a sense of an I that is perceiving that there is no "I"

So look at that place. Look at that from where the percieving of no "I" happens.
What can be found there?
Some actual thing like an "I" doing it? Can that be observed?
Some actual one?
Or just more thoughts.

What knows that there is no "ego"?

[blizzified]

Yes of course. There is witnessing. There is noticing. There is knowing.

Is it the "I" which is doing this?

The thought of "I" doesn't notice. But the Knowing seems to be the core of it all. The Knowing knows the "I". The Knowing knows that it is "Knowing".

So look at that place. Look at that from where the percieving of no "I" happens.
What can be found there?

There is no "I", no static form, no permanent "I", it is just a label. When this perceiving happens, there are only sensations and thoughts. There is just Knowing, sensations and thoughts.

Some actual thing like an "I" doing it? Can that be observed?

"I" cannot observe itself, because it is just a thought. When I say "I observe I", it does not make sense, because to produce that sentence, the word "I" has to surface first, which has no existential basis. The Knowing is what sees all three words of "I observe I".

Some actual one?

I don't know if you could call it "one" since the Knowing isn't a thing but just Knowing.

Or just more thoughts.

Knowing isn't thought.

What knows that there is no "ego"?

The Knowing that has not extended into language and concept.

[blizzified]

Something else just came through... (just to add on) It as if this Knowing is a one-way illumination, it is like unconditional love, it gives and gives and gives but when you try to turn around to grasp it, it is not there and has never been there. Even this "I" notion is too late, because the Knowing gives form to the "I". When the "I" rises, it tries to seek the Knowing and claim it as itself, but the Knowing is "one-way". It is like a one-way mirror, as a bad analogy, where "thoughts" and "sensations" have no possibility of looking backwards to refer to the Knowing, a bit like a moon reflection inside the water which you know is there but is not the actual moon.

[Matthew]

Getting closer.

Knowing isn't thought.

The knowing of a thought is not a thought. Yes.

when you try to turn around to grasp it, it is not there and has never been there

What is not there.
The knowing?
Or a knower?

When the "I" rises, it tries to seek the Knowing and claim it as itself

But even this is clearly and unobstructedly known, isn't it?

"thoughts" and "sensations" have no possibility of looking backwards to refer to the Knowing

Yes. Thoughts, sensation, all appearances... Are just images in the mirror. The reason why they cannot grasp the knowing is because they're just that: Images. They cannot do ANYTHING. It just appears that way.


So how can the knowing know itself.

There is just Knowing, sensations and thoughts.

Look at a thought.
Is there a separation between the knowing of a thought and the thought?
Can there be knowing of a thought without the thought?
Can there be a thought without the knowing of it?

Look at a sensation, or an image or a sound. Anything.
Is there a separation between the knowing of experience and experience?
Can there be knowing without known?
Can there be known without knowing?

[blizzified]

What is not there.
The knowing?
Or a knower?

There is no knower. Just knowing, just 1-way.

But even this is clearly and unobstructedly known, isn't it?

Strangely, yes.

Look at a thought.
Is there a separation between the knowing of a thought and the thought?

When the thought appears, the knowing is simultaneous. But the knowing is what "pieces" one thought to another thought, it knows "this thought ended", "this next thought rose". But the knowing wouldn't really process that, because the "piecing" itself is another thought.

Can there be knowing of a thought without the thought?

Yes, there can be knowing without thought.

Can there be a thought without the knowing of it?

No, Knowing is always there, if not thought cannot arise.

Look at a sensation, or an image or a sound. Anything.
Is there a separation between the knowing of experience and experience?

Knowing is instantaneous and simultaneous as experience.

Can there be knowing without known?

Hmm... I see what you are getting at. Since they are instantaneous, the knowing only rises together with the known.

Can there be known without knowing?

I answered on top that knowing doesn't cease and instantly knows when the known arises. But then I understand how when known arises, the knowing is already instantly there. What I do not understand is how the knowing disappears if there is no known thing there.

I mean, for example, there is knowing when there is breath, but yet there is knowing when there is no breath. There is knowing when there is light and when there is no light. There is knowing when there is thought and no thought. It is the same knowing that remains without being influenced by any of the "objects in the mirror" as you call it.

[Matthew]

Yes, there can be knowing without thought.

Knowing of what for example?

What I do not understand is how the knowing disappears if there is no known thing there.

Is the knowing EVER absent?
Is there ever no known?

[blizzified]

Knowing of what for example?

Knowing of the gap between thoughts, or knowing of knowing.

Is the knowing EVER absent?
Is there ever no known?

What I feel is that Knowing is continuous without break... I am not sure about known, I suppose they must exist together, so there is also never a break in the known?

[Matthew]

What I feel is that Knowing is continuous without break...

That's a good feeling!

so there is also never a break in the known?

Have a look!
Is there any evidence that there was ever no knowing, no known (knowingknown)?
More than a thought story about "absence"?

Is thought telling a story about absence an evidence?

Can evidence for absence of knowingknown/awareness be found in actual experience?

[blizzified]

Is there any evidence that there was ever no knowing, no known (knowingknown)?

Sorry, I don't exactly understand what you meant by this.

There is knowing... if there is no knowing, there is no basis for experience.

More than a thought story about "absence"?

If there is no knowing, then I cannot understand what it is, it is certainly beyond whatever I know.

Is thought telling a story about absence an evidence?

Thought always comments, whether sensations are there or not, feelings are there or not, or thoughts are there or not. Thought splits it into duality, of presence and absence, movement and stillness, stimuli and silence. But Knowing sees both and cannot perceive the difference, it knows regardless.

Can evidence for absence of knowingknown/awareness be found in actual experience?

I can't find a place like this. Knowing has always been there.

[Matthew]

What I feel is that Knowing is continuous without break...

Knowing has always been there.

Your thread title was "The fear of losing the illusory self".

Is there actually something to loose?

[blizzified]

No, there isn't anyone to lose.

Wait... So... Was this it all along?