Seeing Through the Self Illusion

[Griselda]

ah good. And when you say, I can definitely feel an I, what exactly is that which you are referring too? Please look at that experience. Is that feeling or sense of I an actual I or only a feeling/sense? And maybe there is a thought of an I present too when that feeling is there, but is that a real I, or only a thought?

It does seem that an 'actual I' is a feeling. But when you say 'only a feeling' you make it seem like it's almost nothing.

If you were a neuroscientist and you showed me a PET scan of my brain, and when I felt like an 'I' you showed me that there were just squiggles on a chart indicating electrical activity in my brain, you could convince me that my sense of 'I' was only electricity. I coudn't argue with you. But I still feel an 'I'. Saying it is only a feeling may be true, but it's still real to me.

It's the same with Love. It might be 'only' a feeling, or 'only' a thought. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the most magnificent thing in the world, at least to me. It's real. It's there.

Griselda

[Florisness]

Hi,

Okay, I didn't want to give you the thought I try to dismiss or invalidate your experience. What I mean that if you for example feel a sense of I, what that is, is a sense of I, yes? It is what it is. Sometimes there can be the thought that a person/self/I is felt, but when investigating that, we are labeling a sense/feeling as a 'sense of I', while it is not an actual I. Does that resonate?

If you feel love, that's an experience you have, yes? Sometimes that experience, that feeling, is there, sometimes it's not experienced or felt and other things are experienced. I don't want to make your experience less than it is, and you don't have to believe me or agree with me. In one way of seeing, wouldn't you agree that we value everything the most when we can let it be exactly what it is, without trying to make it more or less?

I'm coming from the place that you are not what you may think you are, and therefore I'm trying to help you to see that what you think you are, and that what you might think you think you experience, you may not, or not in the way you thought. And then, because something becomes more clear, something clears up, and therefore you relax further back in what you really are. Of course, there are other ways to do it and if this approach doesn't resonate with you, then please feel free to tell me.

It does seem that an 'actual I' is a feeling. But when you say 'only a feeling' you make it seem like it's almost nothing.

Yes, your comment made me smile. In my view, what you think and therefore feel you may be, is sort of covering up what you really are. Maybe because you think you are what you think and feel you are, you associate all the goodness of life to that feeling/experience of being an I, or self. Like it is the source of all the value of life. Is that correct? I say it's not the source of it at all. When I say a feeling of I, is only a feeling, my intention is to get you to see that that is a sense/feeling, and not an actual I which might have been taken as an actual I in a way. In my experience that realization was felt as quite profound once. A sense of something is (only) a sense of something and not the thing itself, it's not more or less than that.

If you were a neuroscientist and you showed me a PET scan of my brain, and when I felt like an 'I' you showed me that there were just squiggles on a chart indicating electrical activity in my brain, you could convince me that my sense of 'I' was only electricity. I coudn't argue with you. But I still feel an 'I'. Saying it is only a feeling may be true, but it's still real to me.

Sure, I respect that. However, when I say that that sense of I, is (only) a sense of I and not an I, I am not in my view invalidating you, because I don't take you to be that sense of I.

If you can come to grips with that perspective, could you still answer the question if an I/self/person is findable/experienced -an not if an sense of an I watching is feelable;-)- that is doing or experiencing the seeing?

Hope we can work things out.

Have a nice day,
Floris

[Griselda]

Hi Floris,

Thanks for being so patient! I can see you take this seriously. I appreciate that.

Okay, I didn't want to give you the thought I try to dismiss or invalidate your experience. What I mean that if you for example feel a sense of I, what that is, is a sense of I, yes? It is what it is. Sometimes there can be the thought that a person/self/I is felt, but when investigating that, we are labeling a sense/feeling as a 'sense of I', while it is not an actual I. Does that resonate?

I've thought about this a lot for years, and for me a 'Sense of I) IS an I. I don't know what an 'actual I' would be apart from that. I can't find anything different when I investigate. Why can't a Sense of I BE an I?

I'm coming from the place that you are not what you may think you are, and therefore I'm trying to help you to see that what you think you are, and that what you might think you think you experience, you may not, or not in the way you thought. And then, because something becomes more clear, something clears up, and therefore you relax further back in what you really are. Of course, there are other ways to do it and if this approach doesn't resonate with you, then please feel free to tell me.

I don't know what approach is right. For me the Sense of I has always been what I know as I, and there's never been any doubt.

Yes, your comment made me smile. In my view, what you think and therefore feel you may be, is sort of covering up what you really are. Maybe because you think you are what you think and feel you are, you associate all the goodness of life to that feeling/experience of being an I, or self. Like it is the source of all the value of life. Is that correct? I say it's not the source of it at all. When I say a feeling of I, is only a feeling, my intention is to get you to see that that is a sense/feeling, and not an actual I which might have been taken as an actual I in a way. In my experience that realization was felt as quite profound once. A sense of something is (only) a sense of something and not the thing itself, it's not more or less than that.

Do I think all the goodness of life is associated with being an I? No. I LOVE to read books by nondual teachers, mystics, etc, who say that there is no Self and that Life is just one big Eternal Flow (or something like that).
When you say a sense of I is not an actual I, I try and try to see how that might be so. But all the evidence I find is that the feeling IS an I, and I find no evidence that it's not.

If you can come to grips with that perspective, could you still answer the question if an I/self/person is findable/experienced -an not if an sense of an I watching is feelable;-)- that is doing or experiencing the seeing?

Yes, everything really comes down to this question, No? As I read it I am thinking "this is the difference between people who see there is no 'I', and those who don't." To me, in 'feeling' an I which is doing the seeing, it's exactly the same as 'finding' an I which is doing that. There is no difference. But I'm willing to believe that this is because I'm stupid, or just don't have the sensitivity to detect the difference. I certainly don't believe that all the LU guides, and all the spiritual teachers througout history who say there is no 'I', are not telling the truth. I just think it may be too subtle for me to recognize.

[Florisness]

Hi Griselda,

Thanks for being so patient! I can see you take this seriously. I appreciate that.

Yes I do. You're very welcome and thank you too for allowing me to have this talk with you.

I've thought about this a lot for years, and for me a 'Sense of I) IS an I. I don't know what an 'actual I' would be apart from that. I can't find anything different when I investigate. Why can't a Sense of I BE an I?

Okay good. Let's say you have a chair there with you, and I ask you if you are that chair. You might say 'well no, and I can know that because this chair be moved or away, destroyed or such and still I am here'. How about the sense of I, if it can be gone it can't be you, no? And can't it go, or couldn't you imagine it gone, or couldn't you have a dream where you are but that sense isn't? Where is the sense felt (most)?
Does this sense perceive or do actions or such? Does it live life? Can you say this sense is a person?

Could you describe to me what it means for you to be a person/self? For example: to be a person it's like I perceive a/the world and others and I ...

Do I think all the goodness of life is associated with being an I? No. I LOVE to read books by nondual teachers, mystics, etc, who say that there is no Self and that Life is just one big Eternal Flow (or something like that).
When you say a sense of I is not an actual I, I try and try to see how that might be so. But all the evidence I find is that the feeling IS an I, and I find no evidence that it's not.

Okay, I meant it more that if there is an assumption that the life/experience that is there is hanging on, like coming from, the sense of personhood.

Yes, everything really comes down to this question, No? As I read it I am thinking "this is the difference between people who see there is no 'I', and those who don't."

Ha, well yes, some look for this supposed person, don't find it anywhere and then get that this person/self thing is more like a mental construction, a heap of identification.

To me, in 'feeling' an I which is doing the seeing, it's exactly the same as 'finding' an I which is doing that. There is no difference. But I'm willing to believe that this is because I'm stupid, or just don't have the sensitivity to detect the difference. I certainly don't believe that all the LU guides, and all the spiritual teachers througout history who say there is no 'I', are not telling the truth. I just think it may be too subtle for me to recognize.

Ha, yes good. And I'm quite confident you'll get more and more clear on this yourself.


Wishing you well,

[Griselda]

How about the sense of I, if it can be gone it can't be you, no? And can't it go, or couldn't you imagine it gone, or couldn't you have a dream where you are but that sense isn't? Where is the sense felt (most)?

I suppose I would say that the sense of I is gone during deep sleep. But that doesn't convince me that it is not a real I. I feel it most in the head.

Does this sense perceive or do actions or such? Does it live life? Can you say this sense is a person?

Yes, to me this sense perceives and does actions. To me it is a person.

Could you describe to me what it means for you to be a person/self? For example: to be a person it's like I perceive a/the world and others and I ...

To be a person means I feel that I exist here in the center of my head, and decisions and perceptions come from there.
Sometimes I might wonder if that is an illusion, and if I am crazy to think that, so I look around and find that 99% of everyone else agrees; they think THEY are a person too. However, then I encounter a tiny percentage of people who are 'Spiritual' in some way, and they say they do NOT see themselves as a person. And they tell me they meditated for years or did self-inquiry, or lived in the moment, or did mindfulness practices, or drugs, or something, to get to that point. So I tell myself I must meditate for years to see that there is no 'I'.

Okay, I meant it more that if there is an assumption that the life/experience that is there is hanging on, like coming from, the sense of personhood.

I like this question. Right now my answer is yes, the life/experience is coming from the sense of personhood.

Ha, well yes, some look for this supposed person, don't find it anywhere and then get that this person/self thing is more like a mental construction, a heap of identification.

Words are really tricky! Because, I read what you say, and I can say I don't exactly DISAGREE that the Self thing is a 'mental Construction, a heap of identification'. Of course it's made of thought. And as I said earlier, if you had a PET Scan of my brain, during a moment when I saw myself as a 'Self', you might say to me "Look! your feeling of self is just a bunch of electrical circuits firing." That may be so, but I still FEEL I am a self. Even if the Self is a mental construction, I still feel that it exists, and I am it.

Thanks, and I'm sorry if I'm a pain in the neck.

Griselda

[Florisness]

Hi Griselda,

Thanks, and I'm sorry if I'm a pain in the neck.

Ha, well you do give me a harder time on getting a sense on knowing how to proceed than what I'm used to. But that's not a problem.

To be a person means I feel that I exist here in the center of my head, and decisions and perceptions come from there.

Okay. Can you attempt to describe even better for me what it is exactly that makes you say, think and feel that you are existing in the head making decision and all that? Really describe it from your experience, not from what you think. Better even, no referring to thoughts allowed, only checking and describing it from experience.

Sometimes I might wonder if that is an illusion, and if I am crazy to think that, so I look around and find that 99% of everyone else agrees; they think THEY are a person too. However, then I encounter a tiny percentage of people who are 'Spiritual' in some way, and they say they do NOT see themselves as a person. And they tell me they meditated for years or did self-inquiry, or lived in the moment, or did mindfulness practices, or drugs, or something, to get to that point. So I tell myself I must meditate for years to see that there is no 'I'.

Ha, yes, well I could tell you that there isn't much of such a sense left of being a person or being something in a head here, but that might not do much for you. But you'll find out for yourself more and more, no need to believe me.

Could you do this exercise for me, perhaps it will shift your thinking a bit. Please first read the whole paragraph before doing it. Please take a moment, like a couple of minutes of this, relax, close your eyes if you like and become aware of your thoughts. You may notice that some thoughts are easy to notice and some aren't. I would suggest that those you may find overall trickier to notice are those that you identify with. For example, you may be aware of a thought and another thought is going for example 'okay, yes I'm aware of that thought now', 'okay I'm not going to let any thought slip by unnoticed now', and it may be harder to notice that that is also a thought. Another example of a thought you may find harder to notice could be a thought of a you that is observing, that is doing the exercise, like a thought/picture of that bodies face that you identify with. Be especially attentive to these 'sneaky' thoughts. Another way to describe the exercise is try to be aware of thought and not be outsneaked by any thoughts. Please do this for longer then just one minute, so you'll get to appreciate more what is going on there. No need to spend a long time of course.
Normally I don't do this, but I'll tell you the idea behind the exercise. There really isn't a self/you there in the head. There might be what you could label a sense of center, and lots of thought may come up around that area, and those thoughts are uninvestigated and not been aware of by most people. You may notice that some of these thoughts, especially the what I called sneaky thoughts, are what you may confuse to be you in your everyday life. Could you notice that? Do you think you can be a thought? Can you be more a thought of lets say "your" voice, or "your" face then a thought of a bike? And do you notice that there thoughts happen near the sense of center? You think these thoughts are a big part of what makes you think you are a person that is there in a head?

I like this question. Right now my answer is yes, the life/experience is coming from the sense of personhood.

Yes great, that's what I meant. Although I would suggest that the life/experience is not really coming from a sense of personhood, but no need to just believe me on that. Would you agree that that sense is also an experience? So.. are you saying that experience is causing/forming another experience? And do you think an experience can perceive other parts of the experience? Can an experience do actions?

Words are really tricky! Because, I read what you say, and I can say I don't exactly DISAGREE that the Self thing is a 'mental Construction, a heap of identification'. Of course it's made of thought. And as I said earlier, if you had a PET Scan of my brain, during a moment when I saw myself as a 'Self', you might say to me "Look! your feeling of self is just a bunch of electrical circuits firing." That may be so, but I still FEEL I am a self. Even if the Self is a mental construction, I still feel that it exists, and I am it.

Okay, just to go at the same thing again, but now in line with the above paragraph. Do you think you can be a particular part of the totality of your experience? Another thought just popped up: if you're dreaming of waking somewhere, there might be a sense of a you there just like now, is that sense also perceiving/doing in that dream?
It's the same point, but perhaps getting you to look at it from different angles creates a little bigger crack in the belief structure. Please, stay honest to what feels true for you, but also try to really question and actually look into some of the questions I pose.

Wishing you well,
Floris

[Griselda]

Ha, well you do give me a harder time on getting a sense on knowing how to proceed than what I'm used to. But that's not a problem.

Thank you!

Okay. Can you attempt to describe even better for me what it is exactly that makes you say, think and feel that you are existing in the head making decision and all that? Really describe it from your experience, not from what you think. Better even, no referring to thoughts allowed, only checking and describing it from experience.

When I get up in the morning, I often say "let's see, is the 'I' still there?" As if I'm hoping it died during the night. And Alas, I always find it's there. And thoughts appear, and I ask myself "can I see thoughts as just floating by, but not connected to a 'Me'? But that's not how it is; I always feel this 'Me' at center. I can only describe it as 'energy', though that doesn't really describe it. A while back I read this from Tony Parsons:
"This sense of separation is not just an idea, a thought or a belief. It is a contracted energy embodied in the whole organism which influences every experience." When I read that I immediately said "YES! That's EXACTLY how it is!" It's not a thought, and when I try to describe it I can only use thoughts, which don't capture it. Energy at my Center. That's what I feel. That's how I can describe it without thoughts.

Could you do this exercise for me, perhaps it will shift your thinking a bit. Please first read the whole paragraph before doing it. Please take a moment, like a couple of minutes of this, relax, close your eyes if you like and become aware of your thoughts. You may notice that some thoughts are easy to notice and some aren't. I would suggest that those you may find overall trickier to notice are those that you identify with. For example, you may be aware of a thought and another thought is going for example 'okay, yes I'm aware of that thought now', 'okay I'm not going to let any thought slip by unnoticed now', and it may be harder to notice that that is also a thought. Another example of a thought you may find harder to notice could be a thought of a you that is observing, that is doing the exercise, like a thought/picture of that bodies face that you identify with. Be especially attentive to these 'sneaky' thoughts. Another way to describe the exercise is try to be aware of thought and not be outsneaked by any thoughts. Please do this for longer then just one minute, so you'll get to appreciate more what is going on there. No need to spend a long time of course.
Normally I don't do this, but I'll tell you the idea behind the exercise. There really isn't a self/you there in the head. There might be what you could label a sense of center, and lots of thought may come up around that area, and those thoughts are uninvestigated and not been aware of by most people. You may notice that some of these thoughts, especially the what I called sneaky thoughts, are what you may confuse to be you in your everyday life. Could you notice that? Do you think you can be a thought? Can you be more a thought of lets say "your" voice, or "your" face then a thought of a bike? And do you notice that there thoughts happen near the sense of center? You think these thoughts are a big part of what makes you think you are a person that is there in a head?

OK, I did this exercise for about 20 minutes. Yes, I could identify some 'sneaky thoughts' (I like that term!) Interestingly, when you ask "Do you think you can be a thought?" I find myself saying "Yes, why not?" And yes, these thoughts can be a big part of what makes me think I'm a person in a head.

Would you agree that that sense is also an experience? So.. are you saying that experience is causing/forming another experience? And do you think an experience can perceive other parts of the experience? Can an experience do actions?

OK, I've sunk into my sense of 'I' and I agree that the sense of self can be described as an 'experience'. But it's ALSO this energetic center. So, I wouldn't say that experience is causing, or forming, or perceiving other parts of an experience, or performing actions, but that energetic center can. I can't get to seeing that center as only a 'thought'.

Do you think you can be a particular part of the totality of your experience? Another thought just popped up: if you're dreaming of waking somewhere, there might be a sense of a you there just like now, is that sense also perceiving/doing in that dream?

Yes, I would say I can be a particular part of the totality of your experience. Is that sense also perceiving/doing in that dream? No, because it's just a dream. I know that nonduality people would say that waking life is just as much a dream, but I don't see that, though I'd like to.

Please, stay honest to what feels true for you, but also try to really question and actually look into some of the questions I pose.

Yes, I will. I have a feeling you really know this well.

[Florisness]

Hi there,

Well.. Lot's of text in this one. If it's more convenient, you could also answer it in two times or so. Whatever works for you.

OK, I did this exercise for about 20 minutes. Yes, I could identify some 'sneaky thoughts' (I like that term!) Interestingly, when you ask "Do you think you can be a thought?" I find myself saying "Yes, why not?" And yes, these thoughts can be a big part of what makes me think I'm a person in a head.

Okay good. And would you agree some thoughts feel really like what you feel/think yourself to be and other thoughts less? Can you find a thought or several that feels really much like what you are? Do you think you can be more that thought than a thought of for example a bike? Or would you agree that you aren't actually anything more or less any specific thought than another thought? Ha, "Yes, why not?", okay that hits me as funny. But there can also be moments without thought yes? Are you then dead or gone? Or is a part of you dead or gone or is what you are still present? Do thoughts perceive, think, live life? Please answer all the questions there, just trying to create some cracks there, if it's not enough I'll go a little deeper.

When I get up in the morning, I often say "let's see, is the 'I' still there?" As if I'm hoping it died during the night. And Alas, I always find it's there. And thoughts appear, and I ask myself "can I see thoughts as just floating by, but not connected to a 'Me'? But that's not how it is; I always feel this 'Me' at center. I can only describe it as 'energy', though that doesn't really describe it. A while back I read this from Tony Parsons:
"This sense of separation is not just an idea, a thought or a belief. It is a contracted energy embodied in the whole organism which influences every experience." When I read that I immediately said "YES! That's EXACTLY how it is!" It's not a thought, and when I try to describe it I can only use thoughts, which don't capture it. Energy at my Center. That's what I feel. That's how I can describe it without thoughts.

The I can't die during the night, because it's not ever been there to begin with. There can however be a falling away from identifying with certain thoughts, which can result in a loosening of the identity and therefore loosen the contraction. Yes, that contraction that Tony talked about and you noticed is what I meant. Usually, I often ask questions, but I'm going to explain things from my perspective a bit more than usual in our talk. So what is this contraction? Tony uses the term energy, but I'll use another word to make it less abstract. Can you get a sense, or imagine or whatever works for you, that your experience is one single undivided "thing". Let's use the word space for now. Can you see your whole experience as just one space, and it may not be completely true, but true enough for now, that you are that space. Right now, this space, this open transparent field, is you. All you, nothing but you there/here. No body, no objects, just this open transparent space appearing as that. No in or outside. But by misidentification this open space contracts, and this contraction is what you're experiencing now. This contraction creates or perhaps rather IS the sense of I/personhood/self. Does this resonate somewhat?

OK, I've sunk into my sense of 'I' and I agree that the sense of self can be described as an 'experience'. But it's ALSO this energetic center. So, I wouldn't say that experience is causing, or forming, or perceiving other parts of an experience, or performing actions, but that energetic center can. I can't get to seeing that center as only a 'thought'.

No, I wouldn't suggest the sense of center is just a thought either. Yes, it could be called as energetic center and we can also label is as experience. We could describe what's happening here with more labels, but of course, they are just labels. It's not 2 things though, it's not experience AND an energetic center, it's the same thing, but just labeled differently. Would you agree? I would say that when you use the term experience, you see it more zoomed out, like a screen of a television, and by calling it an energetic center you're buying more into the content of what you experience, like buying into the content of a movie. You get what I mean? So on the one hand you say experience can't do that, but an energetic center can, so which is it? Can you really LOOK at that experience and actually check if you can see it doing anything? Not thinking, but actually looking at it and see if you can find it doing something like perceiving or performing actions. OR could it be that it is not doing or perceiving, but that rather all experience is on the same foot so to speak. Don't respond to that by using your thinking, but please try to see what of the 2 options seems more descriptive of your experience.

Really actually looking at what's experienced, instead of thinking about what's experienced is a very big part of this whole thing. It's really easy too. Just look at the experience the question is about and then describe the experience as accurately as you can. Really just focusing on describing what's actually experienced instead of using your thinking on how you think things work.

Yes, I would say I can be a particular part of the totality of your experience. Is that sense also perceiving/doing in that dream? No, because it's just a dream. I know that nonduality people would say that waking life is just as much a dream, but I don't see that, though I'd like to.

Okay, here an attempt, perhaps you'll grok some of it.
Take an object to look at, for example a table and now imagine that you're dreaming and dreaming a table that looks just identical to the table you might think you're observing now in "the real world". Now for your imagination put the dream table right next to the "actual table", and imagine that the dream table comes to look exactly like the "real" one, so just as vivid and everything. You may not be able to imagine that completely, but you can just imagine/pretend that they are completely look alike while contemplating these questions: Now, is an actual difference experienced between the two? I'm not asking you to answer from how you think things work, but from just looking at your experience. If no actual difference is experienced, that means the experience is the same. Because what you experience is what the experience is. If they are the same (the idea was to imagine they look the same, so they should be the same), well then it's the same and when it's the same you can't actually say that one is real/reality and the other fantasy/fake/unreal, right? Because that would indicate a difference, which you don't experience. Could it be that these labels as calling one experience dream or fantasy and the other experience as real or the real world, are just thrown unto the experience, while actually experience remains experience no matter what labels are thrown on it? Just a note, the word experience is also just a label, a concept.


All the best,
Floris

[Griselda]

Okay good. And would you agree some thoughts feel really like what you feel/think yourself to be and other thoughts less? Can you find a thought or several that feels really much like what you are? Do you think you can be more that thought than a thought of for example a bike? Or would you agree that you aren't actually anything more or less any specific thought than another thought? Ha, "Yes, why not?", okay that hits me as funny. But there can also be moments without thought yes? Are you then dead or gone? Or is a part of you dead or gone or is what you are still present? Do thoughts perceive, think, live life? Please answer all the questions there, just trying to create some cracks there, if it's not enough I'll go a little deeper.

You really make me wonder how to define "thought". The sense of I seems to me to be a feeling, like cold or hot. So I can't find a 'thought' as I would define it, that is who I really am. When there are moments without thought I still 'feel' myself to be present. So no, thoughts do not perceive, think, or live life.

Can you see your whole experience as just one space, and it may not be completely true, but true enough for now, that you are that space. Right now, this space, this open transparent field, is you. All you, nothing but you there/here. No body, no objects, just this open transparent space appearing as that. No in or outside. But by misidentification this open space contracts, and this contraction is what you're experiencing now. This contraction creates or perhaps rather IS the sense of I/personhood/self. Does this resonate somewhat?

I guess so. A little.

Can you really LOOK at that experience and actually check if you can see it doing anything? Not thinking, but actually looking at it and see if you can find it doing something like perceiving or performing actions. OR could it be that it is not doing or perceiving, but that rather all experience is on the same foot so to speak. Don't respond to that by using your thinking, but please try to see what of the 2 options seems more descriptive of your experience.

It's the second option: all experience is on the same foot.

Could it be that these labels as calling one experience dream or fantasy and the other experience as real or the real world, are just thrown unto the experience, while actually experience remains experience no matter what labels are thrown on it? Just a note, the word experience is also just a label, a concept.

Yes.

[Florisness]

Hello,

Hmm your responses are a little short, which makes it a bit harder for me to respond to your writings with good questions.

You really make me wonder how to define "thought".

Could it be that there are things as thoughts, is also just a thought? Because by calling something a thought, it's like you separate an experience out of the wholeness of the experience, and making it a separate thing, with its own thingness. While perhaps, all experience is perhaps rather just the same thing/stuff? Does that resonate somewhat?

The sense of I seems to me to be a feeling, like cold or hot. So I can't find a 'thought' as I would define it, that is who I really am. When there are moments without thought I still 'feel' myself to be present. So no, thoughts do not perceive, think, or live life.

Yes, and can you tell me more about that sense of I. Maybe it's felt at one specific location, or maybe at more? Where? Maybe there are different places in the body where feelings of 'meness' are. Like a sort of meness feelings in the body? Frankly, I'm talking more from a vague memory right now, not sure if there really can be these meness feelings in the body. Can you please look at that sense if I, that feeling and check if you can find it to do observing, live, think, act, etc? Or maybe this feeling/sense is also just on the same foot with all other experiences?

Can you find anything at all, that you can actually FIND observing, thinking, doing, feeling? I mean that literally, if you can find an experience that you can observe doing all these things? I think maybe the thought 'but I am doing these things!' comes up, but that would be just a thought appearing, and that thought itself isn't doing/thinking/etc. Does experience itself suggest/say/indicate that there is such a thing, or could it be that those are just beliefs/assumptions? using different words: maybe there is an idea that 'I'm doing these things', but can such a thing/experience actually be found doing all these things?
Just saying the following to try to create a bit more openness: Can it really be known, that there is indeed a thing that can be labeled as a person/separate self/etc. that is observing/feeling/thinking/living/separate from life? Or could it be, that that is just not how things really are working/happening?

It's the second option: all experience is on the same foot.

Okay, good. And so when a part of the bodyappearance is seen, this experience is then really just on the same foot as all other experiences, not more unique/with a different function/standing out in any way?

Floris

[Griselda]

Could it be that there are things as thoughts, is also just a thought? Because by calling something a thought, it's like you separate an experience out of the wholeness of the experience, and making it a separate thing, with its own thingness. While perhaps, all experience is perhaps rather just the same thing/stuff? Does that resonate somewhat?

What you say sounds grand and mystical and wonderful. I want it to be true. It sounds like it ought to be true. But in actual experience, a thought for me seems separate from experience, and it's not something that I did.

Yes, and can you tell me more about that sense of I. Maybe it's felt at one specific location, or maybe at more? Where? Maybe there are different places in the body where feelings of 'meness' are. Like a sort of meness feelings in the body? Frankly, I'm talking more from a vague memory right now, not sure if there really can be these meness feelings in the body. Can you please look at that sense if I, that feeling and check if you can find it to do observing, live, think, act, etc? Or maybe this feeling/sense is also just on the same foot with all other experiences?

Can you find anything at all, that you can actually FIND observing, thinking, doing, feeling? I mean that literally, if you can find an experience that you can observe doing all these things? I think maybe the thought 'but I am doing these things!' comes up, but that would be just a thought appearing, and that thought itself isn't doing/thinking/etc. Does experience itself suggest/say/indicate that there is such a thing, or could it be that those are just beliefs/assumptions? using different words: maybe there is an idea that 'I'm doing these things', but can such a thing/experience actually be found doing all these things?
Just saying the following to try to create a bit more openness: Can it really be known, that there is indeed a thing that can be labeled as a person/separate self/etc. that is observing/feeling/thinking/living/separate from life? Or could it be, that that is just not how things really are working/happening?

The I is located in the center of my head. Or maybe it's not, but that's what I FEEL, and that feeling is all I have to describe it. Can I find it to do observing, live, think, act? Yes. Can I 'Find' it doing all those things you mention? I don't FIND it, I FEEL it. If you ask "Can it really be known that there is indeed a thing that can be labeled as a person that is observing, feeling, etc' all I can say is that is how it feels.

Okay, good. And so when a part of the bodyappearance is seen, this experience is then really just on the same foot as all other experiences, not more unique/with a different function/standing out in any way?

No, that does not resonate with me. The sense that I am a self, separate from everything else IS unique, and with a different function. It's not just a thought. It may be ALSO thought, but it's an energetic contraction that is different from other experiences.

[Florisness]

What you say sounds grand and mystical and wonderful. I want it to be true. It sounds like it ought to be true. But in actual experience, a thought for me seems separate from experience, and it's not something that I did.

Is a thought not experienced/observed/known? That's what we mean with experience, that which we experience, right? To me you are saying 'the experience which I'm calling thought, is separate from experience.' That's to me like looking at a movie and looking at an object in the movie and saying 'but in actual experience, the car driving through the landscape for me seems separate from the movie'. Definitely if you look at the experience of seeing and hearing, a thought is unique in that way, but also a feeling is different from seeing and hearing and thought. The car in the movie may look different than the surroundings of the car, but you still say it's part of a whole (the movie). Do you think it can be true that all you experience is one whole, and that you just think things are separate, but really aren't? If a thought wasn't part of your experience, you wouldn't experience it. What are your thoughts on this?

The I is located in the center of my head. Or maybe it's not, but that's what I FEEL, and that feeling is all I have to describe it. Can I find it to do observing, live, think, act? Yes. Can I 'Find' it doing all those things you mention? I don't FIND it, I FEEL it. If you ask "Can it really be known that there is indeed a thing that can be labeled as a person that is observing, feeling, etc' all I can say is that is how it feels.

Okay, you keep saying 'but it FEELS like X'. I know you are feeling, but I'm not asking you about what you already feel, but to examine your experience and see if what you think, matches up with the only thing you actually really know (your direct experience) and then perhaps try to think again, taken now into consideration your findings. Because what you feel can just be the result of what you believe. If someone was told over and over when he was young he/she was worthless, he may really have gotten the deep impression that he is worthless and now feels that. Now you try to get him to examine that, question that belief in being worthless. Maybe you ask him if he can actually find anything in his experience that he could call worthless: is a sensation worthless, a feeling worthless, the perception of the body worthless, is a thought worthless, anything worthless found? But he keeps saying 'but that's how it feels', all the while nothing that can actually be called/labeled worthless is actually experienced. If you change your thought about something, you may then change how you feel about something.

I can't do much if you keep referring to how something feels to you, because I would say why you feel that way is because you think that way. You feel you are (a person) observing and such because you think like that. Would you agree that you think you are (a person) observing, feeling, etc? This is just a guess, but maybe you are keep going back to how you feel, because this way you can go back to something that feels familiar and safe to you. You don't have to question something and have the experience the thought of confusion and unease of not knowing the answer, instead, you can refer to how it feels, which feels safe. Is that what's happening?

You say the I is located in the center of your head. You are therefore referring to something you are experiencing, agreed? Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell me that 'the I is located in the center of the head', because you're describing your experience. I understand there may be something which you could call 'a contraction', but that's an experience, and you can put your attention on it and look at/observe/notice that contraction. With looking I just mean putting you attention on there. There is a some sense of contraction here too. So let me do the exercise and than you may try to replicate that and see if you agree: is the sense of center doing or observing, okay so let's check. Attention goes towards that contraction and there's a curiosity/question 'is this center observing something?', well.. can't say so.. A thought can come up of a observing head, and there may be some identification with that thought, but that's just a thought. Maybe there even comes up with that thought a certain feeling, but that's just a feeling. Can't really see it happening that this contraction is experiencing life, being aware of anything. There might be the thought, maybe I even really think that this is happening (I don't), but can't really see something that suggests this is actually happening.
Now, does that seem similar to your experience? Please give me your thoughts (not your feelings, nor your thoughts based on your feelings because those feelings are actually based on your thoughts) about that if you wish. You don't have to be right, or give the right answer, just whatever thoughts pop up are fine.

I hope this doesn't cause a stress to you. If any confusion still there, don't mind telling me.

Wishing you well,
Floris

Wishing you well

[Griselda]

Hi Floris,

First, let me thank you again for being so patient! It's really amazing that you put up with me. I really want to 'get' this, but feel I'm too stupid.

Do you think it can be true that all you experience is one whole, and that you just think things are separate, but really aren't? If a thought wasn't part of your experience, you wouldn't experience it. What are your thoughts on this?

I try and try and try to see that all experience is one whole, because people I love and respect, like LU guides, like the Buddha and Ramana Maharshi, say it is. And they are much more inspiring that anyone who claims things are separate. But dammit, in my experience things are felt as separate.
Yes, if a thought wasn't part of my experience, I wouldn't experience it. Agreed.

Because what you feel can just be the result of what you believe.

I think this is where we disagree. If my feeling of being 'I' was a result of what I believe, I would have gotten rid of it long
ago, because it causes nothing but pain. Your example of being worthless doesn't apply for me, because "I am worthless" is clearly an opinion which requires facts to back it up, and, as you said, someone could examine the facts and not find anything that is actually worthless. But the 'I' is not like that. To repeat my earlier quote from Tony Parsons: "This sense of separation is not just an idea, a thought or a belief. It is a contracted energy embodied in the whole organism which influences every experience." If you ask me to investigate, and find out if this energy is actually there, I say yes, it's there. It's not a thought that I can change.

If you change your thought about something, you may then change how you feel about something.

I'd love to change my thought about being a separate 'I'. But I don't know how.

This is just a guess, but maybe you are keep going back to how you feel, because this way you can go back to something that feels familiar and safe to you. You don't have to question something and have the experience the thought of confusion and unease of not knowing the answer, instead, you can refer to how it feels, which feels safe. Is that what's happening?

Feeling I am a Self has nothing to do with safety. It's pain. I have tried many ways to get rid of it, and spent lots of money to get rid of it. I'm not at all afraid of 'confusion and unease of not knowing the answer'.

So let me do the exercise and than you may try to replicate that and see if you agree: is the sense of center doing or observing, okay so let's check. Attention goes towards that contraction and there's a curiosity/question 'is this center observing something?', well.. can't say so.. A thought can come up of a observing head, and there may be some identification with that thought, but that's just a thought. Maybe there even comes up with that thought a certain feeling, but that's just a feeling. Can't really see it happening that this contraction is experiencing life, being aware of anything. There might be the thought, maybe I even really think that this is happening (I don't), but can't really see something that suggests this is actually happening.
Now, does that seem similar to your experience? Please give me your thoughts (not your feelings, nor your thoughts based on your feelings because those feelings are actually based on your thoughts) about that if you wish. You don't have to be right, or give the right answer, just whatever thoughts pop up are fine.

I sat and did this for the last half hour. I take your direction seriously. Like you I don't 'see' something that suggests the contraction is experiencing life, but that's the same as saying the eyes cannot see the eyes. When I see with my eyes I 'know' I'm seeing. I DO sense that the contraction observes, and experiences Life. That's not what I wanted to find. I will keep doing this exercise.

I hope this doesn't cause a stress to you. If any confusion still there, don't mind telling me.

Well, to be honest I suppose it DOES cause stress, but that's what I want! When you go to the doctor you want
the cure for your disease, even if it causes stress.

Thanks again for your patience!

[Florisness]

A good morning from the Netherlands,

First, let me thank you again for being so patient! It's really amazing that you put up with me. I really want to 'get' this, but feel I'm too stupid.

You are very welcome and no worries

I try and try and try to see that all experience is one whole, because people I love and respect, like LU guides, like the Buddha and Ramana Maharshi, say it is. And they are much more inspiring that anyone who claims things are separate. But dammit, in my experience things are felt as separate.
Yes, if a thought wasn't part of my experience, I wouldn't experience it. Agreed.

Well, you do seem to have a bit of a harder time with sticking with your experience, so let me try it a bit more intellectual approach for just this moment. I just thought of writing something, but I thought if I already didn't write it. Little scrolling back and it seems that I did, but you didn't reply to it. So I copied-pasted it:

This is an intellectual approach, and I only mention this to make it easier to come to grips with something. I don’t believe the story myself is very truthish, but since you might, it might be useful. Science would say that what your seeing is light reflected from an object, traveling through your eyes, processed by the brain. Yes? So.. according to that, is what you’re seeing and hearing outside or inside you? If what you're seeing is that brainprocessed image, then it can't be otherwise, yes? Also is what you’re seeing then objects or something else (mindstuff)?

So perhaps then you can appreciate that even though your whole experience may shape/form/appear in such a way to appear as separated, it actually isn't. Okay, taking this a bit further. So if you're looking at an object 'far away', you might then think that 'actually that is within me', and if that perception is within you, is there any possible way that you can be the experience of the body there? Because that perception is not happening within the bodyappearance, because that perception is also just within you. Right? Okay, would love to see your thoughts on all this.

I think this is where we disagree. If my feeling of being 'I' was a result of what I believe, I would have gotten rid of it long
ago, because it causes nothing but pain. Your example of being worthless doesn't apply for me, because "I am worthless" is clearly an opinion which requires facts to back it up, and, as you said, someone could examine the facts and not find anything that is actually worthless. But the 'I' is not like that. To repeat my earlier quote from Tony Parsons: "This sense of separation is not just an idea, a thought or a belief. It is a contracted energy embodied in the whole organism which influences every experience." If you ask me to investigate, and find out if this energy is actually there, I say yes, it's there. It's not a thought that I can change.

I disagree with you there, and still agree with Tony Parsons. If you think nasty thoughts of someone, you'll feel nasty feelings, yes? If you think nice thoughts of someone, you'll feel nice feelings towards someone, yes? If you think/focus on all that you're doing 'wrong' all day, you'll feel worse at the end of the day, yes? If someone throws a rope at you, but you think it's a snake, you'll freak out bigtime. But as soon as you see it's a rope, you relax. Now those freaking out feelings were caused by your thought of it being a snake, yes? And yes, if your whole life went like that, your whole experience would become more contracted, there would come a more 'heavily contracted energy that influences every experience', but that would be caused by your thoughts of danger that you would have constantly. You say 'I couldn't change that energy, it's actually there', well I agree the energy is there, but in the case of the snake it's also there, and you could therefore change that energy by choosing different thoughts or by just knowing it's not a snake, yes?

Feeling I am a Self has nothing to do with safety. It's pain. I have tried many ways to get rid of it, and spent lots of money to get rid of it. I'm not at all afraid of 'confusion and unease of not knowing the answer'.

Okay

I sat and did this for the last half hour. I take your direction seriously. Like you I don't 'see' something that suggests the contraction is experiencing life

Okay, happy to see that you see came to this.

but that's the same as saying the eyes cannot see the eyes. When I see with my eyes I 'know' I'm seeing. I DO sense that the contraction observes, and experiences Life. That's not what I wanted to find. I will keep doing this exercise.

The eyes don't see the eyes or anything. Yes, take the eyes away and there's no seeing, but that doesn't mean the eyes are doing the experience you call seeing. In your experience right now, (the colorfield we could call) seeing is just there.. 'floating in space' so to speak, with no observer that is separate from it. It would be better to say that the body is bringing sense perceptions into space/you, but that statement is further into storyland than is necessary.

I DO sense that the contraction observes, and experiences Life

It may seem like nitpicking, but to me it appears an important distinction can be made here. What you're doing for me is similar as the following. Let's say someone told you you're santa claus, and then you just had an accident. You lost all your memories but one, the one being told you were santa claus. Now you felt a little lost and disoriented and so you clung hard to the only thing you 'knew', thus you really clung to this idea of being santa claus. Now you lived a bunch of years with that thought of being santa claus, creating all sort of images, perhaps even false memories, to fill in a gap of being disoriented. This would create a feeling, not only a feeling, but you could say in the words of Tony you like, it would create a certain contracted energy. Now if someone asked you 'who are you?', you could say 'I'm santa claus'. The other says 'umm.. are you sure? Can you check in your experience if this is true? maybe look in the mirror?' and you say 'well when I look in the mirror I admit I can't really say that that IS santa claus, but it really feels like it. I really sense I am santa claus'. You see the relation to that story and what you're saying? Would you agree that in that case you wouln't really sense you are santa claus, because that would mean you really ARE santa claus, and are somehow able to sense that. Rather you just really have been thinking really hard you were santa claus, and over time this created not only the thoughts, but also the feelings and energy of being santa.

Thought I would add an exercise, but a lot of writing here already, so I leave it for another time.

Wishing you well,
Floris

[Griselda]

So if you're looking at an object 'far away', you might then think that 'actually that is within me', and if that perception is within you, is there any possible way that you can be the experience of the body there? Because that perception is not happening within the bodyappearance, because that perception is also just within you. Right? Okay, would love to see your thoughts on all this.

I think it's entirely possible I can be the experience of the body there. The perception of the far away object is within me, and the experience of the Self is also within me. Where's the conflict? If we were to get down to the neurological level, and if we had fine enough instruments, we could say that THIS is the electrical circuit processing the sight of the far away object, and THAT is the circuit indicating the sense of self. They can both be me.

I disagree with you there, and still agree with Tony Parsons. If you think nasty thoughts of someone, you'll feel nasty feelings, yes? If you think nice thoughts of someone, you'll feel nice feelings towards someone, yes? If you think/focus on all that you're doing 'wrong' all day, you'll feel worse at the end of the day, yes? If someone throws a rope at you, but you think it's a snake, you'll freak out bigtime. But as soon as you see it's a rope, you relax. Now those freaking out feelings were caused by your thought of it being a snake, yes? And yes, if your whole life went like that, your whole experience would become more contracted, there would come a more 'heavily contracted energy that influences every experience', but that would be caused by your thoughts of danger that you would have constantly. You say 'I couldn't change that energy, it's actually there', well I agree the energy is there, but in the case of the snake it's also there, and you could therefore change that energy by choosing different thoughts or by just knowing it's not a snake, yes?

I agree with you in THEORY, but I disagree in PRACTICE. Certainly every book written from a Nondual perspective, and every teacher going back to ancient India and China would agree with what you wrote. What SHOULD be true is that a person looks at what is considered to be the Self, sees it's not there, and from then on never believes in the Self, just as they don't believe in Santa Claus. Now both Tony Parsons and many others say that when the baby is first born, there's no sense of self, but somewhere around two years of age the 'Self' appears. Then it's reinforced by parents, schools, society, and all other humans who think they are 'Selves'. But in my case I've been a searcher for 30 years, have been in zen monasteries, Vipassana retreats, had LU guides, and studied all the teachers. So if you say "you could therefore change that energy by choosing different thoughts", well, I've surrounded myself with different thoughts for 30 years. My 'tribe' consists of people who see there is no self. I used to visit them in person; nowadays I watch their Youtube videos. So thoughts of 'No Self' have had a much longer run in my case, perhaps 3 times as long, as the thoughts that indicate there is a Self. Why haven't these thoughts had the desired effect? That's why I find myself forced into the conclusion that 'Energy' of the contracted self is not created by thought. I can't prove it's not; I just can't find these thoughts.

It may seem like nitpicking, but to me it appears an important distinction can be made here. What you're doing for me is similar as the following. Let's say someone told you you're santa claus, and then you just had an accident. You lost all your memories but one, the one being told you were santa claus. Now you felt a little lost and disoriented and so you clung hard to the only thing you 'knew', thus you really clung to this idea of being santa claus. Now you lived a bunch of years with that thought of being santa claus, creating all sort of images, perhaps even false memories, to fill in a gap of being disoriented. This would create a feeling, not only a feeling, but you could say in the words of Tony you like, it would create a certain contracted energy. Now if someone asked you 'who are you?', you could say 'I'm santa claus'. The other says 'umm.. are you sure? Can you check in your experience if this is true? maybe look in the mirror?' and you say 'well when I look in the mirror I admit I can't really say that that IS santa claus, but it really feels like it. I really sense I am santa claus'. You see the relation to that story and what you're saying? Would you agree that in that case you wouln't really sense you are santa claus, because that would mean you really ARE santa claus, and are somehow able to sense that. Rather you just really have been thinking really hard you were santa claus, and over time this created not only the thoughts, but also the feelings and energy of being santa.

LU guides love the Santa Claus analogy! It has always bothered me, because it's always been obvious to me that Santa Claus is a cultural construct, whereas there is no way I can see that my sense of Self is a construct. (I'm not saying it's NOT, just that it doesn't appear so to me). So to answser your question, in your example I agree that I would say "I can't really sense I am Santa Claus, because that would mean I really AM Santa Claus, and am somehow able to sense that."

Further, with the Santa Claus situation, if I had even the slightest belief that I might actually BE Santa Claus, all I would have to do is ask any of 100% of the adults in the world, and they would assure me that there is no such being as Santa Claus. WHEREAS, on the other hand, if I ask everyone in the world if I am a Separate Self, 99% would say yes, because they also think that they are separate selves.

In your example, someone hypnotized me and told me I am Santa Claus. Therefore if I do enough research, I will eventually be able to know for certain that I am not Santa Claus. But I don't find this to be true with the self. I can't find thoughts that someone told me that underlie this sense of Self (and I've tried REALLY HARD to find such thoughts!) From all the Nonduality literature I read, I suppose it MUST be so that someone did convince me of that, perhaps when I was 2 years old. So perhaps what 'hard cases' like me need, is a time machine to take us back to infancy, when there was no sense of self. They say that the newborn baby does not see itself as separate; it sees the mother's breast and even its own outstretched hand as part of a unified Whole. That's what I need.