Path or No Path

[pwsamadhi]

Are you saying the body is a entity? Is the body a separate self?

Yes, that's how we traditionally define human entity or person. It appears to be separate because it seems like each body is autonomous with its own agendas and motives moving about with an environment. But the body is never truly separate from it's environment because it exists in it, comes from it, and depends on it for sustenance.

Like your fish in water example. Although the fish can be taken out of water. In that case, water and fish are separate objects.

What is perceiving the body?

If looking at another body, eye consciousness. If looking at one's body, awareness of each of the sense faculties that make up the body experience.

[Canfora]

Are you saying the body is a entity? Is the body a separate self?
Yes, that's how we traditionally define human entity or person

Isn't a body a body? Why are you saying the body is a human entity or person?

[pwsamadhi]

Isn't a body a body? Why are you saying the body is a human entity or person?

Yes a body is a body, that is more accurate.

en·ti·ty
ˈen(t)ədē/Submit
noun
a thing with distinct and independent existence.
synonyms: being, creature, individual, organism, life form; More

You asked me to define an entity, and I said an entity can be a human. I then gave the characteristics of a human which includes a body with a personality that seems to move autonomously, independent of other humans. Hence, two separate humans moving/acting independently, appearing as separate selves.

[Canfora]

Hence, two separate humans moving/acting independently, appearing as separate selves.

So the body is a separate human? How do you know that? What in the body is a human?

[pwsamadhi]

So the body is a separate human? How do you know that? What in the body is a human?

Well before I answer, what do you consider is a human?

[Canfora]

I think it's a useful concept. Like Equator, for example. It's something that can't be found but can be thought.

[pwsamadhi]

I think it's a useful concept. Like Equator, for example. It's something that can't be found but can be thought.

Good analogy. I see what you mean. "Human", "Entity", all conventional and relative concepts in the world of duality.

I guess there are two ways to perceive reality, one with duality and one without. The one without is an understanding that all things appear in consciousness. A field, underlying substratum. Nothing can ever be separate from that. We're all made of that and sprang forth from that same unifying source. Hence no personal independent self.

Then there's the view of perceiving individual separate objects within that field. The sticky one that most of us deal with. Both are real, except one does not come and go.

Earlier from you:

When you aren't focusing in being aware and present, does that mean something is wrong, something needs to be done?
Are daydreaming, planning, imagining, etc, bad things to do?
You may practice focusing in awareness and the present state, but does that mean that when that practice apparently fails and you go back to old habits - getting distracted or anxious, etc - there is something wrong with you?

No, it's never a problem unless we make it to be. After all, they are transient thoughts that come and go. I guess these are just things we got to deal and live with.

I just read about these stories of people who have no self experiences that really shook them to the core and how they perceived the world after and how it fundamentally changed them. I guess this is as far as my intellectual understanding takes me.

[Canfora]

I guess there are two ways to perceive reality, one with duality and one without. The one without is an understanding that all things appear in consciousness. A field, underlying substratum. Nothing can ever be separate from that. We're all made of that and sprang forth from that same unifying source. Hence no personal independent self.

Then there's the view of perceiving individual separate objects within that field. The sticky one that most of us deal with. Both are real, except one does not come and go.

You have the tendency to get caught in a absolutist view of how you think things are.

I just read about these stories of people who have no self experiences that really shook them to the core and how they perceived the world after and how it fundamentally changed them. I guess this is as far as my intellectual understanding takes me.

If your intellectual understanding was the right tool to do this, wouldn't you already had had what you call a no self experience?

I think what is getting in your way is your tendency to think you understand. How can you understand something if you are unable to realize you are already experiencing it? It's like believing you know how the desert is without going there. And you keep reading stuff about people who did it and wondering why aren't you having a similar experience. How can you have a experience if you keep thinking instead of walking the path?

You aren't afraid apparently, so fear isn't an issue. That's good. But you have all these ideas about what should be happening! They are in the way. And you also have all these apparent certainties that you know how things are. And this intellectual understanding is also in the way. You seem to believe that what you think is accurate. How do you know it is? You may have read somewhere that " all things appear in consciousness. A field, underlying substratum". But is this true? Can you experience this field? Are you sure things are appearing in consciousness? Imagine you are trying to show me this field, this consciousness. Look around you. What can you show me other than a bunch of second hand ideas? Can you see a field? Can you find this consciousness? Does this present experience need any intellectual understanding to be experienced as it is?

[pwsamadhi]

If your intellectual understanding was the right tool to do this, wouldn't you already had had what you call a no self experience?

Yes, that is quite true. Good point, hence it is as far as intellectual understanding goes.

How can you have a experience if you keep thinking instead of walking the path?

I guess I'm doing both. Through actual practice (meditation, retreats, self enquiry, LU dialogue, or just being), as well as reading up on it. But you're right, the intellectual understanding is getting in the way due to my many assumptions, concepts, and ideas.

But you have all these ideas about what should be happening! They are in the way. And you also have all these apparent certainties that you know how things are. And this intellectual understanding is also in the way. You seem to believe that what you think is accurate. How do you know it is?

Thanks for that. I don't know if it's accurate, I don't really know. Trying to experience for myself.

You may have read somewhere that " all things appear in consciousness

This here, I can say from personal direct experience all things appear in what I'm conscious of. To be conscious of something whether thought, emotion, tactile sensation, sound, taste, or smell indicates that is appearing in consciousness. Now whether or not some actual object exists to be conscious of, that I do not know.

A field, underlying substratum". But is this true? Can you experience this field? Are you sure things are appearing in consciousness? Imagine you are trying to show me this field, this consciousness. Look around you. What can you show me other than a bunch of second hand ideas? Can you see a field? Can you find this consciousness? Does this present experience need any intellectual understanding to be experienced as it is?

Yes you got me, "this field or underlying substratum" is something learned. I don't even know if it can be experienced or if what we are experiencing now is already it. I can't experience this field, I can only experience what I'm conscious of from the sense faculties. And no, this present experience doesn't need intellectual understanding. It is directly experienced.

Appreciate you keeping me honest. Learning quite a bit from LU interactions.

[Canfora]

Thank you for your reply.

I can't experience this field, I can only experience what I'm conscious of from the sense faculties. And no, this present experience doesn't need intellectual understanding. It is directly experienced.

Do you experience an I?

[pwsamadhi]

Do you experience an I?

In conventional means, in daily life with how I relate to others, an "I" is experienced. It's traditionally limited to this personal body-mind phenomenon. But it is known that this "I" is a belief or idea attached to this body-mind.

However in deep investigation, this "I" cannot be found outside of thought and feeling. The concept I cannot be experienced via the sense faculties.

[Canfora]

In conventional means, in daily life with how I relate to others, an "I" is experienced.

So you do experience a conventional I? Does that mean there is a real I after all?

[pwsamadhi]

So you do experience a conventional I?

Yes, but only as a conceptual experience. That is the understanding and knowing of a concept. That's how we interact with one another and call each other names. Or use the pronounce "he", "she", "I", "us", "they", "them", etc...

Does that mean there is a real I after all?

No. Like your "Equator" example.

These are ideas, labels, and concepts of the mind use to break reality apart into it's individual integrated components.

[Canfora]

Those are good answers. Would you say you see the illusion? If you do, how would you explain it in simple terms to someone that never heard about it?

[pwsamadhi]

Would you say you see the illusion? If you do, how would you explain it in simple terms to someone that never heard about it?

Yes. I would explain to them that the "I" or self is purely conceptual and based on how we conventionally and collectively define it. But in reality, there are no boundaries, it's really just a frame of reference. When you look for it, it doesn't exist outside of the thought and concept.