freedom

[Norio]

Yeah, I have tried many times to not just objectify the self, but objectify what seems to be the separate observer of self. Hasn't worked yet.

I'm playing with a previous point you brought up; "Find where YOU ENDS, then, reverse it."

[jeffdilbeck]

Do you think this separate observer of self is true identity?

"Hasn't worked yet"-what is supposed to happen?

Do you like Brussels sprouts?

[Norio]

Do you think this separate observer of self is true identity?

actually it don't

"Hasn't worked yet"-what is supposed to happen?

...idk, seeing?

Do you like Brussels sprouts?

mind is in harmony with the sense signals sent from taste buds to the brain? The body or mind does.

[jeffdilbeck]

"seeing" is one of those words.

Let's lose all terms.

N. Look at this for me and answer:

What could seeing affect in your life?

Please answer in real detail.

Thanks,
Jeff

[Norio]

I don't know what is meant. I can't predict what seeing will do. I guess it is said that there is a subtle improvement of flow, but no drastic change. I understand that I need to let go of attachment to change at all. I guess I also need to learn to simply self-observe all the time. Like watch thoughts objectively. I don't necessarily have to see "no self" to do this. Its just a doing. So gotta do it first thing in the morning and maintain the habit for the rest of the day. Its hard to imagine what being in objective observation mode would be like carried out through entire day. Since I've never succeeded in keeping detached all day before. I guess I can try it for the rest of the day and whatever part of tomorrow before I say how it went. Keeping in the detached observer mode seems equivalent with understanding no-self. Some people naturally fall into observer mode when they comprehend no self, but some like me perhaps have to consciously engage in it more before it becomes the natural habitual state.

[jeffdilbeck]

Is self control liberation?

Is creating a separate self to watch the behavior liberation?

What is the new pilot seat where you want to sit?

Where is the place where your consciousness sits when no attention is put on it?

Do you move that consciousness from feet to hands to the past to the future?

What needs to be in charge?

[jeffdilbeck]

Email when you're ready to proceed.

[Norio]

Is self control liberation?

I guess not completely.

Is creating a separate self to watch the behavior liberation?
doesn't sound like it

What is the new pilot seat where you want to sit?
Meh.

Where is the place where your consciousness sits when no attention is put on it?
hm

Do you move that consciousness from feet to hands to the past to the future?


What needs to be in charge?

I don't think I exist.

[Norio]

Hello Liberation Unleashed.

I keep on coming back to this site after long intervals

Looks like Jeff Dilbeck last visited the site 2 months ago... if anyone else wants to assist me, or maybe he will re-visit again soon.
------
I'm still confused about all of this. It is fairly clear that the self-image that a person creates over time does not represent the truth of a person. But I'm still not sure there is no underlying self. Its not clear to me what 'self' refers to. I have read so many philosophies and books that there are a bunch of different lenses or contexts from which I can view questions, and neither one seems ultimate. Reality just seems subjective. On the other hand, I am trying to offset this weakness by directly experiencing reality with as little mental mediation as possible... allowing only the necessary to arise without mentally jumping to different contexts.

Never the less, I think it would be helpful for me to process my "view" of self.
A large factor in the equation is existence. What does it mean for a self to certainly not exist. Certainty seems to imply an objective reality. However, direct experience only reveals subjective consciousness. Yet, taken a step further, direct experience doesn't reveal a division between objective and subjective. There is no "my" experience, nor is there an experience of an "it". So, I don't see an objective world, or a subjective world, which kind of leaves me confused.
-My thoughts, or my paradigm, seem to influence my so called "direct experience". IOW, I'm not sure there is really such a thing as direct experience. There is rather, it seems, experience from a set paradigm without adding additional complexity, at best. I've heard the enlightenment experience as being like a blending of the realm of thought and the realm of perception. Like, thought and physical experience are not absolutely distinct. The distinction is another artificial duality.

Anyway, my mind seems to escape certainty of "there is no self" because it assigns too much meanings to 'self'. Self could mean X, Y, or Z. That type of thing. I don't know how to reduce 'self' to a simple, concrete definition. A meaning which should clearly reveal its non-existence, if such is the case.

I fell in the trap the last time here of trying to impose by basic half-baked understanding of no-self onto the parts of my mind that didn't believe the self to be entirely non-existent.
Now Instead I am examining the question of self with the parts of my mind that aren't convinced.

For some reason it was hard to admit that I wasn't sure if there was or wasn't a self. I pretended somehow to be sure there wasn't a self. Even now its hard to not pretend I know there isn't a self. Maybe I do know deep down, but part of me is still just a little confused, hasn't fully processed the knowledge on all levels.

[Norio]

Thankyou