Is it possible to see this?

[xyzzy]

The "I" is a THOUGHT! You believe it to be some 'self' and some-thing. Can an "I" believe? want? have? get what it wants?

READ WHAT YOU WROTE!

LETS TRY THAT AGAIN...... FROM A DIFFERENT APPROACH that you can TEST RIGHT NOW....... LOOK AT YOUR THOUGHTS MY FRIEND...... LOOK AND SEE.....

Can a THOUGHT have beliefs, have want, have things that it believes, and get what it wants?

IS IT TRUE? CHECK!

Obviously a thought can't have beliefs or want things or anything else like that.

An I can't believe or want things. I'm not sure about having or getting things, though. My image of me is of some thing that is having this experience, or that this experience is happening to. So if this were true, then an I could experience having or getting things, although I suppose it wouldn't really be having or getting them.

Although when I look at this, I don't even know what it means for an experience to be happening to something. Experience is happening, but what would it mean for it to be happening to something? I'm not sure this even makes any sense.

CHECK what you just wrote, and CHECK your direct Experience. There are THOUGHTS and you are believing them, and as long they are believed, you cannot Awaken. you must realize that THOUGHTS ARE THOUGHTS. THEIR CONTENT IS NOT REAL. You seem addicted to believing in these stories, then you take these STORIES and you report them here? Do you want to tell stories? Here is another example of your amazing story-telling capacity:

When I look at this, it seems very clear that this self doesn't matter. It still seems to exist, though. I will look at why this self doesn't matter.

You already know that there is NO SELF! A "self" is a THOUGHT. "it exists" is a THOUGHT. You cannot look at a "self". All you can do is look at a THOUGHT and see that it is just a THOUGHT, and that it's content is NOT REAL, but that is merely a THOUGHT.

Please SEE this and CHECK if it is TRUE.

I don't see that the content of thoughts is not real, or that there is no self, or that the self is just a thought.

There is an idea I have (which I've mentioned previously in this thread) which says that no thoughts are true, that thoughts operate by analyzing and breaking everything apart into pieces, but that in reality there are no separate pieces. I don't know that this is true, though, it just feels true.

[Empty Mirror]

Although when I look at this, I don't even know what it means for an experience to be happening to something. Experience is happening, but what would it mean for it to be happening to something? I'm not sure this even makes any sense.

It makes a lot of sense. Experience doesn't happen TO anything. Experience just shows up in this.

There is an idea I have (which I've mentioned previously in this thread) which says that no thoughts are true, that thoughts operate by analyzing and breaking everything apart into pieces, but that in reality there are no separate pieces. I don't know that this is true, though, it just feels true.

It's true but that's not what we're looking at right now. We're only looking at this supposed "self" that you've recently noticed "does not matter".

Please go back and re-read the past 8 posts and look carefully at this idea of a 'self'. Is there an 'individual' anywhere except in thought?

And do any thoughts about an individual correlate with direct experiential evidence?

[cosmiK]

Obviously a thought can't have beliefs or want things or anything else like that.

An I can't believe or want things. I'm not sure about having or getting things, though. My image of me is of some thing that is having this experience, or that this experience is happening to. So if this were true, then an I could experience having or getting things, although I suppose it wouldn't really be having or getting them.

Right... it is an image. Can images have things, and want things? and if they can, isn't that also just an image? It seems like you are constantly referring to THOUGHTS, and then making conclusions based on that.

Although when I look at this, I don't even know what it means for an experience to be happening to something. Experience is happening, but what would it mean for it to be happening to something? I'm not sure this even makes any sense.

Check in your Direct Experience. Experiencing is happening, Experience is just happening, including some thoughts about "what would it mean for it to be happening to something".

I don't see that the content of thoughts is not real, or that there is no self, or that the self is just a thought.

There is an idea I have (which I've mentioned previously in this thread) which says that no thoughts are true, that thoughts operate by analyzing and breaking everything apart into pieces, but that in reality there are no separate pieces. I don't know that this is true, though, it just feels true.

If you put a label on a bottle, is the label the bottle?
if you have a thought "carpet", is that thought the carpet?

isn't a thought just a label, that points to other thoughts or sensations. a label on an experience? a thought may be a thought, but is a thought that which it points to?

CHECK this in your Experience!

It seems like you are having these ideas, and then enjoying debating these ideas with us. It must be clear by now that you will never Awaken by thinking about it. In all these posts, there are several contradictions in your reports and many many ideas, lot's of conclusions that you are making. We cannot do this work for you. We can keep pointing you to check your Direct Experience, but it seems like you are more interested in discussing your ideas about what you think or feel is going on. What is actually going on?

this is about investigating your Direct Experience and SEEING clearly.

Is there any separation anywhere? apart from THOUGHT/ideas?
Is there anyone Experiencing? apart from LABELS separating Experience in to "self"+"what the self experiences"?
Is there a 'I, me, myself, self'? apart from an IMAGE about it?

[xyzzy]

Please go back and re-read the past 8 posts and look carefully at this idea of a 'self'. Is there an 'individual' anywhere except in thought?

And do any thoughts about an individual correlate with direct experiential evidence?

There doesn't seem to be an individual anywhere except in thought, and some feelings that are coming from the thoughts being there. It seems that I am just thoughts that are believed to be true. But I'm not sure of this, I don't know how to be sure.

There's no I in direct experience, and the idea that there might be an I outside of experience seems to just be an idea, and not something which needs to be believed. But again, I don't feel certain of this.

And, thoughts about an individual do not match with direct experience, although they may relate to it somewhat. Like, there might be a thought which says "I am irritated", and the irritation is there, but there isn't actually an I in experience which is somehow being irritated.

[cosmiK]

It seems that I am just thoughts that are believed to be true. But I'm not sure of this, I don't know how to be sure.

'seems' means you are guessing. You are taking an Experience, and without really LOOKING DEEPLY, you are making a conclusion, which is an IDEA, and a THOUGHT, then you are posting it here. KEEP CHECKING. You have the tools, we cannot Look for you!

There's no I in direct experience, and the idea that there might be an I outside of experience seems to just be an idea, and not something which needs to be believed. But again, I don't feel certain of this.

The First sentence shows me that you are referring to Direct Experience, and the Second sentence shows me you are automatically making a conclusion, having an IDEA, believing a THOUGHT. You are believing that thought "I don't feel certain of this". Ask whatever THOUGHTS come up... "is it TRUE?".

It seems that you are expecting something to happen. You are waiting for 'certainty'. Who is waiting? What is 'certainty'? Are you waiting for a specific feeling to happen, so that you can finally say, "Yes... I feel sure... now I am Awake."?

And, thoughts about an individual do not match with direct experience, although they may relate to it somewhat. Like, there might be a thought which says "I am irritated", and the irritation is there, but there isn't actually an I in experience which is somehow being irritated.

Instead of labeling 'irritation', drop the label, and just FEEL this, without the label. For a day, stop telling stories such as "I am __________... or I am not ______". Can you?

Good. You are actually referring to Direct Experience, and reporting from that! I can already feel the difference, between this post, and the last. The last was all about your ideas, and very little about your Experience. This post, you are really looking in to your Experience and reporting directly, and not running away in your IDEAS ABOUT IT (not much anyway). You are an avid thinker, that is for sure, but you cannot think your way to certainty about this.

It seems like you are still waiting for something. What are you waiting for? What if you are already seeing this Truth over and over and over, and you are just believing some THOUGHT-BASED-Conclusion about it?
It seems as soon as you actually see the Truth, you are immediately, and almost addictively believing some THOUGHT.
What do you require to change? What is this 'certainty'? that you are waiting for? Why are you doubting your own natural Experiencing? You are projecting yourself constantly away from the Present Moment, constantly away from the Now, and constantly away from Direct Experience.

Keep Checking.

[Empty Mirror]

Please go back and re-read the past 8 posts and look carefully at this idea of a 'self'. Is there an 'individual' anywhere except in thought?

And do any thoughts about an individual correlate with direct experiential evidence?

There doesn't seem to be an individual anywhere except in thought, and some feelings that are coming from the thoughts being there.

Yup, feelings and thoughts often show up at the same time.

It seems that I am just thoughts that are believed to be true.

Considering your first sentence obviously you should have said "It seems that the I is just thoughts believed to be true."

But I'm not sure of this, I don't know how to be sure.

Now hold on a second. Please go back and re-read the first sentence of your reply, and then please tell me what is this "I" that isn't sure of something, and doesn't know how to be sure about it? Please use your first sentence as reference when you answer this.

Can you see that you're saying that something, which CLEARLY only exists in thought, is still being referenced to by thought? That's the self-referencing nature of thought that we're trying to point out to you. Thought is busy referring to ITSELF.

There is no "I" there except for a thought. So thought is saying that a thought needs to be sure about whether a thought can see something clearly. A thought construct can't see anything clearly. That whole idea is just a thought loop. You have to correlate thought with direct experiential evidence in order to see through this self-referencing loop.

Please try to describe this uncertainty from direct experiential evidence.

There's no I in direct experience, and the idea that there might be an I outside of experience seems to just be an idea, and not something which needs to be believed.

What is there that could believe it anyway? Is there an "I" that could believe it? Is there ANYTHING here that could believe something? Beliefs are just more thoughts showing up in 'this'. 'This' has NO beliefs. 'This' just shows up and is aware of itself.

'This' is a lot more simple than you think. Forget about thought and just notice 'this' that you are. This whole conversation is just 'this' pointing 'this' out to itself.

And, thoughts about an individual do not match with direct experience, although they may relate to it somewhat. Like, there might be a thought which says "I am irritated", and the irritation is there, but there isn't actually an I in experience which is somehow being irritated.

The only reason that thoughts relate feelings of irritation to an "I" is because, as you've seen, they refer everything to this self-thought-up centre that they've built.

So if there is irritation showing up in 'this' but there is no "I" that is actually irritated, do you see that irritation doesn't need to belong to anybody? Do you see that irritation can show up in this without any'thing' actually BEING irritated?

And so can happiness, sadness, anger, joy, love, sorrow, smells, tastes, sensations, people, planets, etc, etc.

[xyzzy]

It seems that you are expecting something to happen. You are waiting for 'certainty'. Who is waiting? What is 'certainty'? Are you waiting for a specific feeling to happen, so that you can finally say, "Yes... I feel sure... now I am Awake."?

I don't know anything about being Awake.

As for your other question, I've been told repeatedly on these forums that it's possible to see that there is no self in some way which is different from an intellectual conclusion, and that when I see it I will know that I see it. Are you suggesting that this isn't true?

It seems like you are still waiting for something. What are you waiting for? What if you are already seeing this Truth over and over and over, and you are just believing some THOUGHT-BASED-Conclusion about it?
It seems as soon as you actually see the Truth, you are immediately, and almost addictively believing some THOUGHT.
What do you require to change? What is this 'certainty'? that you are waiting for? Why are you doubting your own natural Experiencing? You are projecting yourself constantly away from the Present Moment, constantly away from the Now, and constantly away from Direct Experience.

Keep Checking.[/quote]

I suppose I'm waiting to see that there is no self. I don't think that I'm already seeing it, I don't see a self, but I don't see that there is no self. If I already saw this, I think I would know that I already saw it.

What about my natural experiencing am I doubting?

[xyzzy]

Now hold on a second. Please go back and re-read the first sentence of your reply, and then please tell me what is this "I" that isn't sure of something, and doesn't know how to be sure about it? Please use your first sentence as reference when you answer this.

Can you see that you're saying that something, which CLEARLY only exists in thought, is still being referenced to by thought? That's the self-referencing nature of thought that we're trying to point out to you. Thought is busy referring to ITSELF.

There is no "I" there except for a thought. So thought is saying that a thought needs to be sure about whether a thought can see something clearly. A thought construct can't see anything clearly. That whole idea is just a thought loop. You have to correlate thought with direct experiential evidence in order to see through this self-referencing loop.

Please try to describe this uncertainty from direct experiential evidence.

Well, instead of saying "I'm not sure of this", I could say "There is uncertainty", which would mean the same thing. I could structure all of my sentences so as not to use the word I, but I don't think that would really be useful.

I think there is no way to describe this uncertainty from direct experience, as the uncertainty is a mental thing. The uncertainty only exists when thinking about this.

What is there that could believe it anyway? Is there an "I" that could believe it? Is there ANYTHING here that could believe something? Beliefs are just more thoughts showing up in 'this'. 'This' has NO beliefs. 'This' just shows up and is aware of itself.

'This' is a lot more simple than you think. Forget about thought and just notice 'this' that you are. This whole conversation is just 'this' pointing 'this' out to itself.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I can forget about thought and just notice this experience. But this doesn't lead to anything or change anything.

So if there is irritation showing up in 'this' but there is no "I" that is actually irritated, do you see that irritation doesn't need to belong to anybody? Do you see that irritation can show up in this without any'thing' actually BEING irritated?

And so can happiness, sadness, anger, joy, love, sorrow, smells, tastes, sensations, people, planets, etc, etc.

Yes, I see that.

[xyzzy]

I screwed up the formatting pretty badly in that last message.

[xyzzy]

If I ask myself "What am I?", I don't really have an answer anymore. The original idea was that I was some thing which had a body, had experiences, did things and thought things and had beliefs and so on. I can see that thoughts and actions are happening on their own, that I'm obviously not controlling beliefs. There isn't any me thing anywhere that I can find, and I'm not even sure what it would mean for experiences to be happening to something. The idea was that whatever was happening was happening to this me, and that everything would effect it. But there's certainly no sign that any me is being affected by anything.

But I still don't "see" that there is no me. It's just a logical conclusion.

[cosmiK]

If I ask myself "What am I?", I don't really have an answer anymore. The original idea was that I was some thing which had a body, had experiences, did things and thought things and had beliefs and so on. I can see that thoughts and actions are happening on their own, that I'm obviously not controlling beliefs. There isn't any me thing anywhere that I can find, and I'm not even sure what it would mean for experiences to be happening to something. The idea was that whatever was happening was happening to this me, and that everything would effect it. But there's certainly no sign that any me is being affected by anything.

Great. There is nothing to find, it was never really there. There was just seamless Experienced conceptualized and divided in to poles such as in/out, self/other, myself/world, i/experience, experiencer/experience.

But I still don't "see" that there is no me. It's just a logical conclusion.

Again, you have just said above you cannot find any me thing, and now you are saying you don't see it. It really seems like you are waiting for something to happen. Maybe there is an expectation that you will see something, or that something will change? Check your Expectations, they are pesky and get in the way till the very end. Drop all of them, all of them.

I think there is no way to describe this uncertainty from direct experience, as the uncertainty is a mental thing. The uncertainty only exists when thinking about this.

Right... you can break down any 'doubt' and 'uncertainty' and see that is is a combo of thought+sensations.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I can forget about thought and just notice this experience. But this doesn't lead to anything or change anything.

This is probably because there are still held (perhaps subtly) Expectations. Check your Expectations. What will change? What will it lead to? Expectations constantly cause movement away from Experience to 'something else'. Check your Expectations and DROP THEM.

I suppose I'm waiting to see that there is no self. I don't think that I'm already seeing it, I don't see a self, but I don't see that there is no self. If I already saw this, I think I would know that I already saw it.

As you have already confirmed, there is no self, and there never has been... just self-referencing and looping thought streams along with various sensations. A seamless Experience that is always conceptualized.

What if you are already seeing it, yet Expecting or Waiting for 'something' to happen?

[xyzzy]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I can forget about thought and just notice this experience. But this doesn't lead to anything or change anything.

This is probably because there are still held (perhaps subtly) Expectations. Check your Expectations. What will change? What will it lead to? Expectations constantly cause movement away from Experience to 'something else'. Check your Expectations and DROP THEM.

My overall expectation in looking at this is that if I saw that there was no self, I would then see that it wasn't necessary to pay attention to this self and worry about it and try to protect it and so on.

As you have already confirmed, there is no self, and there never has been... just self-referencing and looping thought streams along with various sensations. A seamless Experience that is always conceptualized.

What if you are already seeing it, yet Expecting or Waiting for 'something' to happen?

This doesn't seem to be the case. Intellectually, I see that there is no self, but apparently this isn't the same as actually seeing it.

[Empty Mirror]

No questions for you xyzzy, I'm going to let Cosmik have a go at you for a while, but I just want to point out to you how you keep rejecting discoveries.

Here is an interaction between us about a week ago:

My experience doesn't say that I doesn't exist, it just says it doesn't exist as part of this experience.

What's your point?

What EXCEPT FOR THOUGHT says that an "I" exists? And even if there was an "I" outside of direct experience what relevance could it possibly have? If it's not in direct experience then you will NEVER know anything about it, so who cares about some imagined "I" that doesn't show up in direct experiential evidence???

Now that was a good point. I didn't respond to this message for the last few days, because I've been thinking about this. Why should this self matter, when it's some unobservable thing which does nothing and has no effect on anything?

And then here is your reply to Cosmik today:

My overall expectation in looking at this is that if I saw that there was no self, I would then see that it wasn't necessary to pay attention to this self and worry about it and try to protect it and so on.

You're continually flip flopping my friend.

[xyzzy]

No questions for you xyzzy, I'm going to let Cosmik have a go at you for a while, but I just want to point out to you how you keep rejecting discoveries.

Here is an interaction between us about a week ago:

What's your point?

What EXCEPT FOR THOUGHT says that an "I" exists? And even if there was an "I" outside of direct experience what relevance could it possibly have? If it's not in direct experience then you will NEVER know anything about it, so who cares about some imagined "I" that doesn't show up in direct experiential evidence???

Now that was a good point. I didn't respond to this message for the last few days, because I've been thinking about this. Why should this self matter, when it's some unobservable thing which does nothing and has no effect on anything?

And then here is your reply to Cosmik today:

My overall expectation in looking at this is that if I saw that there was no self, I would then see that it wasn't necessary to pay attention to this self and worry about it and try to protect it and so on.

You're continually flip flopping my friend.

When I was a teenager, I had a realization one day, out of nowhere. I saw that "nothing matters". That is, nothing is wrong, nothing should be any different than it is, everything is ok as it is. There's no question about the fact that this is true, it is not possible for anything to be wrong, or for any situation to exist where something should be different than it is.

However, this has never affected my life in any way, as far as I can tell. It's a piece of information which sits on some shelf in my mind, only occasionally noticed (such as right now), and not changing the way I experience life or feel or anything else. I know it to be true, but don't feel it, so this knowledge is of little use.

As I've been looking to try to see this no self thing for the past several months, there have been a number of realizations that I've had, such as the one that you mentioned. In the beginning they seem important, but the emotional impact quickly fades away and they end up sitting on a shelf in my mind, not changing anything.

This isn't me flip flopping, this is me honestly expressing what is going on, while trying not to look at things and communicate from just an intellectual perspective. I still see that the self doesn't matter, but this is in direct contradiction to the extremely strong belief that the self does matter. I see that the self can't exist because no objects exist, I see that the self doesn't matter, I see that nothing matters and so of course the self doesn't matter, but none of this changes my experience, none of this changes the way I feel. Probably most of this isn't "seeing" but instead is just intellectual understanding, I don't really know the difference most of the time.

The one thing I don't see is that there is no self (although intellectually I agree that there isn't one). Probably if I saw that, it would change things.

[cosmiK]

xyzzy,

Thanks for sharing that. I appreciate your honesty and your best attempts to report from what truly feels right for you.

Let us shift a little here.

I'm feeling something here... call it intuition... or call it eating too much Korean BBQ and the heartburn from it... but I wanted to ask you.

What is your motivation behind seeing this? What do you really want?

Hope you are having a good weekend.