Happy 2013! Would be deeply grateful for a guide!

[Critterfan]

Hi,

consciousness and experiencing, they only point to that which IS, here and now. it is just to point to the undividedness. in that sense consciousness is not some container for everything, or whatever everything else is IN, but consciousness IS whatever shows up. thought = consciousness, senses = consciousness, feeling = consciousness. Consciousness is it all. Just a meta-label. It isn't some separate container or thing that houses everything else... it IS everything.

Your statement asserts that consciousness is not some "separate container" for everything but IS everything that shows up. It triggered a brief, gentle, flowing sense of unity, the "undividedness" as you put it. The stream of elements/consciousness is a continuum.

In the stream of elements, it appears that I (and perhaps most people) "identify" most directly with (1) thinking (which seems to be more controllable than external events), (2) feeling/emotion (which defines my overall reactivity), and (3) the sense of aliveness (which is pervasive and for the most part, constant). If, like most people, I am only partially attending to direct experience, these three sets of elements seem to originate internally, while sight, sound, smell, and taste seem to converge on me from an external world, organized in space to the rhythm of time. But everything in that stream is mutually interactive.

When I focus and can recognize that "internal" and "external" are just labels, that all the elements form a continuum, I do get a hint of the undividedness. All of it is information, no more, no less. What seems to fool <me> (that is, this dynamic fragment of active information/code that runs programs to aggressively label, sort, or claim most other information) is that I have been conditioned to believe that "thinking" is the real consciousness --cogito ergo sum. The "I/ME" that is processing that information is therefore somehow prior or senior to it. It's not just a philosophical belief, because it really feels that way. But it's all just information, including the information that "it really feels that way."

there is no separate seer/seen... seer/seen are just two concepts that point to One reality. only thought would divide that. that is why we use direct experience...
when you refer to direct experience... do you find any separation at all? whatsoever?

Now when I confront/contemplate/dwell in direct experience, while I can detect differentiation, contrast, distinctiveness, nevertheless I feel closer to the awareness that these are contained within a constant unity. That is, I feel closer to that constant unity. But I must resist the tendency to identify with that constant unity. That "unity" is more evident if I can simply abide within the "presence/aliveness" element, rather than divisive thinking or feeling, which seem to be more about picking and choosing. It can be more easily distracted by particular sights, sounds, smells, which for reasons of survival or reproduction can be alarming or disturbing or alluring or otherwise demanding. The sense of aliveness is most noticeable as a direct experience when the other 6 elements are in the background, and not very stimulating.

But I must also question "presence/aliveness" and not let that particular stream coronate itself as The Vessel, the Holy Grail for the illusory self concept, which would remove it from direct Experience and embed/deify it into one of the meditation fallacies -- e.g., ultimate Centredness, my "Authentic Self", the Presence, etc.

consciousness doesn't need anything separate to be aware of it.

That's the key. It's like I have been conditioned to seek that separate "point of view" in order to command consciousness, to master consciousness (from "above," as it were), rather than just be BE conscious. The content of consciousness defines it, as you say, it's whatever shows up, including the content of mental efforts to purify, isolate, reify consciousness, which are just stories, sensations, mental formations. Hmmm.

Isn't "what cannot be experienced" ONLY a thought?
There is nothing hidden from you.. it's in plain sight. ONLY thought adds all kinds of extras over what-is-here-now.
Can you find an "I/me" that is creating experience?

Thought seems to be the culprit. It complicates plain sight and masquerades as the "I/me," justifies the sense of separate identity, and uses feeling to reinforce the determination to cling to the self. If I quiet the thinking and settle into presence only, it still tries to trick me by whispering yeah! that's it, Presence, that's the "I", the "I/presence" is the Tao. Conceptualization once again rears its head -- but the Tao, according to Lao Tsu, cannot be conceptualized. It's not the present, because it is also the past and the future, one might say.

in direct experience. Is there a self? What are you?

Sometimes I feel like a poor swimmer who feels compelled to thrash around conceptually, when I can actually float safely in direct experience by just being here. But how do I keep simply "being here" from morphing into the deception of "self identity" in the guise of heightened "aliveness/presence?" (Like an experience one purchases at a luxurious spa).

There is also a temptation/tendency to seek something "outside" of direct Experience -- like believing in an invisible/intangible/omnipotent Force that creates and protects "me." That is just as illusory as a child's belief in a patriarchal God engendering an Immortal Soul, which I obviously don't accept.

I don't mean for these to sound like abstractions; I am referring to the components of the 7 streams of direct Experience and how they arrange and rearrange themselves in the story.

Consciousness is it all. Just a meta-label. It isn't some separate container or thing that houses everything else... it IS everything.

I'll keep focusing on that -- and on the realization that there is no separate "I" being conscious. I will try to address all your challenges in turn. However, because I am temperamentally so wordy and compulsively precise ;), any direction you want to take to simplify this dialogue would be fine. I'm not THERE yet (or maybe I should say I am not HERE yet), but this process has defused so many issues and dilemmas that, without meaning to sound overconfident or complacent, the way forward seems promising indeed.

Love

[cosmiK]

Hey,

that which no-self points to is consciousness, Life, alive-emptiness (whatever word is fine). there is no division there, no self there, no things there. just this.

If, like most people, I am only partially attending to direct experience, these three sets of elements seem to originate internally, while sight, sound, smell, and taste seem to converge on me from an external world, organized in space to the rhythm of time. But everything in that stream is mutually interactive.

there are no separate elements or things in consciousness. It's very important to see that 'things', 'parts' or 'separation' ONLY exist in thought. That's it. The entire house of cards, the self, others, things, places, the world... all exist in thought. When that is dropped there is just this. Simpler than simplicity.

We only divide experience in to streams to skilfully break down assumptions but even the 6 streams / 3 aspects that we've been using is PURELY in thought. See if you can find ANY separation apart from thought?

and there is no "internal" and "external" there is just consciousness. notice how thought creates this imaginary boundary, and stitches certain elements together to be self (internal), and others to be external. Investigate this. Just take a breath and notice. In all that appears, in consciousness... is there really an "in" and an "out". Are some (thought created) parts self, and some not? Look like a little baby. IGNORE any thought answers to this and just LOOK.

What seems to fool <me> (that is, this dynamic fragment of active information/code that runs programs to aggressively label, sort, or claim most other information) is that I have been conditioned to believe that "thinking" is the real consciousness --cogito ergo sum. The "I/ME" that is processing that information is therefore somehow prior or senior to it. It's not just a philosophical belief, because it really feels that way. But it's all just information, including the information that "it really feels that way."

All of this is part of the story, the realm of thought.

The I/ME doesn't process information, because the "I" me ONLY exists in thought/as thought.

The first person character (aka you) has ZERO awareness. He has never done anything, and isn't doing anything now. That character has much awareness as a rock, or a chair or table does. Just another apparent appearance.

Now when I confront/contemplate/dwell in direct experience,

There is no one there that can confront, contemplate or dwell in direct experience... there is ONLY direct experience. dE is simply an invitation to your absence. Do you see that there is no one to see?

That "unity" is more evident if I can simply abide within the "presence/aliveness" [/quote
Nope... "you"/the person doesn't exist apart from thought... there is no "you" that can abide within any such thing.

The sense of aliveness is most noticeable as a direct experience when the other 6 elements are in the background, and not very stimulating.

The sense of aliveness is not some thing or experience that can be noticed... it IS the noticing, it IS that which exists... ONLY that - no one or no thing else . Do you notice that no matter what... you are always aware? always present? and I am not speaking to the person here... the person isn't aware of anything, and never has been. The person is at best a hallucination.

That's the key. It's like I have been conditioned to seek that separate "point of view" in order to command consciousness, to master consciousness (from "above," as it were), rather than just be BE conscious. The content of consciousness defines it, as you say, it's whatever shows up, including the content of mental efforts to purify, isolate, reify consciousness, which are just stories, sensations, mental formations. Hmmm.

EXACTLY!

that which is aware of this sentence is already awake, already clear, always perfectly there.

there appears to be some silly person trying to master consciousness ... :) ... but that person exists PURELY in thought...

why would consciousness need to master consciousness?

the focus here is on the underlying illusory assumption that there is a self there that could ever do, master, get anything.

Thought seems to be the culprit. It complicates plain sight and masquerades as the "I/me," justifies the sense of separate identity, and uses feeling to reinforce the determination to cling to the self. If I quiet the thinking and settle into presence only, it still tries to trick me by whispering yeah! that's it, Presence, that's the "I", the "I/presence" is the Tao. Conceptualization once again rears its head -- but the Tao, according to Lao Tsu, cannot be conceptualized. It's not the present, because it is also the past and the future, one might say.

WHO/WHAT can quiet thinking? WHO/WHAT can be tricked?

But how do I keep simply "being here" from morphing into the deception of "self identity" in the guise of heightened "aliveness/presence?" (Like an experience one purchases at a luxurious spa).

You are still under the assumption you are a person... There is noone there that can do anything, just the appearance of a first person and thoughts that speak about such things. There is no one there that can be deceived. All of this is part of the dance, and there is no self in any of it.

--

close your eyes, and ask "what in experience is "me"?"
just gently notice whatever pops up.
Is any of that self/I? Can anything that shows up be self?
Is anything that shows up less or more personal? (if so... where is the person besides in thought?)

-

with Love.

[cosmiK]

woops - sorry for the formatting issues in my last post- hopefully it will be clear <3

[Critterfan]

Hi,

The first person character (aka you) has ZERO awareness. He has never done anything, and isn't doing anything now. That character has much awareness as a rock, or a chair or table does. Just another apparent appearance.

This statement has an impact and the "simplicity" shows itself briefly. The self is an eddy in the whirlpool. The center of any whirlpool is empty. Considerable equanimity is experienced. Yet there is a sense of continuing "motion."

There is no one there that can confront, contemplate or dwell in direct experience... there is ONLY direct experience. dE is simply an invitation to your absence. Do you see that there is no one to see?

Who is it that sees that there is no one to see? Yes it seems contradictory until it's clear that "seeing there is no one to see" is nothing more than an episode in a story, a thought thread.

Do you notice that no matter what... you are always aware? always present? and I am not speaking to the person here... the person isn't aware of anything, and never has been. The person is at best a hallucination.

Yes, just another "apparent hallucination," a hallucination that has hallucinations of its own, hallucinations within hallucinations. The whirlpool again.

why would consciousness need to master consciousness?

There is a character in this story that seeks to control existence and particularly the knowledge of existence.

WHO/WHAT can quiet thinking? WHO/WHAT can be tricked?

Thinking only quiets, or slows down, when it gives up trying.

close your eyes, and ask "what in experience is "me"?" just gently notice whatever pops up. Is any of that self/I? Can anything that shows up be self? Is anything that shows up less or more personal? (if so... where is the person besides in thought?)

One thought succeeds the next so quickly that the gaps of emptiness are obscured. But they are not only always there, the succession of thoughts are emptiness as well. They whirl around center-less-ness.

Question (1): if the gate is really gateless and not a dramatic threshold, is it possible that I am already crossing it (since I do understand and often directly glimpse the factors being addressed in this dialogue)? I've begun giving up the idea of earth-shaking revelations and expect "nothing special." Doubts remain and the structure of self is less tangible, but to be totally honest, self is not yet completely removed. Will it ever be? It does seem on the verge of fading. I wonder if the self-emptying process continues on its own, with doubts, remnant illusions, story-making, etc., gradually dissolving. But I don't want to miss out on essential insights by declaring a premature conclusion. I feel different from what I was when we began this, but I can't say that I feel fundamentally, radically different. Can you see what I am trying to figure out? Will there ever be anything at all fundamental or radical about this? It would seem that it would be....

Question (2): This is to clarify an element in the "contract." When I first began looking through LU's site, I found the "enlightening quotes" posters to be quite effective. I've occasionally peeked at them but wonder if that is not OK at this time. I can remember also learning a lot from reading other one-on-one dialogues that culminated in liberation, particularly in the online Gatecrashers book. These are what motivated me to seek you as a guide. Should I refrain from studying the posters or reading other sections in the LU forum? I will continue to restrict myself from studying spiritual websites, texts, etc., in general.

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

Who is it that sees that there is no one to see? Yes it seems contradictory until it's clear that "seeing there is no one to see" is nothing more than an episode in a story, a thought thread.

There is only the seen, there is only this.

Yes, just another "apparent hallucination," a hallucination that has hallucinations of its own, hallucinations within hallucinations. The whirlpool again.

No... how does a hallucination have a hallucination? <--- sounds like a hallucination to me!
Again, you are imagining that the person can do, or think, or have hallucinations. That is not the case.
Look again, and you'll see the hallucination is all in thought. You will also see that the person is also in thought.
Only thought says there is a person that can do, think and hallucinate, or that a hallucination can have a hallucination... but ALL OF THAT is just thought. Do you see?

There is a character in this story that seeks to control existence and particularly the knowledge of existence.

^-- this is just a story, this only exists in thought.

there are thoughts about a character that seeks to control existence and particularly the knowledge of existence. these thoughts clammer to maintain their self-referencing throne.

there is no such character.

do you find this character apart from thought? LOOK.

Thinking only quiets, or slows down, when it gives up trying.

Thoughts continue to go on but they are seen as they are... JUST thoughts... ONLY thoughts.

One thought succeeds the next so quickly that the gaps of emptiness are obscured. But they are not only always there, the succession of thoughts are emptiness as well. They whirl around center-less-ness.

thoughts ARE emptiness, emptiness is ALL. emptiness is just a concept that points to the insubstantiality and selflessness of experience... there is just consciousness, or this, or experience and it is empty of any inherent substance.

I've begun giving up the idea of earth-shaking revelations and expect "nothing special."

Yes... ideas are just ideas. There is just what is here Now. I'm sure you've heard that before, but you will most probably keep hearing it until you see that there is just this... And there is no "you" in there anywhere!

Doubts remain and the structure of self is less tangible, but to be totally honest, self is not yet completely removed.

What self?

But I don't want to miss out on essential insights by declaring a premature conclusion. I feel different from what I was when we began this, but I can't say that I feel fundamentally, radically different.

No declaration of anything is needed. Keep going until your absence is clear.

And you do not feel anything... there are just feelings, impersonal as the sky.

Expecting to feel a certain way is JUST an expectation, just an idea... completely useless. Focus on investigating this apparent self.

Can you see what I am trying to figure out? Will there ever be anything at all fundamental or radical about this? It would seem that it would be....

There is no you to figure anything out :)

Just thoughts about a self, and concerns about how radical some apparent shift or awakening can be.

Look at your own writing here and see how they reflect thoughts with an inherent self in there. LOOK at this self. Is it real? Can a self become awakened? have a radical shift???

I will continue to restrict myself from studying spiritual websites, texts, etc., in general.

Where is the self that can restrict the self from doing stuff? :)

This is the MOST IMPORTANT iNSiGHT... this no-self. The vast majority of all this nonsense, especially seeking, is built on this. Investigate this self. This is the most important insight. I cannot stress this enough. So far, this investigation is going well - stay focused :)

-

Lots of Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi,

Yes, just another "apparent hallucination," a hallucination that has hallucinations of its own, hallucinations within hallucinations. The whirlpool again.

No... how does a hallucination have a hallucination? <--- sounds like a hallucination to me!
Again, you are imagining that the person can do, or think, or have hallucinations. That is not the case.

Sorry this wasn't clear. I'm beginning to see that the self sense is a another thought image, a misleading one, like a "hallucination." It is absurdly believed (by me sometimes, I admit) to have its own mental and volitional life, but it's like a Russian doll -- thoughts within thoughts within thought but ultimately nothing is inside. The "within" is only an appearance -- like what you were saying in an earlier post about "internal" and "external".

These phenomena create the impression of self because they seem to be "nested" or embedded" in a thinker, but that is an apparition, not a substantive entity. The circling identifications are in reality just a sequence of thinking and imagery. There is a whirlpool of experience; while it seems to circle a "center" that is falsely assumed to be self, in reality it's just more processing. Maybe this is still confused, but there is not really someone writing this who is confused. There is no confused self, but there can be confusion. I will admit that if my insight were clearer, my response would have also been clearer :).

However, your challenges really help me clarify.

the hallucination is all in thought. You will also see that the person is also in thought.
Only thought says there is a person that can do, think and hallucinate, or that a hallucination can have a hallucination... but ALL OF THAT is just thought. Do you see?

I think it is becoming clearer, although my response was not. But moving on...

there are thoughts about a character that seeks to control existence and particularly the knowledge of existence. these thoughts clammer to maintain their self-referencing throne.
there is no such character.
do you find this character apart from thought? LOOK.

No. Nothing apart from thought. The "character" of me is only an imagined personage in a comedy/drama labeled "my life." It's just a story onstage in a theatre of thoughts -- but there is no real audience "watching" the performance. There is no little man inside me watching "my" story unfold; that too is just a story. It sometimes seems that the wheels-within-wheels confusion of self-reference, reflection, thoughts about "thoughts thinking thoughts," is where we get lost in the illusion of identity, like a mirror reflecting a mirror.

Thoughts continue to go on but they are seen as they are... JUST thoughts... ONLY thoughts.

"I think" I am beginning to see that. That is, "I" am no less a thought than the process trying to express these ideas in clear English.

What self?

Good question.

And you do not feel anything... there are just feelings, impersonal as the sky.
Expecting to feel a certain way is JUST an expectation, just an idea... completely useless. Focus on investigating this apparent self.

There is no you to figure anything out :)
Just thoughts about a self, and concerns about how radical some apparent shift or awakening can be.
Look at your own writing here and see how they reflect thoughts with an inherent self in there. LOOK at this self. Is it real? Can a self become awakened? have a radical shift???

You often refer to "this" as in "just this." "This" is it. This is all. -- yet confusion comes in trying understand beyond that simplicity or in trying to capture it in thought. Yet it seems like the sense of self and identity feels lighter and less compelling as we go through this. It still feels like wandering through a maze, but instead of a prison, it feels more like a forest, or a garden.

Where is the self that can restrict the self from doing stuff? :)
This is the MOST IMPORTANT iNSiGHT... this no-self. The vast majority of all this nonsense, especially seeking, is built on this. Investigate this self. This is the most important insight. I cannot stress this enough.

I hear you. I continue to focus.

So far, this investigation is going well - stay focused :)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have faith in this process. Faith will become Fact and Freedom.

Too many "F" words! :)

Love

[cosmiK]

Really great work here. It shows you are looking deeply at thoughts and that is essential. really get to know how thought weaves.. and how the self is also woven.

Keep Looking as you are doing :) your words reflect clear investigation. The answers are right there. There isn't an other here giving a you some advice. CosmiK is as much self as is the first person. Guide/Guided all arise in/as that which is aware of this sentence. None of that is self, there is no separation anywhere.

And look at confusion. Confusion for Who/What? What is there to be confused about?

That which is awake already is awake. There is no self that can be confused and awaken. There is just recognition of that which is always here, Now. Clarity. Always.

And and as for your insight about mirrors, yes... duality (thought content) is a form of narrative of mirrors. The mirrors are empty... there is just this, just Life.

Have a think about that and write when you've had a chance to really look, naked from thought.

With Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi

duality (thought content) is a form of narrative of mirrors. The mirrors are empty... there is just this, just Life. Have a think about that and write when you've had a chance to really look, naked from thought.

I am writing to stay in daily touch per our agreement. Since your latest advice is open ended, I'm going to stay with some of the dialogue we have already had and give myself ample chance to REALLY LOOK.

Hope that's OK. I will definitely post again in the next day or two. Write me if you want me to respond sooner.

Love,

[cosmiK]

Wonderful :) thanks, and do stay in touch daily :) Look. See. There is nothing note important than this. You must know this by now. Look and See. You can do this... this is already your nature, only thought can ever obscure.

Just notice that which is awake, aware and alive... and it isn't the first person. With no self... what is left? look :)

Lots of Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi,

I am spending some time
> just sitting, walking, hanging out while being aware of direct experience, as omnidirectionally and panoramically as can be perceived;
> noticing when the "I" jumps up to make it "all about me;"
> noticing how "spiritual" efforts reinforce the self when they are supposed to disassemble it;
> returning to unspecific direct experience each time the mind labels something, particularly something as "mine;"
> letting go of conclusions, concepts, labels, and story-lines each time they enter the mind;
> not sinking into a "spiritual" trance but being a point of present observation without comment.

Love

[cosmiK]

Hey,

I am spending some time

good, and stay in touch.

> just sitting, walking, hanging out while being aware of direct experience,

And is there ever anyone there that can be "aware of direct experience" or is there just direct experience?

Direct Experience is simply an invitation to notice what is there... after noticing there is no-one there to notice... then what is left? :)

noticing when the "I" jumps up to make it "all about me;"

Is there ever an "I" apart from thought? :)

noticing how "spiritual" efforts reinforce the self when they are supposed to disassemble it;

Why would Spirit make any effort?
What could Spirit ever need?
What can Spirit ever be missing? <------ ridiculous, isn't it?

It is Spirit that is looking... not the first person character.

> returning to unspecific direct experience each time the mind labels something, particularly something as "mine;"

Yes... noticing the self-referencing nature of thoughts is key, and so is noticing the EMPTY nature of thoughts. Do they EVER point to an actual claimant, an actual self, a claimant?

> letting go of conclusions, concepts, labels, and story-lines each time they enter the mind;

Is there a choice about letting go of anything? WHO/WHAT makes that choice? Really look deeply in to this.

> not sinking into a "spiritual" trance but being a point of present observation without comment.

All that is required is honest and naked looking.

Lots of Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi -

Why would Spirit make any effort?
What could Spirit ever need?
What can Spirit ever be missing? <------ ridiculous, isn't it?
It is Spirit that is looking... not the first person character.

Those thoughts really had an impact, relieving, at least for a moment, the urgency of being something, of seeking, of attainment. Quiet stillness pervades everything, not needing to seek because it is already here, directly experienced. The interruptions of the old ways of thinking that project an invisible, intangible "I" over everything are less frequent. It's like a silly cartoon character popping up suddenly and inappropriately to clown around with its absurd complaints while life and the world around are filled with beauty that needs no explanation or justification.

The frantic efforts of the "I" to claim reality, label existence and own the universe are like a dog with a ridiculously huge bladder obsessed with marking every square inch of territory with its psychic piss.

is there ever anyone there that can be "aware of direct experience" or is there just direct experience?

Direct experience never asserts itself since there is nothing else to resist it.

the EMPTY nature of thoughts. Do they EVER point to an actual claimant, an actual self, a claimant?

They point... but not to something real that can be directly experienced. Thought stories are fictions, imagination and fantasy. Thoughts can guide us through life relatively safely and prosperously but they are like a road sign that says "New York City," which does not make it identical with the teeming 24/7 flood of people, machines, noise and color that spreads over the five boroughs.

Is there a choice about letting go of anything? WHO/WHAT makes that choice? Really look deeply in to this.All that is required is honest and naked looking.

Who is looking - Spirit beholding Spirit? There are no reflections in an empty mirror. Spirit never makes an appearance because it is the medium in which all appearance shows itself.

Direct experience...
Direct experience...
Direct experience...
...
.......................
Trying to interact with all moments of life in that manner, instead of being the character in a drama. Who is trying? Who is interacting? I got no clue.
.......................

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

The interruptions of the old ways of thinking that project an invisible, intangible "I" over everything are less frequent.

Yes, and those thoughts will continue to arise even after seeing no-self, but they do not stick anymore, and are seen through very quickly if not instantly. It is clear that they are JUST thoughts, their content is Empty.

It's like a silly cartoon character popping up suddenly and inappropriately to clown around with its absurd complaints while life and the world around are filled with beauty that needs no explanation or justification.

Yes the first person can be very silly in how thought weaves him/her, but all of that is happening spontaneously. The first person isn't doing any of it. All of it is impersonal. Just ask... are they your thoughts? is it YOUR story?

The frantic efforts of the "I" to claim reality, label existence and own the universe are like a dog with a ridiculously huge bladder obsessed with marking every square inch of territory with its psychic piss.

Yes, and the "I" is ONLY in thought. To see this clearly just check again and again if this "I" can EVER be found apart from thought. Thoughts do seem to clamor to maintain their self-referencing throne/loop, but as Seeing happens, those thoughts get more and more transparent and loose their apparent 'power' (not that they had any power to begin with). The "I" / thought is just another innocent arising, just like clouds and rain are.

Direct experience never asserts itself since there is nothing else to resist it.

dE is used as an invitation... an invitation to What-Is... who is invited?
What-Is Is :)

Who is looking - Spirit beholding Spirit? There are no reflections in an empty mirror. Spirit never makes an appearance because it is the medium in which all appearance shows itself.

The answers are already right there, already there. There is no separation between "Spirit" and "appearances". Only thought says so. Do not imagine some medium or background on which all dances on, this is also a trap and becomes another "self".

Can we say there is Just Experience? Just Spirit?

Where is the "I" or "self" in that? :)

Direct experience...
Direct experience...
Direct experience...
...
.......................
Trying to interact with all moments of life in that manner, instead of being the character in a drama. Who is trying? Who is interacting? I got no clue.
.......................

Exactly...

Who/What can interact? Who/What can ever try?

You don't need any clues... Just Look :) Burn for this. Burn....

from You
to You,
Lots of Love.

[Critterfan]

Hi,

Yes, and those thoughts will continue to arise even after seeing no-self, but they do not stick anymore, and are seen through very quickly if not instantly. It is clear that they are JUST thoughts, their content is Empty.

as Seeing happens, those thoughts get more and more transparent and loose their apparent 'power' (not that they had any power to begin with).

This is beginning to happen here. "Self-issues" as thought forms don't assert themselves with the same force as before, but they are still active, sometimes as background, sometimes as foreground. However, since many self issues and thought processes are positive and constructive, it would be a disaster for everything in subjectivity to go blank. It would be unhealthy for normal desires and appetites to die. (What does seem to happen is the emergence of a fortunate relief from the compulsive nature of biological and psychological drives; they remain as survival/reproduction/socialization signals, but are invitations and suggestions, not domineering commands.)

It's remarkable how many of the non-theistic spiritual traditions lead people in the direction of sustained mental and affective inertia or stasis. It's a fallacy of course, which a closer reading of the traditions can dispel, but monasteries and retreats are full of people trying to "kill" or stifle their mentalization. There is a still point at the heart of the whirlwind, but the life-giving motion, energy and homeostasis of conscious biological existence does not go away -- that would be death or coma.

"Emptiness" is all too often taken to mean a state of vacuity -- but based on your guidance, it really just means something like "dependent origination:" all entities, including the self, are only mutually creative thought patterns without permanent or substantial "essence" or "self." This applies to the common symptoms and side-effects of this kind of work (which in my experience can include a brief vanishing of the world and/or a suspension of emotional reactivity). But these fluctuations (often accompanied by "ecstatic" sensations) are often taken to be the main objective, rather than just situational energy phenomena, or whatever, that may or may not be waypoints in the liberation process.

The "I" / thought is just another innocent arising, just like clouds and rain are.

Wow -- an "innocent arising." I take this innocence not only in the sense of being "non-harmful" but being life-sustaining as well, since without clouds and rain there would be terrible drought and famine, as well as a loss of natural beauty. Thoughts and feelings are part of the mechanics of living. One just needs to be aware that they are information/code/representation (which may be true or false, relevant or irrelevant, signal or noise) and not reality.

There is no separation between "Spirit" and "appearances". Only thought says so. Do not imagine some medium or background on which all dances on, this is also a trap and becomes another "self".
Can we say there is Just Experience? Just Spirit?
Where is the "I" or "self" in that? :)

I am focusing on this admonition carefully; it's so easy to deify/reify consciousness (or "Spirit") and artificially separate it from its content in direct experience. One of your points in an earlier post was

[Consciousness] isn't some separate container or thing that houses everything else... it IS everything.

Thanks for your wisdom and clarity. Sometimes I feel that this process for me is a more gradual attrition of unskillful concepts -- as if the house of cards were still standing, but more and more cards are being removed (each time as part of an insight or moment of clear comprehension), leaving a much simpler structure. But I am also aware that for many people, there is a "crashing (or at least a passage) through the Gate," so to speak. I am curious about how this will turn out for me specifically -- personal pronouns used advisedly, of course :)

Love,

[cosmiK]

Hey :)

This is beginning to happen here. "Self-issues" as thought forms don't assert themselves with the same force as before, but they are still active, sometimes as background, sometimes as foreground. However, since many self issues and thought processes are positive and constructive, it would be a disaster for everything in subjectivity to go blank. It would be unhealthy for normal desires and appetites to die. (What does seem to happen is the emergence of a fortunate relief from the compulsive nature of biological and psychological drives; they remain as survival/reproduction/socialization signals, but are invitations and suggestions, not domineering commands.)

What is underneath this blanket of reasoning? Is there anyone there? I know you know the answer to that question, but it's not for the answer. have a look and see what sense of individuality is left... is there an organism there? is there a center or cpu to this process? to whom do these desires and drives arise to?

It's remarkable how many of the non-theistic spiritual traditions lead people in the direction of sustained mental and affective inertia or stasis. It's a fallacy of course, which a closer reading of the traditions can dispel, but monasteries and retreats are full of people trying to "kill" or stifle their mentalization. There is a still point at the heart of the whirlwind, but the life-giving motion, energy and homeostasis of conscious biological existence does not go away -- that would be death or coma.

Yes, I agree. much of spirituality does not address the key key issues/questions. first, this self that can ever do any of that, and second, that which is Alive... that which reads this sentence.

Let's focus on the first. You're doing really good, and your reasoning shows it too. Looking is key though.

What are you?

Wow -- an "innocent arising." I take this innocence not only in the sense of being "non-harmful" but being life-sustaining as well, since without clouds and rain there would be terrible drought and famine, as well as a loss of natural beauty. Thoughts and feelings are part of the mechanics of living. One just needs to be aware that they are information/code/representation (which may be true or false, relevant or irrelevant, signal or noise) and not reality.

All of Life, the entire expression of it expresses itself in/as that which you are. The person is a misunderstanding. Look at how much of this is in thought ... then ask, who no "I"/self... what is left?

I am focusing on this admonition carefully; it's so easy to deify/reify consciousness (or "Spirit") and artificially separate it from its content in direct experience. One of your points in an earlier post was

look carefully at this "I" that could do this. there lies the Key to this insight. it's not about reaching enlightenment or feeling this or that.. this is about simply What-Is .... take a peak. you won't be able to look back.

there is no one there going through any process,
it is more accurate to say that the entire story of cosmiK and Critterfan, and seeking Enlightenment, the world, galaxies, planets all appear in/as you.
you are not a person.

what is personal that appears in you?
what is self that appear as you?

it's time to See this for yourself. drop all teachings, ideas, plans... and Look.

Sometimes I feel that this process for me is a more gradual attrition of unskillful concepts -- as if the house of cards were still standing, but more and more cards are being removed (each time as part of an insight or moment of clear comprehension), leaving a much simpler structure.

All of that apparent process is just another appearance in you, just another flavor of your expression. there is no one going through any process.

But I am also aware that for many people, there is a "crashing (or at least a passage) through the Gate," so to speak. I am curious about how this will turn out for me specifically -- personal pronouns used advisedly, of course :)

none of those people have any awareness. they are just another story in this that you are.

where is the self in that?

:)

this was not written by a self to a self... there is no self.

these words are no less yours than the words the person speaks.