Guidance please Delma

[Delma]

Ok, then let's do what we do best here. Let's check reality.

Now that we've located the feeling of self, we'll get practical. Because waking up is extremely practical.

If the self is felt somewhere, then shouldn't it actually be there? If the self is real, shouldn't it be able to be located somehow? This is where people get tripped up. For a self to have moved through time and space, it must be an entity. A thing. Something that can be grasped.

The self, if behind the eyes, would have to be in the brain, would you agree? :)

[Trent]

Ok, then let's do what we do best here. Let's check reality.

excellent!

If the self is felt somewhere, then shouldn't it actually be there? If the self is real, shouldn't it be able to be located somehow? This is where people get tripped up. For a self to have moved through time and space, it must be an entity. A thing. Something that can be grasped.

The self, if behind the eyes, would have to be in the brain, would you agree? :)

There’s a belief here that self could be invisible, spiritual stuff…not measurable, detectable, but existing nonetheless. Not sure what to do with the belief. Could you help me see through it?

If I push that belief aside, and answer your questions just on the surface, no. If brain was cut open there wouldn’t be a little Trent in there running the show. Even though my perception seems to originate up here, I can’t find a locatable entity.
Thanks Delma!

[Delma]

Here's the weird part about the invisible stuff.

We say, "my spirit". "my soul". "my consciousness".

Isn't that odd? Try to find the 'my' pointed to in those sentences. I mean really look for it. Take your time and tell me what you find. No rush. This exercise is an important and good one but it's got to be experiential rather than a mind exercise. Actually all of these exercises need to be experiential. :)

[Trent]

When I look for the "me" that would own spirit, I close my eyes and there's darkness.

[Delma]

Can you look further at the darkness. Don't just leave it there because it can mean the difference between "understanding" this, and experiencing it.

Look in the darkness where the self should be. Where it's felt. Is there anything more than a 'sort of feeling' there? Is there anything of substance?

[Trent]

Can you look further at the darkness. Don't just leave it there because it can mean the difference between "understanding" this, and experiencing it.
Look in the darkness where the self should be. Where it's felt. Is there anything more than a 'sort of feeling' there? Is there anything of substance?

Ok, so lying in bed this morning while it was still quiet, I looked in the darkness inside, up and down, all over, and even tried to reach into it with imaginary arms and hands, looking for what feels like “me”. Nothing to see or grasp or measure. I asked, what’s looking into this darkness? and couldn’t even answer that. I feel like this is making sense intellectually, but I guess I’m waiting for a click, and a realization when the bottom will fall away, like “Holy Shit, there’s no me at all!” Not there yet.
Ready for your next question or a wack of your Zen stick ; )
T

[Delma]

If the self wasn't in there, where 'you' point to and look toward, intuitively, then would it make sense that it could be anywhere else?

Don't answer that too quickly. Really take a look. Why would we point to our 'inside' or look 'inside' when there's nothing there?

Could it be that the self is just a thought, and that's why it can't be found? Could it be that it only appears when a thought "I" or "me" appears? Or is it always there?

[Trent]

If the self wasn't in there, where 'you' point to and look toward, intuitively, then would it make sense that it could be anywhere else?

No…intuitively, no. But when I look in a mirror or catch my reflection or look down at this body, it feels like there’s got to be a “me “ in here. I mean, “who” or “what” is driving this thing?

Don't answer that too quickly. Really take a look. Why would we point to our 'inside' or look 'inside' when there's nothing there?

It seems that thought activity happens in “here”, but nothing was found there…or when I see “images” or thoughts there, they just fade away.

Could it be that the self is just a thought, and that's why it can't be found? Could it be that it only appears when a thought "I" or "me" appears? Or is it always there?

Yes, can’t find it cuz it’s just a thought. Ok, I can see that it appears only when a thought “I” or “me” or “my” appears. No, not always there. As in, going about a task, typing on keyboard, body is painting a picture, etc… those things just happen until a judgment or other “I” thought comes through. Ugh, this is so circular and maddening, but sticking with it best I can.
Thanks D

[Delma]

Oooh, this is good. Maddening and circular is good!!! You're getting clearer on how this works!

It is COMPLETELY circular. The self is a completely circular reference that happens only within thought. Exactly right!

That's why it's like a weird trick the brain has 'learned'. There's really nothing there at all. For instance, look at the computer. It's supposed to be 'my computer', right? But it "belongs" to what?!! The body? That's weird. The brain? Weirder still. Thought? How can a thought own anything?!

It's really kind of funny. Look for a self, and it can only be found in reference to something else, and only within thought. There is nothing ACTUALLY there.

Stay with what's maddening. It means you're taking a step closer to the truth of seeing reality as it actually is.

Tell me more.

So...

[Trent]

Sorry for the delay Delma, the day’s gotten away from me, and forgot about the time difference (I’m in L.A.)

That's why it's like a weird trick the brain has 'learned'. There's really nothing there at all. For instance, look at the computer. It's supposed to be 'my computer', right? But it "belongs" to what?!! The body? That's weird. The brain? Weirder still. Thought? How can a thought own anything?!

It's really kind of funny. Look for a self, and it can only be found in reference to something else, and only within thought. There is nothing ACTUALLY there.

Right, as I look around at paintings and say aloud, “my paintings” or even “my painting technique”…sounds more…hollow.

Stay with what's maddening. It means you're taking a step closer to the truth of seeing reality as it actually is.

Tell me more.

Played a game with myself today, as I ran errands. When a thought referencing a Trent came up, I’d say, “where’s the me, that this matters to, etc…” Things kinda fall apart with this, I can understand more why someone would go to a mountaintop and just “hang out”…no attachments. I notice in moments where there’s not attention on the thought stream, that there’s more of an immediacy to life, like there’s no buffer. Pretty scary.
Ready for your next question. Want to go deeper into this.

[Delma]

Ok, my next question is... how would you go deeper?

When you looked around at the paintings and said "my pantings", did you actually try to find the thing... whatever it is, that ties them to you?

And... "Where's the me that this matters to?" is a good question, however, it can sometimes become a mantra rather than true investigation. So, when you ask "where the me that this matters to?" don't focus on the 'matters to' part. Focus on the "where's the me?" part.

I mean REALLY focus on that. Figure out all of the places the me could exist tangibly. In reality. In the form we think is carried around from year to year.

I know I'm being redundant, but the habit is to skim the surface of these inquiries, get a glimpse, and think that's all there is to it. It's not, though. The first glimpse is important, but it's an invitation to dig deeper right there, into whatever it is that triggers an uncomfortable feeling.

Tell me more about there being more immediacy and no buffer.

Delma

[Trent]

Ok, my next question is... how would you go deeper?

I guess I think that if I can “see” the truth more deeply…as if there’s somewhere to go or a more perfected “self” to get too. Old spiritual habits die hard.

When you looked around at the paintings and said "my pantings", did you actually try to find the thing... whatever it is, that ties them to you?

Hmmm, if they’re not tied to a “me” where did they come from? Who made them? Just this body? This meatsuit got its brain trained to paint and made them?

And... "Where's the me that this matters to?" is a good question, however, it can sometimes become a mantra rather than true investigation. So, when you ask "where the me that this matters to?" don't focus on the 'matters to' part. Focus on the "where's the me?" part.

Ok, so it all just goes back to “where’s the me?” Ugh, what’s the point of this? Once I grok that there’s no me? Then what?

I mean REALLY focus on that. Figure out all of the places the me could exist tangibly. In reality. In the form we think is carried around from year to year.

So I look into the space of my body, all around, just darkness, like when I looked in my noggin.

I know I'm being redundant, but the habit is to skim the surface of these inquiries, get a glimpse, and think that's all there is to it. It's not, though. The first glimpse is important, but it's an invitation to dig deeper right there, into whatever it is that triggers an uncomfortable feeling.

So again, it’s about taking the time to stop and look within, where of course I won’t see/touch anything, until the idea of a “self” burns itself out? From exhaustion? :)

Tell me more about there being more immediacy and no buffer.

Just a sense of merging with what’s on the screen in front of me, not such a strong boundary. Me here and that out there. At an event at work, I was telling a funny story, with the attention of others focused on me and feeling pretty wide open and vulnerable. They see a me here, with their “me’s”. If there’s no more me here, who will I be? Ok, it’s 1:30 am here and brain turning to mush,
G’nite D. :)

[Delma]

Hi Trent,

The brain turning to mush is actually the entire point of both spiritual and non spiritual inquiry. That's because the intellect is not the tool which will see this. So as soon as the brain starts to 'hurt' or get mushy, that actually means you're on the right track. Most people would turn away from that because it doesn't sound like the spiritual descriptions. It's a mistake I've seen so many times, but as soon as the individual braves this phase of the inquiry and presses forward, a breakthrough comes.

When I ask about the paintings and what ties 'you' to them, you mentioned "who made them". The body and brain labeled Trent did. But looking at them right now, there is nothing at all about them which says Trent, except through memory(thought). There's no actual tie there. It's for that reason that no one actually 'owns' anything at all. It's just thought that 'claims' things.

As for what the point of this is, that question comes from the ego. It would NATURALLY wonder what the point it, because this entire process is about exposing its nonexistence!

Let's work with the last thing... immediacy. Tell me about how there's not such a strong boundary... and instead... just look at the actual FACT (because that's what all this spiritual stuff about 'no boundary' and 'oneness' is actually talking about) The fact of reality....

Take a look.

Tell me where there is any boundary AT ALL.

Then check hearing. Is there any boundary between hearing and what's heard?

Check touch. Is there a boundary between touch and what's felt?

I'll tell you why this is a crucial inquiry. Because. If there was a self, would it not be able to control hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, smelling?

Can any of that be controlled?

[Trent]

Take a look.
Tell me where there is any boundary AT ALL.

There is no boundary…experiencing a kind of rawness, quick to anger or react.

Then check hearing. Is there any boundary between hearing and what's heard?

As I investigate it, no, just present experience of sounds, of cat playing, the whir of the computer…feeling a heightened sensitivity to sounds.

Check touch. Is there a boundary between touch and what's felt?

At initial contact yes, then there’s just one sensation.

I'll tell you why this is a crucial inquiry. Because. If there was a self, would it not be able to control hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, smelling?

I get that “I” don’t control these senses. They are just happening, but I’m not understanding how that negates a self. Please say more or point how I can investigate to see through it.

Can any of that be controlled?

Again, no, so if there’s no self here, then sensory experiences are what exactly?
Thanks Delma!

[Delma]

Hi Trent

It's important to understand that we are not negating a self. The sense of self (through thought) actually exists. It's real as far as thoughts go. What we're doing g is tearing apart an assumption.... that there is a you somewhere "inside" or even outside, which owns, has, or even moves through time and space. We are checking all of the places and situations the self is thought to exist. Without this self, it is impossible to carry anything like guilt, regret, or shame.


Ok.
Where does it feel like Trent exists? Between the eyes was your last comment, and so we're checking the "head senses" usually attributed to that ephemeral thing.

Right now you intellectually know that a self isn't controlling the senses. That's a first step. But it still seems as though there is something controlling life?

Tell me, how does the self show up for you right now?



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2