Recommended by Jackson Peterson Dzogchen instructional video

[Bananafish]

No, consciousness doesn't have a personality, the feeling of 'confusion' is a thought, and consciousness identifying with what is being witnessed (in this case thought), rather than that which is witnessing.

Just to make sure first, because our conversation seem to have
stepped into a slightly different topic, which is consciousness ...
So, again:

Does the "I" exist at all?

No no-one told me that that I can think of. Now that I think about it, when something is simply observed it can be realized, like consciousness observing thoughts changing. So, my statement that any realisation has to occur as a thought was wrong.

Then, did realisation occur to you? Does it feel different from the time before
this conversation started? It's absolutely ok if it didn't; then we can just continue
LOOKing till it occurs.

Yes, yes. "experience is consciousness" ... are they two different things?
Please keep LOOKing.

This is a difficult one to LOOK at, especially amidst the flurry of thoughts that keep coming unbidden. Do you have any method to suggest for looking at this? Advice on LOOKing in general would be great actually, if that's cool :)

Sorry Harry, but there is no "method" in LOOKing. That is complication.
I'm sorry, but I might have led you to 'think' in that way.

Just look without naming anything. When you go out for a walk,
look at everything around, hear them, and feel them, isn't it one total experience,
if you don't name them at all? LOOK! Isn't it just life? experience? whatever ...

Is there anything concrete that should be named
'consciousness'? Are consciousness and the 'contents' of consciousness divided?
Isn't that division imaginary?

I think I'm getting my terms confused a bit here too, because I've been thinking of experience as 'the stuff that's out there to be experience,' whether or not an individual is there for it. But now that I think about it, experience is the same as consciousness, and consciousness experiences thought. Experience is the same as consciousness, because when I type on this keyboard just now, I am ARTICULATING consciousness in the sense that my experience of typing happens at the same time as my conscious awareness of typing, how can it not haha. It is only the thoughts about typing that precede, follow, and 'chime in' during typing that seem to stretch out this 'experience' which is in reality only happening as it is happening.

Please DON'T think, Harry. I see much complication here, and I'm afraid
we're a bit off the rails in terms of our primary focus, which is to see the absence of
self.

This does make me wonder though, what about the circumstance of, for example, being deprived of sensory input (let's say an isolation tank. I've never used one but that's all I could think of). Can consciousness exist if there is nothing for it to experience? Wait...ohh here it would be experiencing thought though....and probably a lot of thought...wait...thoughts themselves could be articulating consciousness in the same way that the senses do....hmm brain fog.. I'll have to come back to this notion.

Again these are all speculations, which aren't helpful for what we're doing here.
Do you see that you aren't LOOKing when you say "what about ..." "it would be ..."
"probably ..."?

I acknowledge that "body" is a label used to describe our physical "self," and that even if I were to describe to you what the constituents of a body are (arms legs, skin, muscle etc), then I would still be using labels that humans have decided describe our physical selves. Stripping away the labels seems almost impossible, so I find it hard to look at "my" body as if I am seeing it for the first time. I can get a glimpse of this, by just seeing shapes etc, and I could talk about the colour and shadows...but I feel very wrapped up in labels here.

I may be interpreting your question wrong actually, so I'll wait to hear back from you on this one :)

OK, this time, let's go back on the rails, so that we can focus on body and self alone.
Can you describe again why body is "my" body, when "my" is also a label?

No the "I" can't think. Thoughts just happen and are experienced by consciousness, Yes, the label "I" is just the same as "me" "my" etc.

Nice LOOKing! :)
Although it needs LOOKing when you refer to consciousness as doing something
(consciousness experiencing things, witnessing things ...)

Now, how does it feel to see that the "I" can't think?

Again are all these a problem when there is no one for whom these are a problem?

Yes this made sense to me...It is the "I" again...striving to do something to better its experience...but a thought can not be bettered, and consciousness does not smile or frown, it just observes.....

Does the "I" strive?

Isn't it that thought "I" doesn't make a problem (or do anything)
but the unquestioned belief in it makes a problem?

Do you still believe in the existence of "I"?

[harrye]

Just to make sure first, because our conversation seem to have
stepped into a slightly different topic, which is consciousness ...
So, again:

Does the "I" exist at all?

No, there is no "I." "I" is a thought.

Then, did realisation occur to you? Does it feel different from the time before
this conversation started? It's absolutely ok if it didn't; then we can just continue
LOOKing till it occurs.

No I haven't experienced realisation that I can see, it would be great it we could continue LOOKing :)

Sorry Harry, but there is no "method" in LOOKing. That is complication.
I'm sorry, but I might have led you to 'think' in that way.

That's ok, I may be bringing a past tendency to the table of having a 'method,' (ie with meditation practice etc). But the advice you give in the following paragraph is great:

Just look without naming anything. When you go out for a walk,
look at everything around, hear them, and feel them, isn't it one total experience,
if you don't name them at all? LOOK! Isn't it just life? experience? whatever ...

So LOOKing at things prior to conceptualising about and labeling them, I will try!

I looked at this whilst going for a walk, and yes I see what you mean. In those moments where labels are not being applied, there is a real sense of presence and 'in the momentness.'

Is there anything concrete that should be named
'consciousness'? Are consciousness and the 'contents' of consciousness divided?
Isn't that division imaginary?

The name consciousness would seem to describe the point from which the individual experiences the world, and experiences what their body's sensory inputs pick up. The "I" is not found here.

I feel like I'm getting closer to SEEing this inseparability of consciousness and its contents. As mentioned in my last, I can see how sensory data articulates consciousness, and how thoughts narrate experience.

When first being introduced to the concept of consciousness and its contents undivided, I took it the wrong way, interpreting it as something like 'the stuff in front of me is physically synonymous with me. I am the flower, I am the drink bottle etc etc' But what I can SEE is that "my" experience of everything around me is synonymous with my consciousness, and "my" experience of stuff can be sight, touch etc......for example, as I'm experiencing the touch andfeel of the drink bottle in my hand, that 'feeling' is the same as my conscious awareness of the feeling. Thoughts are what put a gap in between the two. I can SEE this for microseconds at a time before thoughts chime in, but it is there.

Please DON'T think, Harry. I see much complication here, and I'm afraid
we're a bit off the rails in terms of our primary focus, which is to see the absence of
self.

Again these are all speculations, which aren't helpful for what we're doing here.
Do you see that you aren't LOOKing when you say "what about ..." "it would be ..."
"probably ..."?

Yes no problem, thanks for reeling me back in! I can see that I've posed a lot of umms and aa's there. I'll do my best to talk directly from experience of LOOKing again. You may need to reel me back in if I stray! Thanks.

OK, this time, let's go back on the rails, so that we can focus on body and self alone.
Can you describe again why body is "my" body, when "my" is also a label?

Sure. "My" is definitely a label. Body is not "my" body. Body is tied to consciousness but there is no "Me." There are only other body-consciousnesses.

Nice LOOKing! :)
Although it needs LOOKing when you refer to consciousness as doing something
(consciousness experiencing things, witnessing things ...)

I see. Consciousness is not experienceing things and witnessing thing, consciousness IS the experience of things and witnessing of things. Consciousness IS the sound of the bird chirping.

Now, how does it feel to see that the "I" can't think?

To be honest, it doesn't feel much different, at least not at the moment. But I am still 'searching' 'I think.' "I" need to spend more time reflecting on the fact that there is no "I."

Does the "I" strive?

Isn't it that thought "I" doesn't make a problem (or do anything)
but the unquestioned belief in it makes a problem?

Do you still believe in the existence of "I"?

Yes here I need to unpack "I" further. "I" am still associating "I" with a series of thoughts as opposed to individual thoughts about an "I." This is why I see "I" as striving, as 'searching.'

Yes yes, the unquestioned belief is what causes the problem.

No I don't believe in the "I" from an intellectual standpoint, but "I" remain unsure about how to put my intellectualisation of the topic in to practice.

Have a great day :)

[Bananafish]

No, there is no "I." "I" is a thought.

Can the I do anything?

No I haven't experienced realisation that I can see, it would be great it we could continue LOOKing :)

No problem at all! We can continue as long as needed. :)

In those moments where labels are not being applied, there is a real sense of presence and 'in the momentness.'

How did it feel? Was there an “I” there?

The name consciousness would seem to describe the point from which the individual experiences the world, and experiences what their body's sensory inputs pick up. The "I" is not found here.

Aren’t individual and “I” the same?

I feel like I'm getting closer to SEEing this inseparability of consciousness and its contents. As mentioned in my last, I can see how sensory data articulates consciousness, and how thoughts narrate experience.

Nice! Please keep looking until you see it clearly. :)

When first being introduced to the concept of consciousness and its contents undivided, I took it the wrong way, interpreting it as something like 'the stuff in front of me is physically synonymous with me. I am the flower, I am the drink bottle etc etc' But what I can SEE is that "my" experience of everything around me is synonymous with my consciousness, and "my" experience of stuff can be sight, touch etc......for example, as I'm experiencing the touch andfeel of the drink bottle in my hand, that 'feeling' is the same as my conscious awareness of the feeling. Thoughts are what put a gap in between the two. I can SEE this for microseconds at a time before thoughts chime in, but it is there.

Good! Now I can see that you actually LOOKed. Then, what makes experience “mine?”

Yes no problem, thanks for reeling me back in! I can see that I've posed a lot of umms and aa's there. I'll do my best to talk directly from experience of LOOKing again. You may need to reel me back in if I stray! Thanks.

No problem, Harry. That’s why I’m here to help you.

Sure. "My" is definitely a label. Body is not "my" body. Body is tied to consciousness but there is no "Me." There are only other body-consciousnesses.

How does it feel to see this?

I see. Consciousness is not experienceing things and witnessing thing, consciousness IS the experience of things and witnessing of things. Consciousness IS the sound of the bird chirping.

Well said, simple and clear. :)
And so, isn’t consciousness another label for LIFE itself … ?

But I am still 'searching' 'I think.' "I" need to spend more time reflecting on the fact that there is no "I."

If there’s no “I,” what is it that needs time, or reflects?

Yes here I need to unpack "I" further. "I" am still associating "I" with a series of thoughts as opposed to individual thoughts about an "I." This is why I see "I" as striving, as 'searching.'

Yes yes, the unquestioned belief is what causes the problem.

No I don't believe in the "I" from an intellectual standpoint, but "I" remain unsure about how to put my intellectualisation of the topic in to practice.

Can the “I” do anything, including “associating,” and “being unsure”?

Have a great day :)

You too, Harry! :)

[harrye]

Can the I do anything?

No

How did it feel? Was there an “I” there?

It felt nice :) No, in those moments there is no "I."

Aren’t individual and “I” the same?

Yes that's true, they are both labels. But there are still separate bodies/consciousnesses.

Nice! Please keep looking until you see it clearly. :)

I had a LOOK at this again this morning. There are always birds chirping outside the window in the office where I am now typing. I closed my eyes this morning and SAW the birds chirping, and my thoughts. When not focusing on the thoughts, and simply giving attention to the birds chirping, I could find no gap between the chirping and my awareness of the chirping, and any notion that there was a gap was just an analytical/narrative thought kicking in. This is not to say that my awareness is the bird itself or the sound it is making, but my awareness/consciousness is my experience of the chirping. Does that make sense to you?

Good! Now I can see that you actually LOOKed. Then, what makes experience “mine?”

Well, I know its not "mine" in a possessive sense, and experience as a whole can not be "mine," but what is being experienced from my body's location in space (ie in relation to sensory data coming in), differs from what is experienced by a body in another location in space. So the experience is not "mine", the experience is the body-consciousnesses, or rather, the experience IS the body body-consciousness. The experience of the sound of the lawnmower next door, the experience of the weight of the cat on this body's lap, the experience of the smell of the cherry-blossoms, all of which this body-consciousness is experiencing, IS the body consciousness.

How does it feel to see this?

I like it. It makes "me" feel close to stuff around me, including my cat hehe :)

Well said, simple and clear. :)
And so, isn’t consciousness another label for LIFE itself … ?

I think I meant to say consciousness IS it's experience of the bird chirping.

I can't quite grasp that consciousness is another label for life itself though, because there is more to the bird (label again I know) than its sound, there is the bird-body's little heart and feathers etc, and this body consciousness ("mine"), is not the experience of that, it is the experience of the sound. Hmm but then again the sound is only what is experienced right now. if "I" were to hold the bird, the feel of its wings would be synonymous with this body-consciousness ("mine"). Le me LOOK more at this one, feel free to probe me with more questions :)

If there’s no “I,” what is it that needs time, or reflects?

Nothing! There is just this body-consciousness and thoughts about reflecting/spending more time! I am beginning to think that thoughts are the same as the sound of the bird, they are just another articulation of consciousness. However, because thoughts are metaphysical, they are attributed some great importance unintentionally, like they are 'wisdom' about how to live ones life. But they are not! They are just fictional narrative, composed of human-created language that itself is constrained its own human-origin.....hmmmm...interesting

Can the “I” do anything, including “associating,” and “being unsure”?

No, "I" can not do anything. All that there is is this body-consciousness-experience and thoughts about needing to do something.

I wanted to share with you a great conversation I had yesterday with my girlfriend. She is a visual artist, and has always been very good at popping what she sees in front of her on to a canvas with great accuracy, so "she" has developed the ability to look at stuff and not be involved in thought...Ie just to see it.

One thing she said yesterday really struck me. I was lying in the backyard looking up at the sky, and the clothesline was in view. I said to her how interesting the difference is in seeing the clothes line with my eyes open, and closing my eyes and conjuring an image of the clothes-line. What I was saying is that they are experienced in a different space. The seeing of the physical clothes line from sensory light-input, and the conjuring in the minds-eye of the image of the clothes line. What she articulated though, which I find very interesting, and had never thought about before, was that they are BOTH experienced in the same place, the minds-eye, which is to say, that even with eyes open and seeing the image, that image is experienced as a thought just like the one in the minds eye. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this correctly, but I found it very interesting. Just thought I'd pop that in hehe :)

All the best

[Bananafish]

I had a LOOK at this again this morning. There are always birds chirping outside the window in the office where I am now typing. I closed my eyes this morning and SAW the birds chirping, and my thoughts. When not focusing on the thoughts, and simply giving attention to the birds chirping, I could find no gap between the chirping and my awareness of the chirping, and any notion that there was a gap was just an analytical/narrative thought kicking in. This is not to say that my awareness is the bird itself or the sound it is making, but my awareness/consciousness is my experience of the chirping. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, except for the way you’re using the word “my.”
You say that it’s “mine” because “others” or “other bodies” also have their own ‘things’ like body,
consciousness, or experience.

Is that true?

How can the consciousness of “other bodies” be directly experienced?
Can it be? Then, how can you be 100% certain that there is “others’” consciousness?
How can “others” be when you’re not?

LOOKing is looking in direct experience … no speculation, no logic, no deduction, no thinking, just HERE and NOW. :)

Well, I know its not "mine" in a possessive sense, and experience as a whole can not be "mine," but what is being experienced from my body's location in space (ie in relation to sensory data coming in), differs from what is experienced by a body in another location in space. So the experience is not "mine", the experience is the body-consciousnesses, or rather, the experience IS the body body-consciousness. The experience of the sound of the lawnmower next door, the experience of the weight of the cat on this body's lap, the experience of the smell of the cherry-blossoms, all of which this body-consciousness is experiencing, IS the body consciousness.

Again you seem to be deducing something by using logic, rather than directly looking …

"How does it feel to see this?"

I like it. It makes "me" feel close to stuff around me, including my cat hehe :)

Nice! Keep LOOKing ...

I can't quite grasp that consciousness is another label for life itself though, because there is more to the bird (label again I know) than its sound, there is the bird-body's little heart and feathers etc, and this body consciousness ("mine"), is not the experience of that, it is the experience of the sound. Hmm but then again the sound is only what is experienced right now. if "I" were to hold the bird, the feel of its wings would be synonymous with this body-consciousness ("mine"). Le me LOOK more at this one, feel free to probe me with more questions :)

You’re doing well, Harry. :) The important thing is to constantly LOOK.

"If there’s no “I,” what is it that needs time, or reflects?"

Nothing! There is just this body-consciousness and thoughts about reflecting/spending more time! I am beginning to think that thoughts are the same as the sound of the bird, they are just another articulation of consciousness. However, because thoughts are metaphysical, they are attributed some great importance unintentionally, like they are 'wisdom' about how to live ones life. But they are not! They are just fictional narrative, composed of human-created language that itself is constrained its own human-origin.....hmmmm...interesting

Did you think, or did you LOOK?

I wanted to share with you a great conversation I had yesterday with my girlfriend. She is a visual artist, and has always been very good at popping what she sees in front of her on to a canvas with great accuracy, so "she" has developed the ability to look at stuff and not be involved in thought...Ie just to see it.

One thing she said yesterday really struck me. I was lying in the backyard looking up at the sky, and the clothesline was in view. I said to her how interesting the difference is in seeing the clothes line with my eyes open, and closing my eyes and conjuring an image of the clothes-line. What I was saying is that they are experienced in a different space. The seeing of the physical clothes line from sensory light-input, and the conjuring in the minds-eye of the image of the clothes line. What she articulated though, which I find very interesting, and had never thought about before, was that they are BOTH experienced in the same place, the minds-eye, which is to say, that even with eyes open and seeing the image, that image is experienced as a thought just like the one in the minds eye. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this correctly, but I found it very interesting. Just thought I'd pop that in hehe :)

Thanks for sharing your experience, Harry. It actually made me imagine you lying in the backyard, chilling … :)

[harrye]

Yes, except for the way you’re using the word “my.”
You say that it’s “mine” because “others” or “other bodies” also have their own ‘things’ like body,
consciousness, or experience.

Is that true?

How can the consciousness of “other bodies” be directly experienced?
Can it be? Then, how can you be 100% certain that there is “others’” consciousness?
How can “others” be when you’re not?

LOOKing is looking in direct experience … no speculation, no logic, no deduction, no thinking, just HERE and NOW. :)

Yes I can see from my last post that there was a lot of thinking there, and not direct observation. Once again, its very tricky to not fall into those concepts etc.

The consciousness of "other bodies" can't be directly experienced, so no, I can't be 100% certain that there are "other" consciousnesses. I can see that this is quite clear actually. The idea of "other consciousnesses" is just another thought, in the same way that "I" have a concept of "others" and their traits in "my" mind.

So, from the perspective of this consciousness, there is ONLY this consciousness, which IS its experience.

I see their is a bit of deduction in the above paragraphs, so, HERE and NOW I can see that there is just consciousness. Nothing experienced is outside of consciousness, otherwise it wouldn't be experienced. I can see this while sitting here now, consciousness is experience...and thoughts chime in along the way. Thoughts taken as what "we" are obscure seeing what consciousness is, which is what "we" experience, including thought.

Again you seem to be deducing something by using logic, rather than directly looking …

Yes you're right, I have a tendency do be quite analytical and logical, and write flowery paragraphs haha. Ok I'll try and keep it simple:

I can find no separation, here and now, between consciousness and experience, and when there seems to be a separation, this is a thought :)

Nice! Keep LOOKing ...

Experience is consciousness, this is great :)

You’re doing well, Harry. :) The important thing is to constantly LOOK.

Previously my interpretation had been of consciousness witnessing things, but you have helped to bridge the gap my friend, consciousness IS experience, including thought.

Did you think, or did you LOOK?

I thought hehe, "I'm" always thinking hehe. Thoughts are consciousness as my as any other experience.

[Bananafish]

Hi Harry! Glad to see more and more clarity in your answers. :)

Now ...

Is there anything unclear yet?

Was there any kind of shift in perception?

Is your understanding still intellectual?
If so, what is it that blocks the visceral understanding of no-self?

[harrye]

Is there anything unclear yet?

Pretty much everything you have said is quite clear. I can see that consciousness is its experience, and that "I" is just a thought. One thing I feel unsure about though is your statement that "consciousness is life itself." Perhaps you could elaborate here? Or perhaps you meant, consciousness is the experience of life itself? In which case yes I see that :)

Was there any kind of shift in perception?

Yes, I feel more aware of how my experience is actually consciousness itself, when listening, hearing, touching etc. This feels like a slight perception shift. I feel more aware when thoughts chime in that their content is not "me," because "I" am experience, including the experience of a thought, but not its content: I am not the bird, I am the experience of hearing/seeing/touching the bird.

Is your understanding still intellectual?

I have an intellectual understanding of this, but I do know now that I also have an experiential & visceral understanding, and can SEE that when I want to. I have thoughts that are fears of not keeping a visceral understanding, or of my intellectual understanding obscuring my visceral understanding, but these are just thoughts :)
Thanks bananafish!

[Bananafish]

Pretty much everything you have said is quite clear. I can see that consciousness is its experience, and that "I" is just a thought. One thing I feel unsure about though is your statement that "consciousness is life itself." Perhaps you could elaborate here? Or perhaps you meant, consciousness is the experience of life itself? In which case yes I see that :)

It doesn't matter what label is used ... you can call it Reality, Life, God, Tao, Buddha,
Consciousness, etc., but they are all about what IS, HERE and NOW, as it is. Anything other than that
is imaginary. See this? Then, what's the meaning of calling them in different ways, when they are all
the same? Are consciousness, life, and experience different? Do you see?

Yes, I feel more aware of how my experience is actually consciousness itself, when listening, hearing, touching etc. This feels like a slight perception shift. I feel more aware when thoughts chime in that their content is not "me," because "I" am experience, including the experience of a thought, but not its content: I am not the bird, I am the experience of hearing/seeing/touching the bird.

Why define "I," like "I am 〜"?
Does the "I" exist? Why does it need to be defined?

I have an intellectual understanding of this, but I do know now that I also have an experiential & visceral understanding, and can SEE that when I want to. I have thoughts that are fears of not keeping a visceral understanding, or of my intellectual understanding obscuring my visceral understanding, but these are just thoughts :)
Thanks bananafish!

It's my pleasure, Harry! :)
Just to make sure ...

Did you SEE it clearly?

[harrye]

Hi Bananafish,

Sorry for my late reply this time. I had guests over the weekend, and a gig, and so was unable to spend much time on the computer. But here we go:

It doesn't matter what label is used ... you can call it Reality, Life, God, Tao, Buddha,
Consciousness, etc., but they are all about what IS, HERE and NOW, as it is. Anything other than that
is imaginary. See this? Then, what's the meaning of calling them in different ways, when they are all
the same? Are consciousness, life, and experience different? Do you see?

Yes, I see. Anything other than HERE and NOW is thought. No they can't be different, it's just thought and trying to interpret/label things that makes them seem different. Sitting here right NOW, I can see that this consciousness is all that there is (experientially), anything else is thought/deduction.

Why define "I," like "I am 〜"?
Does the "I" exist? Why does it need to be defined?

Ah yes, there is just consciousness. There is no "I." The notion that "II am experience" is false, because there is just experience. The "I" thought just pops up very repetitively and so "I" often think that that is what I am.

So, the goal here is of course not to remove thought and "I," but to just not take it seriously, and just another aspect of consciousness/life/experience...

Just to make sure ...

Did you SEE it clearly?

Yes, I have seen it clearly. I can't see it at a moments notice, but when not swept up in my thoughts I can see it :)

[Bananafish]

Hi Bananafish,

Sorry for my late reply this time. I had guests over the weekend, and a gig, and so was unable to spend much time on the computer. But here we go:

Thanks for posting, Harry! :)

Anything other than HERE and NOW is thought. No they can't be different, it's just thought and trying to interpret/label things that makes them seem different. Sitting here right NOW, I can see that this consciousness is all that there is (experientially), anything else is thought/deduction.

Nice! How does it feel to see this?

Ah yes, there is just consciousness. There is no "I." The notion that "II am experience" is false, because there is just experience. The "I" thought just pops up very repetitively and so "I" often think that that is what I am.

So, the goal here is of course not to remove thought and "I," but to just not take it seriously, and just another aspect of consciousness/life/experience...

Does the “I” think?

Yes, it is natural that clouds appear, but once you really see that the sun is always there above the clouds, whether the clouds appear or not, there’s no need (and no one) to care about it!

Yes, I have seen it clearly. I can't see it at a moments notice, but when not swept up in my thoughts I can see it :)

Yes, there are always breaks in the clouds, so, just see it, reconfirm, until there’s no need for reconfirmation any more. :)

If you're ready, I will ask you a couple of final questions.
Are you up for it?

[harrye]

Nice! How does it feel to see this?

It feels nice, its comforting :)

Does the “I” think?

Yes, it is natural that clouds appear, but once you really see that the sun is always there above the clouds, whether the clouds appear or not, there’s no need (and no one) to care about it!

No, the "I" doesn't think, because the "I" is a thought. Here and now there is just experience.

Yes that makes sense, the thoughts of caring about it, are just thoughts! The thought of needing to help oneself is just a thought, and there is no "one" to help. Experience just is. That is all there is, experience, and that includes thought.

Yes, there are always breaks in the clouds, so, just see it, reconfirm, until there’s no need for reconfirmation any more. :)

If you're ready, I will ask you a couple of final questions.
Are you up for it?

Yes, ask away :)

[Bananafish]

OK, Harry. Please answer all the questions as honest as possible (just like
you've done so far), and please don't try to find the "right" answers by thinking
about it ... remember, always LOOK when questions is asked; don't conceptualise it,
no logic, no teaching from the past, including what I said in this forum.
Tell me anytime you don't SEE ... then I can help you.

All above said, lets start!

Question1: Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there
ever?


Question2: Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from
your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.


Question3: How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue?
Please report from the past few days.


Question4: Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How
does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.


Question5: What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?


Question6: Anything to add?

[harrye]

Thanks bananafish,

I have written a response to half of your questions, and will complete the response tomorrow morning and send it to you, as I'm afraid I have recording/gig commitments for the rest of the day. I thought it might be best to submit them all at once so I've held off from submitting a half-response

Looking forward to responding to your questions in full tomorrow.

Harry

[Bananafish]

Hi there! :)
Thank you for the reply, and yes, take your time,
I'll be waiting for it.

Have a great recording / gig!

Bananafish