Guide request

[s-p-a-c-e]

Experience the familiar feeling, and see if you can catch yourself in the act of making it 'ME" or 'MY' feeling.
Ok, I see what you mean.
I focus on the feeling... it is there... and when it is there, it is just a feeling... The moment I start to think about the feeling, that is when the idetification happens and it turns from being a feeling to my feeling.

Ok, what about a hand. Watch how a hand becomes MY hand.

How a foot becomes MY foot.

Think of a number between 1 and 90.

The thought shows up, perhaps as an image of a number and/or the sound of it.
Notice how this can be a thought or MY thought.

Whilst identification may be socially conditioned, its got to be maintained, supported, held up.
And this is one of the ways we do it.

Explore and share.

Many takks :)
John

[SandViking]

Thanks for your reply!

How do we maintain the condition?
When I think of a number, I do not feel that it is "my" number, its just a number, or thought of a number.
Not sure I understand what you mean when you say "Whilst identification may be socially conditioned, its got to be maintained, supported, held up. And this is one of the ways we do it"

Thanks,
Andy

[s-p-a-c-e]

Andy,

Let's take a different angle...

Put a cup on the table.

Now, look. There is something on the table. At this point, we have not given any concept or idea or anything to it. Until that point, it is a something.

Look away from the object and bring to mind the idea of a cup, maybe a picture of a cup, even the feeling of a favourite cup.

So, we have two DISTINCT aspects here.

1. the experience of something (on a table).

2. ideas about a 'cup'.

Can you see that only experiencing the something (on a table) IS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT from an idea about a 'cup'.

And when (1) and (2) are brought together to map experience, suddenly we see a CUP on the table, and act accordingly, because we know the rules of engagement with a CUP. :) But prior to naming, there were no rules for the something.

It could have suddenly sprung into the ceiling, or dissolved, or sung a tune, or turned into air. No rules.

Explore, and see if you can experience the difference between something, and a named 'thing'.

Takk,
John

[SandViking]

Thanks for clearing that up for me! :)

Can you see that only experiencing the something (on a table) IS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT from an idea about a 'cup'.
Yes

Explore, and see if you can experience the difference between something, and a named 'thing'.
Ok

Thanks,
Andy

[s-p-a-c-e]

Andy,

As another example, look at the approach you're taking to this activity. See how you're seeing it, such that you approach it in that way.

Get used to looping back and asking, "How am I seeing this?", "What am I assuming to be the case?"

This is by way of a useful attitude to this kind of inquiry. It does require intensity.

This is not a criticism, but a hopefully, useful pointer.

Takk,
John

[SandViking]

Thanks for your reply! :)

Sorry about the short reply, I had to think and explore deeply on this one, so the message was more of a "Got it, I'll explore that" to let you know I had read your post.

The difference between a thing and a named thing:
Here is a thing (an idea) and here is a named thing (another idea)
When I explore these two ideas, I am drawn to the "space" between the 2 thoughts, where there is no thought and no ideas.

There I see that a thing is a thing and a named thing is a named thing, but when I name the thing; the moment I lable it or judge it; I identify with it. Prior to me naminig it, it is there (in view), but I have no "relationship" with it. But when I name it, a "shift in consciousness" happens and I get related to the thing.

Thanks,
Andy

[s-p-a-c-e]

Thanks for your reply! :)

Sorry about the short reply, I had to think and explore deeply on this one, so the message was more of a "Got it, I'll explore that" to let you know I had read your post.

The difference between a thing and a named thing:
Here is a thing (an idea) and here is a named thing (another idea)
When I explore these two ideas, I am drawn to the "space" between the 2 thoughts, where there is no thought and no ideas.

There I see that a thing is a thing and a named thing is a named thing, but when I name the thing; the moment I lable it or judge it; I identify with it. Prior to me naminig it, it is there (in view), but I have no "relationship" with it. But when I name it, a "shift in consciousness" happens and I get related to the thing.

Cool. So, when we make an 'object' like a 'cup', what tends to come with it is a 'subject' in relation to the 'object', i.e. 'Me'.
And so we make the 'world' up in this fashion, and make 'me' up too. Such a clever little system. :)

Perhaps spend the rest of the day, noticing times when what's around you has been named and made-up.
It can be objects like 'cup', or events like 'time for breakfast', or contexts like 'what a lovely day'.

And just notice this almost automatic objectifying of life into 'life'.

Share what you discover. :D
Takk,
John

[SandViking]

Thank you! Will do, and post it here when I'm done.

Thank you!
Andy

[s-p-a-c-e]

tusen takk :)

[SandViking]

Hi again,

I spent the rest of yesterday focusing on observing without labeling. It is very difficult for me to just look for more than a few seconds at a time, after that a thought "pops" in with either the name of the things or the colour of the things, or some other description. So I went "in and out" of observing and labeling.
Will continue with this today and see if it get easier.

Thanks,
Andy

[s-p-a-c-e]

Ok Andy, there is something underlying a feeling of 'sense of me' or 'i live in my head' etc, and that is the deeply held assumption that there is a me, that it is me :), and all these physical expressions are basically me in action. :)

It is rare that we dig into the fact of this assumption, really feel our holding of it, and the impact and implications of holding that assumption.

If we hold an assumption like, for example, 'I am awareness', or 'I am a child of God." :) this DOES shape and distort perception.

Every time we challenge an assumption, we clear away some distortion.

By 'challenge', I mean to really, really feel in your guts, that yes, you do live INSIDE this assumption, and to feel the presence of that assumption.

See if you can dig in to the presence of the assumption that there is a persistent entity inside you feel yourself to be, a 'me' that thinks, speaks, acts and moves.

Share what you find.

Takk,
John

[SandViking]

Yes, I agree with everything you write.

See if you can dig in to the presence of the assumption that there is a persistent entity inside you feel yourself to be, a 'me' that thinks, speaks, acts and moves.
When I start thinging about this, its an "absurd" thought, because I am having the experience of being "me" right now. To question this seems stupid and pointless, until I actually take a good look. :)
"I" can't seem to find any "me", "I" or "self" even though "I" had the experience of "them" just a second ago.
All I find is scilence, emptyness, peace.

Thanks,
Andy

[s-p-a-c-e]

Yes, I agree with everything you write.

See if you can dig in to the presence of the assumption that there is a persistent entity inside you feel yourself to be, a 'me' that thinks, speaks, acts and moves.
When I start thinging about this, its an "absurd" thought, because I am having the experience of being "me" right now. To question this seems stupid and pointless, until I actually take a good look. :)
"I" can't seem to find any "me", "I" or "self" even though "I" had the experience of "them" just a second ago.
All I find is scilence, emptyness, peace.

Ok, cool. :) What I'm pointing to is not 'finding a "me"', but the ASSUMPTION of "me'.

This tends not to be obvious. Whether you can find a "me" or not is trivial compared to the lived and held ASSUMPTION of "me" as an enduring entity that is who i am. This is a lived "reality" because you make it so.

So, stop the clocks :), and sit quietly, and see that there is a deep assumption of "me". Embrace it, welcome it, don't push it away. It has no power. It is an assumption, an idea.

If you have difficulty with this, then approach it this way, say to yourself:

Let's say that I have been assuming that "I" exists as "me", this enduring self inside. That I have not only assumed this, but LIVED THIS, taking this assumption to be utterly true, and real. And in so doing, have manufactured "me", and maintained the pretence of "me" for years and years and years.


See that you have pulled the wool over your eyes.

Takk,
John

[SandViking]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me, I assumed wrong ;)
I find this assumtion to be a bit "plastic"... it is not a consistent assumption; sometimes I assume I am "me the father of my doughter" which is a different assumtion than "me hanging out with friends." Even when watching TV there are different assumtions of "who I am" dependent on what's going on on the screen.
Still, there is an "invisible part" consistent in all assumptions that always remains the same, but it is not noticeble until I "stop and look" so it usually goes unnoticed.

I don't know if again I have assumed wrong and is now writing about different "personalities" or "roles", but this is what I was thinking after reading your reply 3 times and looking for quite some time (did not measure the time I spent looking).

Now that I know I have only assumed myself to be a real person, I assume this sense of me to dissapear, but it doesn't.
Instead I get a bad feeling in my stomack.
When I ask myself who it is that is feeling this feeling, the feeling weakens and as I continue to look for an answer it goes away completely.

Who is it that have pulled the wool over my eyes?
"Me"
Why?
(still waiting for that one ;)

Thanks,
Andy

[s-p-a-c-e]

Now that I know I have only assumed myself to be a real person, I assume this sense of me to dissapear, but it doesn't.
Instead I get a bad feeling in my stomack.
When I ask myself who it is that is feeling this feeling, the feeling weakens and as I continue to look for an answer it goes away completely.

The biggest assumption being that we know what assumption is all about. :)

Most assumptions are based on sound evidence. The assumption that the ground is going to stay solid beneath our step, for example. Are we ever aware of that assumption? No. So, such assumptions are short-cuts, basically saying, "Act like the world is like this," and we do, because most of the time, it works.

Now, unlike the evidence of ground, with the assumption of "me" its like we are manufacturing our own "ground", with every step, it rolls out before us.

Firstly, you assume that being aware of the held assumption of "me" existing and being who I am, is enough to eradicate a "sense of me", but what makes sensations this "sense of me"? There is nothing to eradicate. What there IS is an experience that you ASSUME to be real. You experience certain familiar feelings and hold them deeply as being a "sense of me", evidence of "me".

You make it that. You assume it.

You are still far off from grasping how assuming utterly distorts perception.

So, sit with it, dig into it. Explore:

Ask: Let's say, 100%, I am holding this assumption that "me" exists and is who I am.

How would that make me feel, experience life?

How does this assumption shape how I see me?

Without the assumption that "me" exists as me, what then?

When "I" have no made-up social identity 'Me', what then?

Explore, deeply, and curiously.

Takk,
John