I'm ready

[Damon Kamda]

So the matrix is really inside?

If by inside you mean made up of thought, yes.

Ahh..no wonder we don't wanna look.

So, have you looked?

[danny7]

Yes.
I have looked and seen a void there.
In that void is all that is experienced.
There is noticing but nobody noticing.
I seem to receive and transmit only.
But only as an experiencer not as a doer.
Without thought that draws me I am not there.
Life just unfolds.
In that moment I notice the body that I used to personalize as something within that level.
It is no longer perceived as mine.
No fear present as there is no me.
It seems a current moves me.
Something alien to what I thought when I thought I was the driver.

Erm....the bad news is that the moment doesn't seem to last long.LOL

[Damon Kamda]

I seem to receive and transmit only.

Who is there to receive?
Who is there to transmit?

But only as an experiencer not as a doer.
Without thought that draws me I am not there.

In experience, is there an experiencer? Is someone having the experience? Is life happening to someone or something, or is the experiencer a thought that happens within the unfolding of life, as you call it?

Erm....the bad news is that the moment doesn't seem to last long.LOL

Ok. Now, danny, this isn't something that you make true through quieting the mind and intensely focusing on it. The void that you've seen in the place where the self was considered to have been, has always been there and will always be there. Can you see that?

The thought of identification does not change anything- there is no you regardless of the content of the mind.

So there should be no straining to see this once the natural recognition has occured.

Is it true that there has never been and will never be a you?

[danny7]

Is it true that there has never been and will never be a you?

Yes that can be seen now.
The experiencer is nothing but a thought that happens in the unfolding of life.
Your clarification also helps as thought is what seems to distort the nakedness of the truth which is always there.
So If I focus on trying to stay there,thought will continue to blur/delude.
Once I get that identification out of the way,I stay in the void easily.

Erm....now to the unanswerable...what the hell am I?

LOL

[Damon Kamda]

Once I get that identification out of the way,I stay in the void easily.

Can you describe what identification is? How it works?

Who will stay in the void? What does that mean?

Erm....now to the unanswerable...what the hell am I?

Who is there to be anything? What does it mean to ask "Who am I?"?

[danny7]

Can you describe what identification is? How it works?

Who will stay in the void? What does that mean?

A thought that identifies with a singularity.
Staying in the void of no thought.
This is the only way the background sees the everything.
I become that which I see once I get out of the way.

Who is there to be anything? What does it mean to ask "Who am I?"?

Notice I didn't ask WHO am I
but WHAT am I.

[Damon Kamda]

I become that which I see once I get out of the way.

Notice I didn't ask WHO am I
but WHAT am I.

The question remains the same.
What I is there to be anything?

A thought that identifies with a singularity.

How does that work? How does a thought identify with a singularity?

Staying in the void of no thought.

I have no idea what you mean by "the void of no thought". Does that void depend on there being no thoughts?
Perhaps that is why "the moment doesn't seem to last long", as you said.
Look, I'm not trying to guide you into a state of no thought or any particular state for that matter.
I'm just trying to get you to look at you.
There seems to be a resistance to this, it keeps popping up again and again.

Take a look at these statements/questions of yours:

So If I focus on trying to stay there,thought will continue to blur/delude.
Once Iget that identification out of the way,I stay in the void easily.

Erm....now to the unanswerable...what the hell am I?

This I we need to identify- what/where/how is it?

[danny7]

What I is there to be anything?

Oops then if there's no "what" either..I'm lost and have no clue what you're talking about.
Back to square one,as they say.
I could've sworn I had it,but no.

This I we need to identify- what/where/how is it?

In the void I was in,and thought that it was the no-self,when I was absent of thought life just happened without there being a singularity.
At other times,I just use 'I' as I would think it corresponds to the structuring of a sentence.

But now that I know that I'm not even close,I really don't know what to do or say.
I'm sorry for having wasted our time.

[Damon Kamda]

Who said anything about wasting time? I'm really, really happy that you admitted that you have no idea what I'm talking about. That's a sign of honesty and a way to get out of this constant running around in circles.

In the void I was in,and thought that it was the no-self

There is no such thing as the "no-self". We're not looking to find the no-self, create a no-self of get closer to a no-self. There is no no-self! ;-) Forget about the no-self for a moment and look at what is ALWAYS already the case. Does a self ever occur, at any moment, in any way?

when I was absent of thought life just happened without there being a singularity.

Do thoughts require you to occur?
Is there a separation between thoughts and life?

Can you see how "life just happens" regardless of the thoughts that occur, if any?
Is there ever actual control over life, over anything- or just the appearance of control?

At other times,I just use 'I' as I would think it corresponds to the structuring of a sentence.

Does 'I' ever refer to anything else than language? In even the most mundane of sentences?
Take any sentence in which 'I' occurs and LOOK at what the 'I' in that sentence actually refers to.

We haven't wasted any time, we just keep circling and circling around the actual issue.
We'll get there.
Eventually.

[danny7]

Maybe you're too deep for me.
I've the intelligence of a bumblebee.
Is there anything called No-you-for-Dummies 101?
I need something more basic.
Something that could be taught to a child.
Or maybe I just lied when I said I was ready.
Got into something way over my head.
Quite frankly,I feel lost.

[Damon Kamda]

Nope, mate, this has nothing to do with intelligence, really.

Is there anything called No-you-for-Dummies 101?
I need something more basic.

Sure.

What is it we're trying to do here?

We're examining if there is such a thing as an I, a me, a mine. In other words: the self, the person, the someone that is apparently living your life. You know, when you say: "This is my life", or "I hurt my foot". That "my" is what we're taking a look at.

So, let's start from scratch.

Words refer to things right?

Right? Do they?

For example the word "foot" refers to an observable thing, a foot, that thing which is used for all kinds of purposes, such as kicking someone in the ass for example.

Well, then there's obviously the types of words that don't really refer to a concrete thing, but to a set of things or certain ideas or principles.

What kind of a word is "I"?
To what does it refer?

Quite frankly,I feel lost.

The I in that sentence for example. Break it down, the experience of feeling lost. Where, in that experience, is the I?

As I said, this has nothing to do with being or not being intelligent. Absolutely irrelevant for this purpose.
This is not an excercise in thinking, this is an excercise in closely observing what is happening RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, RIGHT NOW!

[danny7]

Speaking of foot,I remember the seed of my search relating to feet.
I was walking somewhere and suddenly felt my feet were moving on their own.
As if life were living itself through me.
The reason I use the I is because I have no idea what to substitute it with.
Neither do I want to unless I see that I've no use for it.
So I will stop using the sugar when I see I've no use for the cake.
Otherwise,I can talk myself out of it politically without seeing.
So I will stay where I am until I don't.
Now,having said that,the other reason I cling to the 'i',is because that which sees life must be there.
This is what I see right now at least.
There is space and happenings.
The walking,typing,and thinking happen as events.
They pass through me because I'm not there.
Where they come from is a mystery.
If I take myself out of the equation....wait.
Gonna take a deeper look.
Feel free to push and shove if you know where this is going.LOL

[Damon Kamda]

No need to stop using the word I, that's not the point here.
That would be silly.

There is space and happenings.
The walking,typing,and thinking happen as events.
They pass through me because I'm not there.
Where they come from is a mystery.
If I take myself out of the equation....wait.

You're on the right track there, Danny- keep looking at it like this, exactly like this.

[danny7]

A feeling of remembrance.
Of reknowing.
Searching for words.
It's like...returning to childhood or babyhood.
Labels by the I disappear as The I is no longer isolated from life.
But life itself?
There is still labelling but not a laberer?
There is seeing but not a seer.
The doing just...takes place.
Thought non-isolated by any particular thinker or center.
Just thought that flows here and there.

And then anger is felt.
Where did the cover-ups come from?
That I bought into this self when I appeared here?
And was later told that I had been born?

The 'i" would be a construct.
Deeply ingrained.

There can be no observer as that observer cannot look unto himself.
There would be only observing.
And even then,a falsity.
As the observing would be of labels imposed by others.
So what is being seen is nothing from nothing?

Sheesh.

[Damon Kamda]

Keep focused, danny, you seem to be close. You're doing great!

A feeling of remembrance.
Of reknowing.

Yes! It's always been like this. There was just confusion.

Searching for words.
It's like...returning to childhood or babyhood.

In a way, yes. Naked perception, raw, direct.
No need to stop thinking (as if that were possible) or to return to mommies womb though.

Labels by the I disappear as The I is no longer isolated from life.

Was there ever an I isolated from life, labelling things?
Or has the I never been anything but a label itself?

But life itself?
There is still labelling but not a laberer?
There is seeing but not a seer.
The doing just...takes place.
Thought non-isolated by any particular thinker or center.
Just thought that flows here and there.

Yes, labelling happens- no labeler.
In seeing, no seer.
In doing, no doer.
In thinking, no thinker.
All this continues as it always has, spontaneously, in perfect freedom.

And then anger is felt.
Where did the cover-ups come from?
That I bought into this self when I appeared here?
And was later told that I had been born?
The 'i" would be a construct.
Deeply ingrained.

Very well said.

There can be no observer as that observer cannot look unto himself.
There would be only observing.
And even then,a falsity.
As the observing would be of labels imposed by others.
So what is being seen is nothing from nothing?

Sheesh.

Keep writing, danny, it really helps to clear things up.

Here's some questions you may want to use as a guideline. Keep looking at your experience and let the words come:

• Is there a you, at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
• Explain in detail what the self is and how it works.
• How does it feel to be liberated?
• How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about any of this?