mirage like self

[Pharao]

Hey Sarah,

i will ponder on this weekend.

Au revoir
Ramses

[Sarah7]

Have fun! Xx

[Pharao]

Hi Sarah,

You said suffering is being lost in the content of thought again. I asked what happens to the suffering when it is sat with, without doing anything other than being aware of what is there, e.g. resistance etc. and looked at. Does that make sense now?

Without doing anything other than being aware of what is there draws you in a calmness that is choiceless and not judgmental.

So you want to stop avoiding? Or avoid certain experiences completely?

No, it is impossible to stop avoiding or avoid certain experiences completely, because experiences just happen without any intervention.

Ok lets look at sensory experience. Seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling and tasting. We are going to start with seeing.
Gaze at an object. Turn up that inner magnifying glass to observe what's happening in direct experience. In seeing, what is being experienced? What is happening when "seeing" is happening? What is doing the seeing? What is being seen? What does "seeing" consists of? Describe the actual, direct experience of seeing. Do you first perceive the object using some other sense, and then see it later? Can you find a dividing line between the object and the seeing of it? Or are the object and the seeing of it inseparable? Is there an entity called "you" experiencing the seeing? Can you find a dividing line between "you" and seeing? Is it an accurate description of direct experience? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I" and seer and an object? Or is there only seeing? What do you see about the thought, "I'm seeing that object"?

Try it with various sights e.g. out of the window at a distant view. See if you can find a way to separate the object from the seeing and the seeing from the seer. Where does one start and the other end? How many senses are there here - 1 or more?

The seeing is a process that involves a lot of components, light, eye, brain, mind, etc. The Light being reflected from the object seen stimulates the retina, this sends a signal to the brain, the brain interprets the signal and than the mind comes to label the object seen. Naturally the description of this process is just the story that was told by scientist. What was acutally happening is just seeing, without the divided steps told above. There is no line between the object seen and the seer. There is just seeing. The Thought "I'm seeing that object" is just a content of a thought and has no meaning at all.

Au revoir,
Ramses

[Sarah7]

Morning
Nice noticing. So onto listening.

Notice the sounds you’re hearing, like the chirping of the birds. Notice the habitual thought, "Those are birds." Notice the habitual thought, "I hear that." Now just pay attention to how hearing happens. Take your time with it. Can you find a dividing line between the sound and the hearing of the sound? Are you doing the hearing? Or is it truer to say that hearing is just happening? Then look to see whether there's a dividing line between the hearing of it and a separate entity, a "you," doing the hearing. In other words, what does it mean when you say, "I'm hearing that sound"? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I" and hearing and a sound? Or is there just one experience of hearing, with no one as a hearer. Look closely. Try it with various sounds. See if you can find a way to separate the sound from the hearing and the hearing from the hearer. Where does one start and the other end? So what do you see about the thought, "I'm hearing that sound"? Is it an accurate description of direct experience? What is a noise? Is that a label also? Is the sound there? Can you really know?

[Pharao]

Morning Sarah,

Notice the sounds you’re hearing, like the chirping of the birds. Notice the habitual thought, "Those are birds." Notice the habitual thought, "I hear that." Now just pay attention to how hearing happens. Take your time with it. Can you find a dividing line between the sound and the hearing of the sound? Are you doing the hearing? Or is it truer to say that hearing is just happening? Then look to see whether there's a dividing line between the hearing of it and a separate entity, a "you," doing the hearing. In other words, what does it mean when you say, "I'm hearing that sound"? Are there really three entities there in direct experience, an "I" and hearing and a sound? Or is there just one experience of hearing, with no one as a hearer. Look closely. Try it with various sounds. See if you can find a way to separate the sound from the hearing and the hearing from the hearer. Where does one start and the other end? So what do you see about the thought, "I'm hearing that sound"? Is it an accurate description of direct experience? What is a noise? Is that a label also? Is the sound there? Can you really know?

The hearing is also a process that include a lot of parts, i.e vibrating air, ear, brain, mind, etc. The vibrating air created by a flying airplane get into the ear; the ear than makes a signal and sends it to the brain, the brain interprets the signal and create a sound than the mind comes to label the sound as being a flying airplane. This is what science tell us.. What acutally happens is just hearing, without a division. There is no line between a sound and the hearer. There is just hearing. The "I'm hearing that sound"? is just a content of a thought and is meaningless. A noise is a sound that is labeled as a noise. There is no sound there that exists separate, rather there is an experience of hearing that includes all things involved in that experience.

Au revoir,
Ramses

[Sarah7]

Hey Ramses
Lovely. Moving on then!

Touch the table (or any object) with your eyes shut (or open). Pretend like it’s the first time you have ever touched a table. Go straight to the raw sensation/perception. What is your direct experience of this ‘table’? List your direct experience. Is it senses again? Is it thoughts again? Look very closely. Which comes first the senses or the thoughts?
Does the sensation of touching come with a shape, density, weight, size, colour, age or function? Does this sensation come with a ‘not me’ label or ‘other’ label? Is it one sensation/perception or two?
Look at how thoughts try and take over, try and explain, try and prove. Notice your memories or references with which you compare the experience. Sit with these sensations. Look at them. Look at the labelling e.g. table, hand. Look at the thoughts or story that attach at the end of this list if any. What is your direct experience of these words? Do they exist outside of thought? Are they sensations again? Are they just thoughts again? Look very closely. Which comes first the sensation or the thoughts? Don’t pay attention to the thoughts just look at what they do, when they come in.
Hug Sarah xxx

[Pharao]

Hey Sarah,

Touch the table (or any object) with your eyes shut (or open). Pretend like it’s the first time you have ever touched a table. Go straight to the raw sensation/perception. What is your direct experience of this ‘table’? List your direct experience. Is it senses again? Is it thoughts again? Look very closely. Which comes first the senses or the thoughts?
Does the sensation of touching come with a shape, density, weight, size, colour, age or function? Does this sensation come with a ‘not me’ label or ‘other’ label? Is it one sensation/perception or two?
Look at how thoughts try and take over, try and explain, try and prove. Notice your memories or references with which you compare the experience. Sit with these sensations. Look at them. Look at the labelling e.g. table, hand. Look at the thoughts or story that attach at the end of this list if any. What is your direct experience of these words? Do they exist outside of thought? Are they sensations again? Are they just thoughts again? Look very closely. Which comes first the sensation or the thoughts? Don’t pay attention to the thoughts just look at what they do, when they come in.

The experience of touching the table is an experience of sensation that thought labels as such and such. First comes the sensation than the labeling takes over. The sensation of touching is a raw experience without characteristics (no shape, density, weight, size, colour, age or function). It is just one sensation not two. The direct experience of the words ( labelling) of sensations is the experience of thought. They don’t exist outside of thought. They are just thoughts again.


I am confused with the word perception here, What does it mean in the context above?

Au revoir,
Ramses

[Sarah7]

Morning Ramses
Perception in this case is just asking you to be aware of what is perceived whilst touching. Thoughts, sensation etc. Which you did!

Sit on a chair with your eyes closed. Feel the Direct Experience of sitting there. Notice thoughts thinking, labelling and explaining. Notice memory too. Notice sensations experiencing. Notice the sensation of bottom on chair – what is that – a thought? Notice the ‘me’ ‘mine labels e.g. this is my bottom – but look closely at that sensation labelling – is it yours, or just coming and going along with thoughts, ever changing. Is it the thought that wants to own? How many sensations do you notice? 2? One bottom sensation, and one chair sensation? How is that possible? Where does one sensation end and another begin? Locate that line. Can you feel that line? Or is that thought? Can you sense that line – or is that thought explaining the sensation?

And I’d like you to play around with smell and taste, a nice excuse to explore favourite foods etc! Have fun! See if you can detect any seperation between you and the smelling or tasting of etc.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Pharao]

Morning Sarah,

Sit on a chair with your eyes closed. Feel the Direct Experience of sitting there. Notice thoughts thinking, labelling and explaining. Notice memory too. Notice sensations experiencing. Notice the sensation of bottom on chair – what is that – a thought? Notice the ‘me’ ‘mine labels e.g. this is my bottom – but look closely at that sensation labelling – is it yours, or just coming and going along with thoughts, ever changing. Is it the thought that wants to own? How many sensations do you notice? 2? One bottom sensation, and one chair sensation? How is that possible? Where does one sensation end and another begin? Locate that line. Can you feel that line? Or is that thought? Can you sense that line – or is that thought explaining the sensation?

The sensation of bottom on chair is a thought. It is just a sensation coming and going along with thoughts, ever changing. It is the thought that wants to own. There is just one sensation and a thought explaining that sensation.

And I’d like you to play around with smell and taste, a nice excuse to explore favourite foods etc! Have fun! See if you can detect any seperation between you and the smelling or tasting of etc.

Smelling the scent of a rose is an experience of smell. After the smelling a thought pops up and tells the story that the scent was from a rose. But during the experiencing there was just smelling. Likewise is the experience of taste. Only the thought gives meaning to it and makes a story about it.

Au revoir,
Ramses

[Sarah7]

Hey Ramses
This is from your first post.

A step by step approach to see through the illusion of an existing self. To help me see the difference between stories and reality. To help me see why I am suffering and making other people to suffer. To endlissly find happiness.

How are we doing?
Can you find a self, a you, anywhere?
Can you see the stories?
Is the suffering yours? Have you owed it?
Is there still a need for endless happiness? If so, what would want that, and what is wrong with right now?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Pharao]

Hey Sarah,

How are we doing?

We are doing well 😊.

Can you find a self, a you, anywhere?

The identification with a self entity is seen through, but the self still exists as the captain of this ship.

Can you see the stories?

Yes I can recognize them.

Is the suffering yours? Have you owed it?

The suffering is not mines and I have not owed it.

Is there still a need for endless happiness? If so, what would want that, and what is wrong with right now?

If there is a surrender to what is, there is no need to still run behind the luck. Suffering seems to happen only when the attention is distracted ( Which is more often the case ).

Bon weekend,
Ramses

[Sarah7]

Morning!

The identification with a self entity is seen through, but the self still exists as the captain of this ship.

In what way. Can you give me some examples?
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Pharao]

Morning Sarah,

In what way. Can you give me some examples?

When I responds to your questions, I am actually responding again through millions of years of history. A certain way of interpreting information still exists. A recording of all that has happened before. That’s why seeing through the self entity, doesn’t make it disappear.

Au revoir,
Ramses

[Sarah7]

Morning Ramses
So if this ‘certain way of interpreting’ is not part of this moment then?
Are you saying it doesn’t belong in it? To be gotten rid of? Or should have disappeared? Why?
Is there an attachment to the idea that it should not be there?
Are you expecting to live with the realisation 24/7?

You know TV shows aren’t real but do you watch them constantly thinking ‘they’re all actors, this isn’t real’ even though you already know that and can set it aside to enjoy the show.
Does this certain way of interpreting mean there’s now a ‘you’ again or still?

If there never was a me, there’s nothing to come back. Once you’ve seen an illusion you can’t unsee it but you can choose to act along with it as in this case because we still have aspects of our experiencing which are conditioned; a body, senses, thoughts, feelings. Real? No, (unless its real as a thought, or real as a feeling). Part of this experiencing? Yes. Have a look.
Hugs Sarah xxx

[Pharao]

Morning Sarah,

So if this ‘certain way of interpreting’ is not part of this moment then?

Yes, It is part of this moment.

Are you saying it doesn’t belong in it? To be gotten rid of? Or should have disappeared? Why?

No, I am not saying it should disappear. I am just saying that that way is reflexive.

Is there an attachment to the idea that it should not be there?

No, it is just a fact that it is happening.

Are you expecting to live with the realisation 24/7?

No, I am just remarking that despite this understanding, the fact that we are interpreting things in a certain way remains.

Does this certain way of interpreting mean there’s now a ‘you’ again or still?

Now the ‘you’ is seen as the most of the experiences that shaped and conditioned me.

you can choose to act along with it.

It is not possible, because there are Layers upon layers of history passed down into me, which means that most of the experiences that shaped your “me happened without me even being there.

Au revoir,
Ramses