Just need a little push...

[Delma]

What does the feeling belong to? Point to that.
.

[pfWrep5ph9]

What does the feeling belong to? Point to that.

I feel the feeling of being an I. It belongs to me.

Who's the feeler of the feeling of I. The mind searches in the same place as when pointing to the I directly.

Thinking of the seer, the hearer, I feels like a spot somewhere in the center of the head, behind the eyes, in the middle. A location.

Thinking of the feeler, of all the sensations in the body, I feels more like it's encompasing the entire body. Pointing to mine.

It's confusing. Not sure if it's the feeling of I, or the feeling of searching for I. Sometimes looking for I seems to not point anywhere. It's just there being a word.

But it feels like something to be me. It's distinct, things that are 'me' vs things that are just observed. Can't put a pin in that feeling. My actions, my body. My expression on my face, I feel it right now, it feels intentional. There's speech, sounds from my mouth. There's the speaker, who owns the speech, who produces it. It feels like born out of free will.

This body feels like it's me. The feeling of the body being me feels like me. It's me looking, it's me being it.

Argh...

[Delma]

Hi Eli,

Yes, it does FEEL like an I. But is there one? In reality, as defined by your own criteria, is there an I?

Is it in the head? Where?
Why do we say "my head" then?

Is it in the body? Where?
Why do we say "my body" then?

When we say, "my head, my body, my feelings, my soul, my spirit", to what do those things point? Is there anything to be found anywhere?

Do you have a pet? Take a good look at the animal world. Is a self necessary for the animal to act or is it instinctual?

Thank you! Keep digging. You're onto some important things here.

Delma

[pfWrep5ph9]

Yes, it does FEEL like an I. But is there one? In reality, as defined by your own criteria, is there an I?

Is it in the head? Where?
Why do we say "my head" then?

Is it in the body? Where?
Why do we say "my body" then?

When we say, "my head, my body, my feelings, my soul, my spirit", to what do those things point? Is there anything to be found anywhere?

Last night, I was looking at my bedroom wall, where there's some small lights lined up like an arch, and I was thinking they sort of look like the smile of the Cheshire Cat. So my mind would conceptualize the cat's head around this smile. I'd know where the head was supposed to be, even though physically I obviously couldn't see the head, and knew it wasn't there either. I realized this feeling is exactly the same as when I 'feel' the 'I'.

'I' is conceptual, feeling, thoughts, all of the above, but nonetheless all it feels like is mind-stuff. Nothing physical. Nothing to see, hear, smell, touch, taste.

Is it in the head? In what cavity would it be lodged exactly?

Is it in the body? Same question.

It's not physically there. My criteria are to check if something's actually, physically there. It's not.

It's also like when we see a bunch of humans together and we say 'people'. People is also not a physical thing, just an abstraction. It's a grouping.

'I' is a group of stuff that 'I' owns. Anything that's in the group is 'mine'.

Do you have a pet? Take a good look at the animal world. Is a self necessary for the animal to act or is it instinctual?

Two cats. No, I don't believe they need a self. They seem to have personalities, but that's different. No choice, just responding to things, externally and internally. They get tired and cold, they find a leg to cuddle up against and fall asleep. They see something moving or making noises and they try to catch it. Instinctual.

I'm trying here. In the car to and from work, seeing what happens. 'I see the car in front', the car in front is there, is the 'I' there. It's becoming more defined. This I is entirely mind stuff. Concepts, ideas. Still, it's frustrating. I speak, I look for the spoken, and the speaker. Why is my voice 'mine' and someone elses not. What's that feeling. Even with text, I see your words and I see mine, but mine feel like mine, yours do not. Why. Who's asking these questions anyway. Who's looking for the difference between the feeling of 'I' and not 'I'. How can a concept, a grouping, a bunch of thoughts. own anything, control anything.

Hmm, I'm taking this feeling of 'I' too seriously, aren't I. Like you said, there's a feeling, OK. Is the feeling justified, that's the real question. Does the feeling point somewhere.

[Delma]

Hi Eli,

That last paragraph is at the heart of it. Is does the feeling have an owner? Where is the owner?
.

Let's stay with this inquiry for a bit longer:

When we say, "my head, my body, my feelings, my soul, my spirit", to what does the word "my" point to?

Yes, we are repeating the same exercise, but stay with it because I can see that your inquiry is sincere. Inquiry is not about thinking, it's about experiencing reality. That's why I have to keep taking you back to the "gate". My task, as a guide, is to hold you there even as thought/mind protests, becomes frustrated, or even frightened by the findings.

[pfWrep5ph9]

Yes, we are repeating the same exercise, but stay with it because I can see that your inquiry is sincere.

Thank you for this and for clarifying things now and then. I trust you, so if you need me to repeat something 100 times, I'm sure it's for the best

When we say, "my head, my body, my feelings, my soul, my spirit", to what does the word "my" point to?

Saying 'my body' as a whole, it points to a specific body. 'My' seems to just serve as a specifier there, and by using it together with 'body', the mind selects this body right here, as opposed to some other body.

'My' itself, it's that tether again. In the 'seer seeing seen', 'seeing' did the same. It tethers the idea of I to something. Or to an idea of something. Or just to another idea. It's connection. The body is known to me, it's owned by me, it's controlled by me, it defines me, it's part of me, ...

'My' is nothing physical again. It's a conceptual link. On the other side of the link... there's the idea of I. For each thing, there's a 'my' linking it to 'I'. And 'I' is like the hub linking all these things together. My hand moving, my foot moving, my thoughts. Without 'I' there, the links fall away, and it's just some hand over here doing something, some foot over there doing something else, some thoughts appearing somewhere else. No proof of connection. 'I' is literally what makes the invidivual seem undividable.

[pfWrep5ph9]

I sat down this morning to do some meditation and explore this sense of I connecting all separate actions of the body and things in the world.

There would be sensation of breathing, thoughts appearing. There's no evidence really linking these two very different activities and flavors of appeaeances together. Yet, they're both linked to the idea of me, as in, I'm breathing, I'm watching my thoughts. The idea of I forms this unified story behind all these separate things. I'm meditating.

Thoughts appear and the mouth moves a little bit like it's talking along. There's direct communication between that which creates thoughts and the mouth, but no 'I' needs to ensure that transaction. There's a direct link to let some thoughts seep through to verbalize, so of course there's correlation, but that's it.

Then the ride starts. Who's the I thinking the thoughts about how this all works? Also a story of I. Who's the I writing this to you? Also a story. The reality is thoughts appear, fingers move, words appear on screen.

And other people? It's the same. Starting to see that all work I do to create the idea of a unified 'I', I do exactly the same for for example 'my wife'. And my idea of 'my wife' is completely disconnected from her idea of her 'I'. There's her hands moving, her mouth making sounds, telling stories of her 'I' and her version of me.

Still feels like 'me' though, but I'm watching :)

[Delma]

Hi Eli.

It will always feel like an "I" is doing it.

Why? Well, take a look. Is there an "I" creating the sense of an I

That's not to be treated as a rhetorical question, though. Please look. Look for the "I" that creates the "I".

Can you find it?

Delma

P,S, if I'm a little slow to respond, it's be ause I'm traveling until Tuesday but still checking in!

[pfWrep5ph9]

Look for the "I" that creates the "I".

Can you find it?

Kneejerk reaction is that that obviously doesn't make sense. But actually, it feels like the first I in that sentence is not the same as the last I. It's the next turtle down. And as soon as that one is observed, it's jumped again. Now, to here, to the I observing the I who creates the I, supposedly. There's a real I and fake I's in these stories. Have to keep shining the light on the actual actor in the current story. It's here, right now, pretending to write this.

What's the hang up. It's like the truth is seen, somewhat, but there's blockage. Like it's necessary to keep all this glued together with an 'I'. Frustrating.

[Delma]

"It's here, right now, pretending to write this"

Hi Eli,

That needs to be tested. Is it here? Can it pretend?

Get focused on it. Exactly what is pretending?

Delma

[pfWrep5ph9]

> "It's here, right now, pretending to write this"
>
> That needs to be tested. Is it here? Can it pretend?
>
> Get focused on it. Exactly what is pretending?

I check what's here. Music in the background. Living room. Laptop. Hands typing. Words appearing on the screen. Thoughts appearing related to the words on the screen.

It's not here physically. The hands moving, the words, the thoughts, the buttons, there's a sense they're all connected through one story. It's all part of "I'm investigating the I". My face is not to be seen, but it's felt. There's a serious expression on it, part of this story as well.

Is it here? Not physically. As an overlay. A concept. It's like a story without words. It brings meaning, relevance.

Can it pretend? A thought or a feeling can't pretend, no. It's a metaphor. Things happen by themselves. There's an urge for the body to do this activity right now, but a story gets told about it that includes an actor, the I. A story, and a feeling. A feeling that I'm the I. Hahah. Oh boy, what can it possibly be attached to. I guess it's just there. Like this self-perpetuating idea, held up by nothing.

Who is writing this? What's pretending to write this? I keep thinking 'just accept it'. Who can accept, who can keep thinking. There's a flaw in the entire way we view the world. Causers of effects, choice, free will, actors, someone to blame, someone to congratulate.

Arghh, for God's sake, it's so close. It's going on right now. There's no I, right here, right now, in this moment. There can't be. There's just this contracted energy. This belief in this story about me trying to see through the illusion of the I. The story's an overlay. Just like vision's silent and sound's dark, but we have the illusion that it's all a complete singular view of reality, so these thoughts right here, right now, are completely orthogonal to what's experienced. At least seeing hands clap and hearing the clapping sound, it's acceptable to see those two observations as one thing. But thoughts, man, they sneak in there, without being noticed as not actually part of reality.

Delma, I'm ranting and looking and sharing the rants, but guess that's it for now.

[Delma]

Hello Eli,

Let's look at this:
"I check what's here. Music in the background. Living room. Laptop. Hands typing. Words appearing on the screen. Thoughts appearing related to the words on the screen.

It's not here physically. The hands moving, the words, the thoughts, the buttons, there's a sense they're all connected through one story. It's all part of "I'm investigating the I". My face is not to be seen, but it's felt. There's a serious expression on it, part of this story as well.

Is it here? Not physically. As an overlay. A concept. It's like a story without words. It brings meaning, relevance."

The part in blue is investigation/inquiry. The rest is logic and reasoning (except for the part about the face not seen but felt.

What I see is that the discovery that there is no entity of Eli, and then you move on to trying to reason it out. There is no need. Remember that this is said to be so simple that it's overlooked. Can you see where you keep making the discovery and overlooking it? Is it hard to believe that the actual FACT of reality is that there is no sustained Eli as an entity?

Forget about the "story" stuff. That's just a learned belief. I don't want us to go there, just to investigate reality as it is. We don't need to explain why it is, just WHAT it is or isn't.

Does this make sense?

When I first started inquiry, it was on a now-defunct forum called Ruthless Truth. Eventually, I joined them. They were a precursor to Liberation Unleashed. And all we did was to tell people to "Just Look". We repeated this until they got so frustrated that they "got it". They got that it was as simple as checking to find out whether something that's supposedly existed for years is actually there.

Is it? Just look. Just check. Check all the senses. What does your discovery MEAN?

Delma

[pfWrep5ph9]

The part in blue is investigation/inquiry. The rest is logic and reasoning (except for the part about the face not seen but felt.

Thank you for clarifying the distinction, that was really helpful.

What I see is that the discovery that there is no entity of Eli, and then you move on to trying to reason it out. There is no need. Remember that this is said to be so simple that it's overlooked. Can you see where you keep making the discovery and overlooking it? Is it hard to believe that the actual FACT of reality is that there is no sustained Eli as an entity?

There's a strong bias toward reasoning, being smart, writing it out well, more drama, more complexity. Parts of me think squinting and thinking extra had will help. All it requires is just calm and unbiased looking, doesn't it. Mind yells "there's a Santa!" and we go "ok, mind, that's nice, let's have a look together where he is, shall we". Like when a child tells a silly lie and you have to lead them calmly to admit it.

Ugh, I'm doing it again. So distracting.

There's no horse in my living room. Easy. Done.

There's no I in my living room. Emm...

In plain sight, no me to be seen. Just a sensation. A sensation unsupported by the senses.

Forget about the "story" stuff. That's just a learned belief. I don't want us to go there, just to investigate reality as it is. We don't need to explain why it is, just WHAT it is or isn't.

Does this make sense?

Yes, it does.

When I first started inquiry, it was on a now-defunct forum called Ruthless Truth. Eventually, I joined them. They were a precursor to Liberation Unleashed. And all we did was to tell people to "Just Look". We repeated this until they got so frustrated that they "got it". They got that it was as simple as checking to find out whether something that's supposedly existed for years is actually there.

Is it? Just look. Just check. Check all the senses. What does your discovery MEAN?

I admire you for not being the first to get frustrated, haha. This is insanity! It's in plain sight, how is it so difficult to see. Mind's just got its hands over its ears going "la la la la there's a me there's a me la la la la I can't hear you!". But it's there, nose pressed in truth.

What does it mean? I can only feel reasoning come up. Poking for the right answers.

Thank you, this message cleared up a lot again. Things are calmer. Another day...

[Delma]

Ok, so we've established that it's nowhere and undetectable to the senses. We know that it does not meet the criteria you've established for reality.

But it FEELS like it's there, right?

We looked for the owner of the feeling and can't find one.

But it still FEELS like it's there.

See? The mind is in a loop. And that is the trick of the sense of self. It is as if the mind is split and thinks it can see itself. It's the biggest trick of them all, because when it's checked... when it's looked for.. nothing. It just "moves" to another mental justification/explanation. None of them prove true.

Let's do another exercise to break things up a bit...

Look at your hands and arms. Do they belong to the body or to a you? What does that body belong to? A feeling?

Delma

[pfWrep5ph9]

See? The mind is in a loop. And that is the trick of the sense of self. It is as if the mind is split and thinks it can see itself. It's the biggest trick of them all, because when it's checked... when it's looked for.. nothing. It just "moves" to another mental justification/explanation. None of them prove true.

Yes!! It's like it's pulling itself up by its own boots. So the trick is to just keep following the I? Until it doesn't have any support anymore? Wear it out?

Look at your hands and arms. Do they belong to the body or to a you?

The feeling is that they're my arms and hands, that they belong to me. They're my tools, and I use them to do things I want to get done. The hands move and it feels like it's me doing it. But it also feels like they're part of me. In case of the body, there's no feeling thet the arms and hands belong to the body. It just doesn't come up that the body can own anything. I'm in charge here. The body has no say, it has to listen too. The arms and hands are just attached to the body.

What does that body belong to? A feeling?

Also to me. Does it belong to a feeling? It's conflicting. One feeling is that it belongs to me, a second feeling is that it IS me. It is me, like it's part of my self image. It feels like it belongs to me, because I'm the smart one controlling it to do stuff.

There's a feeling it belongs to me, and me is also a feeling. In reality there is a body, hands, arms. No sign of ownership. Me's a feeling. I mean, all it's detected as is a feeling. Feelings can't own stuff.

The mind indicates the I is more likely to be the brain itself. That's the bit that thinks and controls, so it must be me. Yesterday it indicated I could be a little gland somewhere in the brain. But then I wouldn't be the body. The body would be something else, and I'd be pulling the levers and pushing the buttons. Which feels really weird. Because that'd mean I LOOK like a little gland, I AM a little gland, hideous and gland looking.

It's hard talking about 'belonging' and 'owning' without reasoning and talking about what things 'seem like' rather than 'are'. Because they're just ideas, right.

Keep 'em coming, Delma! :)