Finding Me

[besposito]

One thought more… sight comes and goes, hearing comes and goes. So does touch, and smell. All experiences are transient. Therefore, experience is not reality. Reality cannot come and go. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

As far as I can tell, you're saying:
Sober direct experience = direct experience = real
Psychedelic direct experience = not direct experience = not real
Dreaming direct experience = not direct experience = not real
Why?

What you call direct experience and what I call direct experience are two very different things. That’s why there is confusion.

Please go back to my previous post and read carefully what I wrote about psychedelic ‘experience’. Notice that I said that it’s NOT direct experience.

So we first have to clarify this term… since what you call direct experience IS not experience but IMAGINATION…. Which is just the content of THOUGHTS.

So we are going to slow down here… since seeing this is essential.

Also notice that you are keeping the whole inquiry on the intellectual level, which is a dead end.
So we have to become practical, otherwise we are just like a dog who is chasing its own tail, for nothing.

Now please consider this….

In the night time dream, if the you are stabbed, then when you wake up, is there a bleeding wound with a need for medical attention? Yes or no?

Here is your answer. Be very careful to any thought of ‘BUT’. The intellect will bring up all sorts of theories, philosophies to consider, to ponder on… they are all dead ends and a resistance to actually look.

The question is plain and simple. Is there a bleeding wound or not?
Hint: that’s why whatever is happening in a dream is NOT a real experience.
It’s NOT actually happened.
It SEEMED that way… and that’s the trick. But it was all imagination.
It was just IMAGINED… it happened only IN THOUGHT, in IMAGINATION only. but NOT in actuality.

Vivien

[besposito]

I guess my confusion is this… Let’s take “seeing” for example.

There is “seeing” in all 3 states - waking, dreaming, and psychedelic.

If you appeared to me in either of the 2 latter states, and asked me whether I existed; and whether there is “seeing,” I would say “yes.” If you asked me whether I was imagining you, I would say “no, I don’t think so.” This is the same thing as you appearing to me now in the waking state.

It’s in retrospect - that is, in THOUGHTS after the fact, that the appearance of “you,” my “existence,” and “seeing” would be recognized as not real.

Which brings me to my confusion - why is the experience of the waking state “real,” and the other states are not? Just as a dream in retrospect is recognized as not real, what is to say this moment right now is any different? Yes, if I get stabbed in a dream, upon awakening there is no cause for concern. If I get stabbed while awake, and cease experiencing (perhaps I die), then why is that experience not just as unreal as the experience in the dream?

Unless I’m completely misunderstanding you, it seems to me like the content of consciousness/awareness is being confused for consciousness/awareness itself. Without some “thing” to be aware of, there is only awareness of “no thing.” Which is to say, there is no experience.

Same thing with being anesthetized. Medication is applied. Feeling of sleepiness courses through body. Immediately, there is awareness of waking. There is no experience in between. Experientially, there is no gap in awareness, because there is no way to be aware of “no thing.” Someone might tell you, “you were knocked out for 4 hours.” But there’s no experience of that. When you sleep, awareness immediately moves from waking into the dream; and immediately into waking. Experentially, there is no gap. You can only think about it by looking at the past and recognizing, “I was asleep.”

Is this why you say that experience is reality? Because all that is known is experience? Experience seems to (THOUGHT) rise and set. But truthfully, all I know is experience. If my body/mind is having no experience, I know nothing of that. If that’s what is being pointed to, then I can see this.

Still, I don’t know why waking experience is any different than dreaming experience. It’s only in thought that they are different.

Side note: when I say psychedelic experience, I’m not only referring to an intense, hallucinatory experience that is recognized as unreal after the fact. There is also the experience that is similar in most ways to the one that is happening right now. By and large, the shape and color of an object that we call a “tree” remains the same.

[besposito]

One other thing that is contributing to confusion. Aspects of experience can cease. Sight can be taken away. Hearing as well. Every sense perception can be removed. Reality cannot be removed. So… why is perception being taken as reality?

[Vivien]

Hi Bryan,

It’s in retrospect - that is, in THOUGHTS after the fact, that the appearance of “you,” my “existence,” and “seeing” would be recognized as not real.

It’s actually the other way around. Only the current thought makes a claim that in sleep I experience seeing. Only thoughts create the illusion of past.

The problem is that you are taking this conversation completely on the intellectual level.
You are rationalizing, analysing, thinking about it.
As if you could learn this.
As if you could get this by thinking.
Well you can’t.
As long as you are not willing to let this philosophy aside, there will be no seeing.

Which brings me to my confusion - why is the experience of the waking state “real,” and the other states are not? Just as a dream in retrospect is recognized as not real, what is to say this moment right now is any different? Yes, if I get stabbed in a dream, upon awakening there is no cause for concern. If I get stabbed while awake, and cease experiencing (perhaps I die), then why is that experience not just as unreal as the experience in the dream?

There is no point in replying to this question. We are guides, not teachers. You cannot learn this by thinking. This is not learnable by understanding it. this is a total dead end.

But truthfully, all I know is experience. If my body/mind is having no experience, I know nothing of that. If that’s what is being pointed to, then I can see this.

All is known is experience. But the body has nothing to do with experience. The body is not the experiencer.

Still, I don’t know why waking experience is any different than dreaming experience

I explained this before. But your mind is set. I cannot convince you, and I don’t have a desire to do so. But even if I wanted, I couldn’t.

Look, there is no point in continuing like this.
This inquiry is not for everyone. If you cannot see the value in it (which is totally fine), then it is probably better to let it go. Maybe some other modalities would be more fruitful for you.

O

ne other thing that is contributing to confusion. Aspects of experience can cease. Sight can be taken away. Hearing as well. Every sense perception can be removed. Reality cannot be removed. So… why is perception being taken as reality?

This is all philosophy. You don't know this experientially, its not a first hand experience. It's a second hand knowledge only. You just THINK this, because you’ve learned it from others.

Sorry, but it seems that I cannot help you. Probably it is best to abort our dialog. I am not the right person for you. Here in LU we don’t teach. We don’t philosophize. We don’t just have an intellectual conversation. We reached the limit.

Vivien

[besposito]

Sorry, but it seems that I cannot help you

From your web site:

"But I don’t want to give the impression that seeing through the self-illusion will eradicate all patterns and conditionings, all at once ... And I am not implying either that there are no more conditionings and patterns to dissolve. The cleaning up can last some time. But investigating emotions is usually easier after seeing through the “me” or “ego”."

It seems that you had to do work to clarify remaining doubts. It is the same work that I am doing. You want me to immediately agree with everything you are saying, but I am telling you that thus far in my investigation, I am not seeing what you are telling me to see.

There is no point in replying to this question.

You asked me a question to respond to. I answered, and asked you a question back. And then you say there is no point in replying. Interesting.

We reached the limit.

So, it doesn't look like "WE" have reached the limit. It looks like "YOU" have reached the limit. You are not guiding. In fact, even recognizing the limitation of language, "guide" is a poor word for you. If you hit a wall after a few days of back and forth discussions, well, then I don't know what to say to that. It appears that you want something out of this that you aren't getting from me.

I am not the right person for you.

Is there a guide who can pick up here? If not, then I will take this as an indication of the quality of this board, and move on.

[besposito]

As if you could get this by thinking.

You think that you are not thinking. Do you see this?

[Vivien]

Hi Brian,

I've posted your thread for other guides to see if there is anyone free who could take it over. If there a free guide, they will post here and continue with you. this might take a few days.

All the best,
Vivien

[vinceschubert]

Hey Bryan, vince here. i'll travel with you for a bit and we'll see what happens.
i haven't read your thread as I like to not form opinions.
Tell me what what is your experiencing of what is actual? ..and how do you know what is conceptual?

vince

[besposito]

Thank you, Vivien, for our discussion. I do appreciate your time and attention. I’ve actually gotten some nice insight and wish our dialogue hadn’t concluded so abruptly. Vince… thank you for taking up the task!

What is actual… the “right now” seeing, hearing, tasting, touch sensations. And, awareness of them.

What is conceptual… thoughts, including: identification, categorization, emotions, ideas about something. That there is a body here, and bodies out there. Ego. The world, the universe. God. Non-duality as a concept (there has to be belief in the idea of duality/separation/self for there to be the concept of non-duality/non-separation/no-self).

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Bryan,

What is actual… the “right now” seeing, hearing, tasting, touch sensations. And, awareness of them.

Yes to all of these, although being aware of them needs some discussion.
Does you being aware of them include being aware of what happens the millisecond after the direct experiencing of the sense organ stimulation?

What is conceptual… thoughts, including: identification, categorization, emotions, ideas about something. That there is a body here, and bodies out there. Ego. The world, the universe. God. Non-duality

Great. You've nailed it.
What makes you think that you're not 'awake'?

with love

vince

[besposito]

Does you being aware of them include being aware of what happens the millisecond after the direct experiencing of the sense organ stimulation?

Yes… ownership (I saw this, I did this, etc.), identification, categorization.

What makes you think that you're not 'awake'?

Strangely, I haven’t really considered this. There seem to be such wild descriptions (experiences) of enlightenment in books I’ve read. But I can “step back” and recognize that these are thought-generated.

Doubts still occur, but admittedly they are usually driven by these same books and learned information. One doubt was expressed here to Vivien. I’m a bit untrusting of my waking experience, because the dreaming experience feels so “real” in the moment - only to be recognized as unreal in retrospect.

Uncertainty/fears creep occasionally, like: “What happens to experience upon death of the body?” Again, this can be recognized as thought. If I look in direct experience, right now… well, what is death? Such a thing isn’t present here.

[vinceschubert]

g'day Bryan,

Yes… ownership (I saw this, I did this, etc.), identification, categorization.

You nailed it again. Yes, stories. Thoughts that we respond to, so our whole waking time is thinking/responding/thinking/responding/etc
In fact our direct experiencing is so fleeting that we might say that we spend our whole time responding to thought stories.

There seem to be such wild descriptions (experiences) of enlightenment in books I’ve read.

Yes, pop zen has a lot to answer for.
i dislike the word "enlightenment" for this reason. It is a concept that is loaded with cultural bullshit. i prefer a descriptive term like being awake (to what is actual) or being liberated from cult(rural) conditioning.
Consider this from experience...
Am I awake?
i can report that every time these descriptors (awakened/liberated) are used, they are accompanied by the question about whether there is a sense of specialness or superiority.
Whether or not a 'shift' has occurred is not a matter of opinion, but to consider it is to enter storyland.
Now, this is a big one... Story is a companion to every experience, and (almost) every experience is a response to story.
Among the many seekers that i have worked with, there have been some that i would describe as awake in every way but one. That is that they didn't believe that they are.
Consequently, they were responding to a different story, so, many of the new behaviors that would have been instilled by the brain rewiring was eluding them.
What are the criteria that determine if a 'shift' has happened? (rhetorical question) Well, most people would like to have had an epiphany-type experience. They see bells and whistles as proof that it has happened, but for many, it doesn't happen this way. ..and even for those that do experience this, doubts will most certainly visit.
There was also a belief in seekers, that if we were to 'awaken', that these things would change instantly and completely.
The stories of perpetual bliss, may or may not be true. They are certainly not experienced here, nor in anybody that i have related to.
There was a time when it was believed that the stories about ourselves were actual. That we were in control. That truth was a thing. That we were inherently good or bad.
If, on reflection,(bolded for you Bryan) these things are recognized as a fallacy, if they are recognized to be illusions, then a 'shift' has happened.
There is the need for this to be an experiential shift. Not just intellectual. What does that mean?
The intellectual recognitions are usually accompanied by an experiential component, but without doubt, it takes time to re-condition many years of habitual responding.
If there is a feeling component to the recognition of the illusions, then behavior changes. Responses to the illusions when they present, become different.
Knowing that we don't have control over everything that happens means that we don't beat ourselves up over a perceived failure. We don't deny the consequences of it, but neither do we dwell on how it could/should have been. We move on quickly.
Can you see how carrying a story that you are not there yet, inhibits this experiential component from happening ?
This is not to say "fake it until you make it." You only have to ask yourself "do you actually grok the nature of the illusions?"
If you honestly do, then be open to the behavioral changes, the consequences of Seeing what is actual and what is story.

I’m a bit untrusting of my waking experience, because the dreaming experience feels so “real” in the moment - only to be recognized as unreal in retrospect.

Hence the bolded bit. It doesn't matter how long after a happening that you consider it. If you can see that you were responding to a thought story, if you recognise the illusion, then brain rewiring will happen.
"untrusting" of any experience is a great start. Everything is our unique interpretation of the mystery (what is actual) so recognizing this means that we know nothing. For me this is great freedom (liberation)

with love

vince

[besposito]

Right, so... to consider whether there is "awakeness" or a "shift" here, is to assume there is a "me" here that could be awake (and at one point was not). Asking, "Am I awake?" just perpetuates the illusion.

Can you see how carrying a story that you are not there yet, inhibits this experiential component from happening ?

Yes, just like above. Engaging in a story that "I" am not there yet, assumes there is an "I" that isn't there yet. It's just a BS story. But I guess one can be awake, and still enjoy the story of the seeker. After all, we appreciate things more when we find them after they were lost -- even if they were in our pocket the whole time.

I guess it's just like ANY illusion. I can look at an optical illusion of spheres that appear to look green, red and blue. Turns out, it's a trick of the mind - they're all beige! But, even knowing that they're all beige, I STILL see green, red and blue. Similarly, I see that there is no self here - no I, no me - but even seeing that, even "knowing" that, the self can still appear. It can still be felt in thoughts.

Still, I do see a significant difference now in the response to thoughts that appear. They are easily seen for what they are; not the concrete, all-engaging, attention-demanding, me-generating things that I once believed they were. They are foundationless, appearing from nowhere, dissolving to nowhere. Disregarded as easily as my sight of objects can be disregarded with a closed eyelid. Not always -- sometimes they still grasp me. But it's not really a concern. Even if the mind, say, gets concerned about the future - let's say it starts imagining a future where the present financial stability is threatened (and leads to the imagination of "what if" scenarios). Once I recognize it for what it is -- just a grasping thought -- it dissolves and it's seen that there is not (and never has been) anything to be concerned about. None of it is my problem. Even the baseline egoic concern about financials is seen through. This recognition seems to be happening faster these days.

I want to expand a little bit on my confusion. I've read quite a bit of Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, John Wheeler, etc. I've spoken to Bob Adamson. I don't understand why, when reading/listening to Wheeler and Bob, it all seems so simple. Ridiculously simple. As simple and clear as what we talk about here. So then I think, "Right, this matches my experience." But then I go off and read Ramana and it's like, "Okay, you have to do self-enquiry, hold onto the "I" feeling. Ask who feels it. Find its location. Do this ceaselessly until the I dissolves. Or, surrender. Don't do anything. And then, at some point, something might happen." Well, I can see clearly that there's no "I" here! But then if I go into thoughts, well, there SEEMS TO be (a thought) an "I." Then I think, "Shouldn't that feeling no longer arise, if I have seen through the illusion? Has it happened? I don't know!" But... if I drop it all. If I drop all the knowledge, and the thoughts, again, there is no concern.

[vinceschubert]

'evening Bryan,

Right, so... to consider whether there is "awakeness" or a "shift" here, is to assume there is a "me" here that could be awake (and at one point was not). Asking, "Am I awake?" just perpetuates the illusion.

Perspective... getting lost in the consideration, assumes a self. Seeing the consideration happening doesn't.
Does experiencing require a Bryan to occur? or does Bryan only arrive when considering the experience?

I guess one can be awake, and still enjoy the story of the seeker.

I get what you are saying. When 'awake' one can enjoy many stories because they are seen as stories, but seeking isn't one of them. That particular story drops when waking up happens. (to be replaced by a story about being awake)

but even seeing that, even "knowing" that, the self can still appear. It can still be felt in thoughts.

Yes, and this will always be so. It is useful, even necessary for communicating to negotiate daily life. The difference when awake is that this is seen as a story. There is no identification with it. It's just a useful tool.

This recognition seems to be happening faster these days.

Yes, for me too. This will continue (I imagine) while ever we are alive.

I've spoken to Bob Adamson.

I went to a few of his meeting when I was seeking too. Met John Wheeler there too. It didn't do it for me either. i just got more frustrated.

But then if I go into thoughts, well, there SEEMS TO be (a thought) an "I."

Yes, of course. There's a lifetime of conditioning behind that. ..and what I said (above) that will continue. What you already know... that is an illusion. (not a delusion anymore)

Has it happened?

Yes. It certainly seem so here.
We just need to clean up those pesky doubt thoughts.

with love

vince