I Need Guidance

[Noobstorm]

How will you recognise this undeniable fact ?
I will know the self is non existent

Undeniable is also a particular thought, no ?
Yes, it is a thought.

Only if you Do see it there will it be a fact ? (a fact that is absent, is a lack of fact)
Yes, the fact that the self is not running this life. (I don't understand this)

[vinceschubert]

Can even the existence of a self be a fact ?
If you say yes, then define a fact.
Bet you can only come up with thoughts about something.

[Noobstorm]

Can even the existence of a self be a fact ?

Perhaps.

If you say yes, then define a fact.

Something that is true.

Bet you can only come up with thoughts about something.

Of course.. what else can I come up with?

[vinceschubert]

Tell me anything that is true.

[Noobstorm]

Tell me anything that is true.

There is experience of this human being.
There are all of these things around it that exist, and the human being is the central point of the experience.
There are senses in the human being that experience everything and thoughts that talk about things experienced.

[vinceschubert]

Ok, so let's drop the assumptions and see what we are left with that can't be disputed;

There is experience of this human being.

There is experiencing (now) and experience (memory)
The "of this human being" is disputable. For a start experiencing requires both experiencer and experienced, so you tell me where does one stop and the other start ?
Are they actually divisible ?

There are all of these things around it that exist, ...

It does seem such an obvious statement, doesn't it. "Things exist...", but this too is a presumption. You presume it exists because of thoughts that arise as a result of sensory input. Take a mirage, for example. You see something that your brain interprets as water. There is no doubt that what you are seeing is water out there. If you are thirsty then your body will (as a result of thought) crave drinking more intensely, thus reinforcing the accuracy of what you (think you) are seeing.
Now a mirage might be an extreme example, but i put it to you that there is some of that in every seeing that occurs. Take a tree, for example. You see a tree. The label 'tree' gets applied, then there is an opinion about that tree, say "it has nice form, or pretty colored leaves etc", but from the moment the label was applied the existence of the tree was (almost) entirely in the head.
So yes, things exist, but not in the way we imagine them to.

... and the human being is the central point of the experience.

Do they exist (for us) when we are not interacting with them ?
Take the old Zen koan "does the tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no-one there to hear it?"
Air vibrating at a certain frequency requires an ear to transmit those vibrations to a deciphering apparatus and it is that apparatus that actually generates the sound. The brain then uses experience and logic to give meaning to it. Just as with seeing the tree, a sense input (eyes) and deciphering apparatus are required to 'make sense' of light vibrating at a certain frequency.
So let's replace "human being" with organism, and let's replace "central point of the experience" with an indivisible (with the so called object) involvement of experiencing (a verb)

There are senses in the human being that experience everything and thoughts that talk about things experienced.

Yes, thoughts arise About, what is now a memory. This is a new and different experiencing.
Check these things for yourself. Don't just think about what i say, and certainly don't believe anything.

Does true look a little less certain now ?

[Noobstorm]

So yes, things exist, but not in the way we imagine them to.

I don't think this resonates with me very well.

Anyway, I think I can understand that the organism is real but the self part is imagined.

So let's replace "human being" with organism, and let's replace "central point of the experience" with an indivisible (with the so called object) involvement of experiencing (a verb)?

Elaborate a little more on this please.

Thank you

[vinceschubert]

I don't think this resonates with me very well.

So is it that you see things as they actually are and that there is no distortion because of the image you hold because of your past experience ?

I think I can understand that the organism is real but the self part is imagined.

Thinking that you understand is certainly a stepping stone to actually SEEing that the self part is imagined. Seeing how the story is created then believed, and that it is all done by thought, is the final step in being able to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

Elaborate a little more on this please.

Using the example of hearing sound, it should be clear that for a sound to exist it takes both vibrating air and ear/brain involvement. So there is not an actual "central point of experience". There is only experiencing.

[Noobstorm]

I don't think this resonates with me very well.

So is it that you see things as they actually are and that there is no distortion because of the image you hold because of your past experience ?

Is there anything wrong with, as in your example, thinking a tree is beautiful?

Thinking that you understand is certainly a stepping stone to actually SEEing that the self part is imagined. Seeing how the story is created then believed, and that it is all done by thought, is the final step in being able to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

The usage of the word "I" is so intertwined it's difficult to comprehend I can't be anything. It doesn't make any sense, because something has to be the essence of me.

Do you have feelings of doing the thinking of thoughts and things?

Using the example of hearing sound, it should be clear that for a sound to exist it takes both vibrating air and ear/brain involvement. So there is not an actual "central point of experience". There is only experiencing.

Yes, they work together but they are also separate. If I plug my ears there is no sound, so for me this organism is the central point of experience.

[vinceschubert]

Is there anything wrong with, as in your example, thinking a tree is beautiful?

Wrong is like beautiful. Both are opinions conditioned by culture and past experience. Both are the product of thought and NOT primary reality. (The reaction to them is Reality)
Your question is an avoidance of my question. Let's try again; Do you think that you see things as they actually are ?
Can you see that to apply opinion is to create distortion of the actuality ? That Reality gets changed ?
Can you see how the story is created by thought then believed by thought ?

The usage of the word "I" is so intertwined

Yes, our language (every language ?) is predicated on the assumption that there is an actual I. The great swindle, except that the language creators were not liberated, so it was/is unintentional. Does that make it right. The whole world believed that earth was flat once. Was that right ?

Yes, they work together but they are also separate.

Only mind separates them. Can you show me how they are separate in experience ?

If I plug my ears there is no sound

That's right. For you the sound doesn't exist. It takes your organisms ears and brain for it to come into existence.
i don't see how this actually makes you a "central point of experiencing". It certainly highlights that experiencing is all there is.

[Noobstorm]

Your question is an avoidance of my question. Let's try again; Do you think that you see things as they actually are ?

No.

Can you see that to apply opinion is to create distortion of the actuality ? That Reality gets changed ?

I guess so.. without opinion there is just ever-present reality.

Can you see how the story is created by thought then believed by thought ?

Somewhat.

Yes, our language (every language ?) is predicated on the assumption that there is an actual I. The great swindle, except that the language creators were not liberated, so it was/is unintentional. Does that make it right. The whole world believed that earth was flat once. Was that right ?

My essential being(whatever it is) must be labelled "I." Gee, I am confused.

Can you show me how they are separate in experience ?

Yes, some ways to know they are separate is by plugging the ears/nose, covering the eyes, etc.

That's right. For you the sound doesn't exist. It takes your organisms ears and brain for it to come into existence.

But it does exist, it's just not heard.

i don't see how this actually makes you a "central point of experiencing". It certainly highlights that experiencing is all there is.

All of the sense organs are in the organism, therefore it is the central point of experiencing.

[vinceschubert]

My essential being(whatever it is)

You only assume that this exists. There is no indication that this exists except in thought. Do you experience another ?

Yes, some ways to know they are separate is by plugging the ears/nose, covering the eyes, etc.

No, the sound only exists when you unplug, otherwise there is just vibrating air.

But it does exist, it's just not heard.

No, once again you assume. Without ears and brain there is no sound. Just vibrating air. The sound only comes into existence with a receiving/interpreting apparatus. Even if this apparatus is a microphone and recorder, there is no sound until it is listened to. Don't believe me, examine this yourself.

[Noobstorm]

You only assume that this exists. There is no indication that this exists except in thought. Do you experience another ?

Yes, the existence is in thought.

No, once again you assume. Without ears and brain there is no sound. Just vibrating air. The sound only comes into existence with a receiving/interpreting apparatus. Even if this apparatus is a microphone and recorder, there is no sound until it is listened to. Don't believe me, examine this yourself.

Yes, so there is vibrating air + ear/brain involvement. They are two separate things. The vibrating air has to go through the ear which is in the organism to interpret sound, so it is the central point of experience.

there is no sound until it is listened to

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. There is sound(or vibrating air, whatever) everywhere, and it requires a separate organism to experience the sound.

[vinceschubert]

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

Vibrating air is not sound. It only becomes sound when ALL elements are involved.
There is NO central point, as if you remove ANY of the elements, then sound ceases to exist.
Do you experience a sound from a dog whistle ?

[Noobstorm]

Do you experience a sound from a dog whistle ?

Yes.