I would like a guide please

[mister]

About that last post:

Thoughts don't get categorized as true. They either appear to be accurate or don't. There isn't any mechanism sifting through thought like that. This was important to recognize because "I" was put on the categorizing mechanism.

Also the recognition that there isn't a believer was important. This whole endeavor was being stalled by this. It turned it into a means of improving me, the believer, by making it stop believing in me.

[mark_tywharton]

Also a belief is often held in the context of truth.

Some beliefs are obvious lies.

It is possible to continue to believe in something, despite knowing there is no tangible evidence for it.

[mister]

There are at least twenty senses to think about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

Got it.

What makes an experience direct?

It's happening hear and now.

Is there a you to experience it?

No

Or just the experience?

There is only experience.

[mark_tywharton]

Is there an "I, me or self" at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

Was there ever?

Is there anything that is separate from everything else?

[mister]

There is a me, not in experience. It seems like an experiencer or a presence for experience. First it seems like it's behind the eyes when the eyes are open. It sees the images generated through the eyes. That place can't be looked at and I mean that in a visual way. So I close my eyes and I can feel this area. It's the proprioception of that area. It's just more experience. Sensations on the back of my head feel like they're behind me this experiencing center. The proprioception of this area feels like it's right in front of me when attention is on it. Sometimes when my attention is there it doesn't feel right in front of me. This is when it doesn't feel like an experiencing center but an experiencing presence. Then it feels like all experiences are in me. So it jumps around. There definitely is experience. This can be divided up in various ways but it's all experience. But the is also this elusive sense of a witness to experience. That's not even correct. It's like this presence for experience.

Is there anything separate from everything else?

No. Anything I think of including this elusive presence is part of everything.

[mark_tywharton]

Why identify with these experiences

Obviously, the experiences are describable, happening

But does it mean there is a you?

In the experience, is there an "I, me or self" at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

WHO is experience?

[mister]

Why identify with these experiences. Obviously, the experiences are describable, happening. But does it mean there is a you?

No.

In the experience, is there an "I, me or self" at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

No.

WHO is experience?

?? There is experience. Period.

[mark_tywharton]

Okay good.

How is this?

How does seeing this feel? describe in detail...

Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.

[mister]

How is this?

How is there experience? I have no idea. Literally none.

How does seeing this feel? describe in detail...

It's all the same. There is still all the same feelings, laughter, fear, being touched. When this fact is paid attention to or the implications of it are seen in some way there is gratitude for it. It brings a bit of crying. Maybe awe is a good word too. This isn't very detailed. But it's kind of like asking me to describe life. It's happening. Everything is happening.

Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.

The illusion of the separate self is the belief/sense there is something independent of experience, going through the experience. I don't know when the illusion actually starts. It works first by asserting that there is something independent and aware of experience, and then it uses aspects of the experience as proof of its existence. It's absurd in a way. It takes parts of the experience and says they're somehow independent of experience and they're aspects of me. This brings a sense of seriousness to protect these bits.

It also has another aspect. The whole notion of control is born of this. Not conventional control in the sense of decisions becoming capable of being manifest. But actual control like a director of the decision process. This leads to the stress of it being up to me and guilt for screwing up. It also can blind with pride.

[mark_tywharton]

How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is curious about it?

[mister]

Is this a trick question? How can they be curious about something they've never heard about? Maybe they've come to suspect it.
If they're curious about seeing this I wouldn't try to describe this. I'd ask them to look into direct experience. I'd probably say something like this:

Direct experience is what is happening here and now. There's basically sensations of various types. Urges and emotions are conglomerates of various sensations. There are thoughts. Thoughts are faint brief versions of sensation. Sometimes they're accurate representations of direct experience and sometimes they're not. Sometimes it's easy to see a thought is inaccurate. Like, "Darth Vader is standing in the corner." Sometimes it takes looking at experience closely to reveal a thought to be inaccurate. "You" is one of these thoughts that is not representing direct experience. There is no you going through this experience. There is no you directing the choices in this experience. Look in direct experience and see.

[mark_tywharton]

It wasn't really a trick question.

How about - how would you describe it to your mum if she showed an interest and wanted to find out more about it before committing to looking?

[mister]

There is nothing here that needs to be protected in any fundamental way. Experience is happening by itself. There is a relief in this. No chance of you messing this up. It's not that it won't get messy but there isn't any director. The mess comes and goes without one. Life happens. Nothing needs protection for this to happen.

Thank you Mark

[mark_tywharton]

Sounds good...

So what was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look? was there a specific moment when seeing happened or was it gradual? what exactly happened?

[mister]

The last bit that made me look was when you typed this:

Why identify with these experiences

Obviously, the experiences are describable, happening

But does it mean there is a you?

In the experience, is there an "I, me or self" at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?

WHO is experience?

The pillow exercise and the parts where we discussed being mauled by a bear were necessary. The feeling of me being the body or part of it was really shaken. Also looking into this sense that I'm the believer was necessary. There was strong emotional attachment. It was just an aspect of me being the director but subtle. Actually looking into the karaoke choice was clarifying. Looking at this wasn't new but it wasn't ever as clear. So after the body stopped being identified as me the rest were subtler doubts (like the presence that kept moving around). And then you typed what you did above and it was like a sword. But it was a sword to an almost-severed head. A big bite was already taken out by the bear bit:) I'd say this was mostly a gradual process but that last bit was like, "quit fucking around" and HACK!!! done.

Thank you much for being persistent.