Kanashibari

[Canfora]

Olá, Ivan.

Oi Sandra, estou certo de que o "eu" não passa de pensamento, e que a noção de separação é puramente ilusão.

Esta certeza é inteletual ou experiêncial?
Quando olhar acontece, é visto que não há um pensador? Que não há separação?
Como é ver isto? Esperavas que fosse assim?

Mas na verdade as coisas simplesmente acontecem.

Sim :)

Posse e propriedade privada, outro delírio da mente.

Sim :)

Sei que nada disto é mérito dos esforços de um "eu" que vive separado ou dentro de um corpo.

Sim :)

Mas a nossa conversa ajuda muito a lembrar de ver, ouvir, sentir, perceber o que é ilusão e o que é real. Ultimamente surgiram alguns momentos de clareza durante o trabalho.

Sem um eu, o que é que vês a acontecer aqui e agora? O que é real?

[ivan.sato]

Esta certeza é inteletual ou experiêncial?
Quando olhar acontece, é visto que não há um pensador? Que não há separação?

Das duas formas. Posso racionalizar que o eu não existe, posso simplesmente olhar e ver a auxência do "eu", ver que existem somente sensações e pensamentos.

Como é ver isto? Esperavas que fosse assim?

Sinto leveza, sinto-me lúcido (há clareza para sentir o que há neste exato instante). Me sinto vazio e cheio ao mesmo tempo, sinto uma tristeza alegre, me sinto só, mas satisfeito por meramente existir.

Os pensamentos ficam claros, deixam de ser ilusórios, deixam de fazer divisões, deixam de encobrir a realidade. Os pensamentos se tornam somente experiência, deixo de ser escravo deles.

Sim, esperava que fosse assim.

Sem um eu, o que é que vês a acontecer aqui e agora? O que é real?

O que vejo, o que ouço, o que sinto. Esse vazio e essa solidão são reais. A calma, a satisfação e a lucidez são reais.


Eu não estava conseguindo voltar a ver (antes de você começar a me guiar) pois eu estava muito ocupado em racionalizar esse ver. Estava tentando traçar o trajeto entre o "eu" ilusório e o simplesmente ver, tentando entender e obter controle. Mas agora percebo que não é necessário ter controle ou compreensão racional (pensamentos) para ver, sendo que, na verdade, esse esforço somente alimentava o "eu" e encobria o ver.

Para ver, basta ver, percebendo o que não é real e percebendo o que é real.

[Canfora]

O que dizes nos teus últimos posts leva-me a pensar que sabes como olhar e ver a realidade com clareza, Ivan.

Há mais alguma coisa de que queiras falar, alguma dúvida sobre a inexistência do eu para a qual não consigas encontrar resposta, quando olhas para a realidade?

Se a resposta for "não, tenho 100% de certeza de que um eu não existe", posso perguntar-te as 6 questões que usamos para ver se está tudo claro? Como existe um maior número de guias que falam a lingua inglesa, estava a pensar pedir-te para responderes em inglês, dessa forma é mais fácil encontrar quem olhe para as tuas respostas para ver se há algo que deixámos escapar e que deva ser falado.

[ivan.sato]

Há mais alguma coisa de que queiras falar, alguma dúvida sobre a inexistência do eu para a qual não consigas encontrar resposta, quando olhas para a realidade?

Não me ocorre nenhuma dúvida quanto a isso.

Somente sinto que às vezes me distraio e afundo no "eu" tão rapidamente que vou somente me dar conta (perceber isso) depois. Isto é, às vezes não percebo de imediato que os pensamentos estão absorvendo toda a atenção.

Se achar que isso não é um problema, faça as perguntas. Pode ser em inglês, não tem problema.

[Canfora]

Somente sinto que às vezes me distraio e afundo no "eu" tão rapidamente que vou somente me dar conta (perceber isso) depois. Isto é, às vezes não percebo de imediato que os pensamentos estão absorvendo toda a atenção.

O mesmo acontece comigo. É normal, existe um condicionamento - uma série de hábitos - que faz com que o afundar no eu aconteça. Ver que isto está a acontecer pode ser rápido ou levar dias, depende do tipo de história que nos prende a atenção - algumas são tão envolventes que pensamos nelas todos os dias, mesmo que preferíssemos que tal não acontecesse. Com alguma prática torna-se mais fácil perceber o que está a acontecer e está consciência do que se está a passar pode causar mudanças na forma como se vive o momento.

Aqui estão as 6 perguntas. Como existe a possibilidade de os guias que as vão ler não saberem português, tenta dar uma resposta o mais "completa" possível, sempre com base na experiência e deixando de lado teorias. Não precisas de responder a tudo no mesmo dia:


1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there
ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from
your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue?
Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How
does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

[ivan.sato]

Sandra, seguem as primeiras respostas.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there
ever?

No, there is no separate "self". The "I" is intangible, we can't touch it, we can't see it, we can't point to it. There was only misinterpretation of the thoughts. The "self" didn't join to something bigger than it, but the illusion of separation dissolved.

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from
your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

The illusion of separate self is just an aggregate of self-referencing thoughts.

"I" is just a singular first person pronoun, nothing more than a word, than a thought. When ideas are related to the "I", what it is, what it does, what it likes, what it wants, and so on, an identity is formed. It creates definition and at the same time creates the illusion of division.

It starts when there is belief that the identity is true, and that all its desires, expectations and ideals should be fulfilled. That is, overrating and overconfidence on thought.

And why shouldn't I believe in thought? It isn't real, it is just opinion, simulation or history. And this way it just hides what truly is there, the right here and right now.

So, when there is thought and it is taken too seriously, daydreaming and division happens.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue?
Please report from the past few days.

Before I started it felt heavy, tense, busy, dissatisfied, struggling, uneasy, bitter. It felt that there was a lot to be done, like fixing the "self", fixing the world. It felt there was a long way to get to where the self wanted to be, and there was tiredness just of thinking how far the destination was.

Now, seeing this, it feels light, serene, even, calm. Lonely but satisfied. A little sad but joyful. There is no rush, there is no worry.

There is a voidness open to every experience that happens now. There is a fullness that perceives that nothing is missing, but that everything is good as it is.

Now it feels that the only things remaining to do is to perceive and to be.

[ivan.sato]

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

Remembering that "I" is just a though like any other, and perceiving that the illusions were taken too seriously.

"I" meditated occasionally, but "I" couldn't release the grasp on the "I want to liberate myself" thought.

"I" was trying to attain liberation, trying to understand it, create a plan to reach it and control the state of the mind. But all "I" was doing was to sabotage the path itself, was to feed the "self" and the illusion of separation.

And during the dialogue occurred the thoughts "oh, yes, now I remember there is no I", and "why am I taking thoughts too seriously". And then I could look, see, hear, feel and be.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

Intention is expectation to do something. For example, there can be an intention to wake up early on the weekend, an expectation to do it. But it doesn't have anything to do with what actually happens, it is just a thought expecting an ideal scene. I could wake up at noon besides the intention was another.

Choice and decision sounds similar. They reflect what the "I" considers ideal or at least acceptable. There is no true choice or conscious decision, because they are just consequence of thought.

"I" chose chocolate ice-cream, because "I" prefer it. The only choice is the best choice. "I" decided to buy a car. What is decision beyond a thought wishing that something happen. The only decision is the best decision. It is just the self trying to produce the best outcome possible.

Then free will. Just an argument to blame on some people and excuse all the others. Just another way to divide, separate, categorize, and to define identity, "I'm right, they are wrong, and everyone will be rewarded or punished for their choices".

Control is effort to change what is. Experience reacts to action, but it is misleading to think that the same actions will reproduce the exact same experiences. And it is what thought tries to do, it tries to figure out what changes should be done to achieve the ideal experiences. But the present, the now, is too fluid to grasp and manipulate it. And the ideals that the mind elaborates are just delusion.

So experience reacts to action. Even there is no choice or decision, and even intention and control don't always produce the desired outcomes. Thought gets to the conclusion that there is no responsibility at all, but it feels like I'm responsible for all. I have the experiences I'm willing to have. If thought is taken seriously then suffering is expected, if the "self" is taken lightly then presence happens. And that is not a burden, that is just what happens.

6) Anything to add?

"By doubting, one comes the truth."
- Phaedra (Immortals - 2011)

[Canfora]

(I'm going to continue this conversation in English, Ivan)

Thank you for your answers!

In Q5, when you talked about choice you said:

It is just the self trying to produce the best outcome possible.

What is this self?
What makes an outcome good or bad?

Can you give a better example for free will, something that is not a generality?

[ivan.sato]

It is just the self trying to produce the best outcome possible.

What is this self?
What makes an outcome good or bad?

The "self" is an idea. It is made of self referencing thoughts, such as "I am a hard worker person", "I am interested in spirituality", "I like Italian food", "I dislike injustice", and so on.

Good and bad are just interpretations, thought about experiences. For example, "it is good when it is cold like this", or "it is not good when my hands are cold like this". Or centered in thoughts only like "it would be good if I save money in the future", "it would be worse if I don't start saving money already". It is just thoughts reading sensations or other thoughts.

So an outcome would only be good or bad by the means of thought. An outcome is good because thought says it is good, and, vice versa, an outcome is bad because thought thinks so.

Can you give a better example for free will, something that is not a generality?

The abstract religious idea of free will a mean to divide people. I am right in my religious practice so I will have benefits because of it, and the people that don't follow the same religion as mine will suffer their consequences. This is just overthinking.

Now, in the sense of freedom of choice, free will is illusory because choice is illusion. Free will is the thought that says "I can do whatever I want to do and whatever I think is good". And again just overthinking.

There can be thoughts like "it is not good to try fixing people when they don't ask for it", but the actions would be the opposite, trying to fix them in spite of the thoughts.

On the other hand, if I do what I think is good then there would be no freedom at all, I would just be following some thought's orders. For example, if "I" like movies, then watching them would not be freedom at all.

In the sense of freedom of thought, there is no freedom too. Thought thinks about whatever it is thinking, and they chain in spite of will. It can be thinking about work, even if "I" wants the mind to be quiet.

When it comes to freedom of opinion, the "self" doesn't choose what to think about the experiences. There are just opinions that raise in thought. For example "I" thinks "competition isn't good" or that "competition is teenager behavior", but there was never a choice to think like this.

Freedom of intention also is illusion. "I" will pay the bills on Monday, but there wasn't a choice, there was no freedom to have this intention.


It seems there is one single possible freedom. It is the freedom of the "self", of not being enslaved by thought.

[Canfora]

Thank you again for your answers, Ivan.

Some questions from the guides, regarding these sentences:

It seems there is one single possible freedom. It is the freedom of the "self", of not being enslaved by thought.

What is this self that can or can't be enslaved by thought? Are you this self? Can this self get free?

When you look, can you see there is no self in reality? No self at all? Or did you move from a belief in a self to a belief in a non-self?

[ivan.sato]

I'll reply it tomorrow.

[Canfora]

Ok.

[ivan.sato]

It is funny how you got concerned about those two sentences, and how a single line invalidated all was written before. Excuse me for the harshness, but this time I want to make the questions.

What proof do you want? Will you believe it if I write exactly what you want? How can you tell it is forged or not?

I'm not saying you shouldn't trust what I write. But if I write all you expect, how can you be sure that what is written is what is experienced? If you repeat the same questions over and over again, how can you be certain that I'm not just answering what you want?

Aren't you are pushing me to the "right" answer? Is this going to make me perceive the right way? Or is it enough to write what you want, with the exact words you expect?


Sorry, but I'm not answering directly to those questions, because I feel awful. I'm not here to prove anything, I'm here to learn. So, I write the following.


Sometimes I believe that there is no self. Sometimes it is perceived. And sometimes it isn't perceived or believed. But I'm thankful for this community, for the guides, because before the dialogue this perspective didn't exist. In other words, there was an assumption that the separation was true and that thought could grasp everything. Now I understand, and sometimes perceive, that there was a misconception of the experiences.

Sometimes "self" is seen as nothing more than a thought, and thought is seen as nothing more than experience. When there is this glimpse of the true nature of experiences, there is a feeling of freedom.


Please, ask more questions, if you will.

[Canfora]

It is funny how you got concerned about those two sentences, and how a single line invalidated all was written before.

You are the one that validates what was seen, Ivan... you are the one that knows what was realised.

What proof do you want? Will you believe it if I write exactly what you want? How can you tell it is forged or not?

I'm not saying you shouldn't trust what I write. But if I write all you expect, how can you be sure that what is written is what is experienced? If you repeat the same questions over and over again, how can you be certain that I'm not just answering what you want?

Aren't you are pushing me to the "right" answer? Is this going to make me perceive the right way? Or is it enough to write what you want, with the exact words you expect?

No one here is concerned about your sentences, and no one is expecting or needing any proof.

Of course you could write what you feel are the correct answers or what you think it's wanted, instead of what is alive for you right now, but the only one you would deceive is yourself. Ultimately this is between you and you. Guides only hold up mirrors and point. If we feel that some area could do with clarifying we’ll keep pointing.

Do you want to keep going? We can keep talking and look to what comes up. And if you wish other guide, that can be arranged, no problem.

[ivan.sato]

Hey Sandra, I'm glad you replied.

You are the one that validates what was seen, Ivan... you are the one that knows what was realised.

Yes, I know it.

No one here is concerned about your sentences, and no one is expecting or needing any proof.

I disagree with it. It looked like none of what I wrote before was considered when you (you the guides reading my last posts) questioned that one line. As if I made a mistake and I had to answer to everything from the beginning. Or as if one line could indicate that I didn't learn anything.

If we feel that some area could do with clarifying we’ll keep pointing.

But if you keep making the same questions, it feels like being tested, and as if you want to be sure of something about me.

Do you want to keep going? We can keep talking and look to what comes up.

Yes, I'm curious about what's coming up.

And if you wish other guide, that can be arranged, no problem.

No, I have no problem with you, Sandra. I wish no change it this regard. Its up to you the guides.