Can i request Xain ?

[Xain]

Thought are experienced as a whole, as one experience.

Sure - Would you agree that the only thing to be found at any one time is 'the current experience' and that would also include 'the current thought' or 'imagined image' if one is present?
All could be encompassed together and described as 'the current experience'

Its crazy--- what I is puzzled

Indeed :-)

I want to ask ‘but why cant I clearly see that--Because there is no I that could see anything, no I that could know this?--Is it that silly?

Not silly at all. It makes sense - If there is no inherently existing 'I' (meaning the only I that can be found is a fiction created by thought) then there is no 'I' to realise anything. To know anything.

And further on how to deepen this or make it a stable recognition, so that I don’t forget—or not get indentified again

A stable recognition for who?

But I am afraid ,and I am serious here, that tomorrow morning I wake up and frantically go like ‘what was it again? and I am a 100% sure I will, and so start working it out again , or trying to remember.because you know, I want to own this.Seriously.

What 'I' goes to sleep and wakes up forgetting stuff?
What 'I' is there to forget or remember there is no 'I'?

Maybe there is just no 'Swa' here . . . it's been a fiction created by thoughts all along?
Maybe?

Xain ♥

[Swa]

Hi Xain

Sorry I could not reply yesterday as my computer crashed and I have been crashing too.
I get into blankness and cant think straight, I don’t know if its worth to mention but in this blank space I have to read our thread to remember what we are on to.
There is a slight panic, by thoughts trying to make something of this, I want to hold onto some sort of description of reality as it seems all just stories.
Nothing seems to be what it was believed to be ,all thought has in the end an ‘I’ as it source. I don’t find my place anywhere.
Before this constant narrator had a line of thinking that gave a kind of reality to what live is, seeing there is/was no I means more then just that.
I is connected eventually to all and any idea but also to perception, I can find no difference between thought and perception.
To answer these questions becomes suffering as I switch between ‘I’ and no ‘I’ in which trying to answer honestly is a struggle.

Thought are experienced as a whole, as one experience.

Sure - Would you agree that the only thing to be found at any one time is 'the current experience' and that would also include 'the current thought' or 'imagined image' if one is present?
All could be encompassed together and described as 'the current experience'

Yes.experience is not divided into seeing hearing and thinking a.s.o.
But thought claims that it is divided, and thereby it looks like it is, which is confusing.
The experience of confusion is real.
Even when the I experience confusion is an assumption only it is still experienced as emotions/sensations which are not assumptions and so adds to the reality of confusion and spirals down to the belief experience should not be confusing, establishing more stress and more confusion and more proof that "I am not getting it" etc etc.

Not silly at all. It makes sense - If there is no inherently existing 'I' (meaning the only I that can be found is a fiction created by thought) then there is no 'I' to realise anything. To know anything.

Scary, nothing to know , no control +thoughts running without brake, doesn’t feel like going of the merry go round but putting it on maximum speed.

‘And further on how to deepen this or make it a stable recognition, so that I don’t forget—or not get indentified again.

A stable recognition for who?

For no one, just thoughts.
But If there is just the current experience only, then what draws the line or differentiate seeing from hearing and thinking is thought also.
Then Swa completely identified suffering his emotions might be all in thought, but nevertheless being a real experience ,you see what I am trying to get at?
Thought creates experience, you never mentioned direct experience in our thread, but direct experience is a creation of thought also, which then gives me no anchor to differentiate to what is real and whats imagined (by thought).

What 'I' goes to sleep and wakes up forgetting stuff?
What 'I' is there to forget or remember there is no 'I'?

No one, one line of assumptions i+forget+remember, but it feels scary/unfamiliar.
No I nullifies everything that follows that, like my ex-wife, my child.
All thought points to nothing because it is thought itself that claims the appointed.
But can I trust live? I still need to feed my cat and feel guilt and suffer if I haven’t been home a week and did not leave enough food for him.
If that is an assumption then why the suffering/guilt?

Maybe there is just no 'Swa' here . . . it's been a fiction created by thoughts all along?
Maybe?

‘I actually saw’ for a moment there was no ‘I’, but now that ‘seeing’ is a thought only.
Going back and forwards is confusing.
You see the narrating keeps going and some moment it hooks on and next (sometimes) it catches itself assuming. And this is also only thought claiming.

Thank you so much for your time with me.

[Xain]

I get into blankness and cant think straight

This is actually a good sign :)

There is a slight panic, by thoughts trying to make something of this, I want to hold onto some sort of description of reality as it seems all just stories

This can be normal. The panic can be due to cognitive dissonance, the mind trying to deal with two conflictling positions at once.
Hopefully I might alleviate this a little in the things I am about to say.

Nothing seems to be what it was believed to be ,all thought has in the end an ‘I’ as it source. I don’t find my place anywhere.

Good. If it is 'thoughts claiming your place', and you question those thoughts, them it is likely that such things will occur.

Scary, nothing to know , no control +thoughts running without brake, doesn’t feel like going of the merry go round but putting it on maximum speed.

Hasn't it always been this way?
There is plenty to know. But knowledge is only useful for 'I'.
The thought process being unstoppable and lacking control is only a problem for an 'I'.

To answer these questions becomes suffering as I switch between ‘I’ and no ‘I’ in which trying to answer honestly is a struggle.

Perhaps the battle isn't between 'I' and 'No I' . . .

But If there is just the current experience only, then what draws the line or differentiate seeing from hearing and thinking is thought also.

Yes. It is :) That is wise.

Then Swa completely identified suffering his emotions might be all in thought, but nevertheless being a real experience ,you see what I am trying to get at?

Yes, but nothing needs to be dismissed. A Swa suffers. If there is no 'Swa', then no Swa can suffer.

Thought creates experience, you never mentioned direct experience in our thread, but direct experience is a creation of thought also, which then gives me no anchor to differentiate to what is real and whats imagined (by thought).

Indeed. Perhaps . . . what is 'real' IS what is stated by thought :)
Perhaps Swa is as real as Direct Experience, as a cup, as the screen your looking at, as the keyboard you type on.
Perhaps we know all this through thought, and that makes up our reality :)
You are going into deep territory here :) It's a good thing.
I hope this makes sense.

‘I actually saw’ for a moment there was no ‘I’, but now that ‘seeing’ is a thought only.
Going back and forwards is confusing.
. . . . and next (sometimes) it catches itself assuming. And this is also only thought claiming.

Well how about this . . .

'There is an Swa here' would be a thought arising.
'There is no Swa here' would be a thought arising also.
However, the standard view of self, 'I', 'Swa' is that it points to an inherently existing 'thing' that is not dependent on thought.
Have you managed to locate an 'I' that is not dependent on thought?
Do you think you ever could?
If not, what would this mean?

Xain ♥

[Swa]

Hi Xain,

Scary, nothing to know , no control +thoughts running without brake, doesn’t feel like going of the merry go round but putting it on maximum speed.

Hasn't it always been this way?

Yes, but while believing ‘I’ get somewhere was exciting and fun unlike like knowing it is just an self perpetuating meaningless loop.

There is plenty to know. But knowledge is only useful for 'I'.
The thought process being unstoppable and lacking control is only a problem for an 'I'.

True, but as a child I had thoughts about dinky toys and lolly pops and Santa, which are not present now ,so there is some expectation of these to wither away.

To answer these questions becomes suffering as I switch between ‘I’ and no ‘I’ in which trying to answer honestly is a struggle.

Perhaps the battle isn't between 'I' and 'No I' . . .

You are right it is not, it is trying to hold on to the ‘I’ and not yet accepting ‘No I’

Then Swa completely identified suffering his emotions might be all in thought, but nevertheless being a real experience ,you see what I am trying to get at?

Yes, but nothing needs to be dismissed. A Swa suffers. If there is no 'Swa', then no Swa can suffer.

Yes, no one to dismiss anything, but whether there is a Swa suffering or no Swa,= ‘no swa can suffer’ ,and the experience of suffering is experienced in the form of conflicting thoughts and bodily sensation/emotions, that concludes some belief (unconscious/not seen) in a Swa that is somewhere lurking, is it not?

Thought creates experience, you never mentioned direct experience in our thread, but direct experience is a creation of thought also, which then gives me no anchor to differentiate to what is real and whats imagined (by thought).

Indeed. Perhaps . . . what is 'real' IS what is stated by thought :)
Perhaps Swa is as real as Direct Experience, as a cup, as the screen your looking at, as the keyboard you type on.
Perhaps we know all this through thought, and that makes up our reality :)
You are going into deep territory here :) It's a good thing.
I hope this makes sense.

Yes very much so.

‘I actually saw’ for a moment there was no ‘I’, but now that ‘seeing’ is a thought only.
Going back and forwards is confusing.
. . . . and next (sometimes) it catches itself assuming. And this is also only thought claiming.

Well how about this . . .

'There is an Swa here' would be a thought arising.
'There is no Swa here' would be a thought arising also.
However, the standard view of self, 'I', 'Swa' is that it points to an inherently existing 'thing' that is not dependent on thought.
Have you managed to locate an 'I' that is not dependent on thought?
Do you think you ever could?

I have not managed to locate a Swa, Swa is a label that thought assumes to many different aspects of experience, but pulled apart in seen heard etc seem untrue, no Swa.
I do not think I ever could because the 5 senses + thought is all that makes up experience.

If not, what would this mean?

That Swa is an story created by and in thought only.

Here I am not so clear;
There is a moment of clarity, then thought denies that, so the experience shifts (from clarity/seeing) into experiencing denying.
Obviously the two cannot be at the same time.

The experience of 'seeing' is real, until thought claims it to be real.
The experience is in fact already gone and now the experience of thought only.
Thereby thought can deny ‘seeing’ being not real in the sense ‘seeing’ has already been conceptualized. Now did seeing really happen ?
proof is gone cause thought is busy thinking about it and that’s what is then experienced.
+
Even if it is general seen there is no I, (lets say 80%), then when indentification arises, clarity is lost and its all about ‘I’.
If ‘I’ is seen not to exist in the 80% but ‘I’seems to exist in the 20%, there is a shadow of doubt,
Therefor there is an expectation that this clarity/seeing has to be constant.

Thank you SO much.

[Xain]

Hi Swa

I think our conversation is going slightly off the rails a little bit.
I find all areas of non-dual study and deconstruction of ideas fascinating, but find myself going a little too far down the rabbit hole sometimes and need to come back a little bit. This might be one of those times.
It may be better to leave certain areas of deconstruction alone for the time being until you are 100% clear on the area we are currently examining (the self, 'I').

True, but as a child I had thoughts about dinky toys and lolly pops and Santa, which are not present now ,so there is some expectation of these to wither away.

I understand your phrase '. . . as a child'.
But in terms of this guidance, what is this 'I' that was a child?

If there is no self, no 'I' here now and there never has been - Why expect thoughts to change?
If you expect that the 'I' thought itself will be permanently 'seen through' from now on, that assumes control in this area doesn't it? It also assume a real 'I' seeing through things, as opposed to life simply all 'happening of itself'.

and the experience of suffering is experienced in the form of conflicting thoughts and bodily sensation/emotions, that concludes some belief (unconscious/not seen) in a Swa that is somewhere lurking, is it not?

This would be the case if there was an inherently existing 'Swa' here right now believing and experiencing (and suffering).
If this is all seen-through then . . . it's all just 'happening' and could be no other way.

I have not managed to locate a Swa, Swa is a label that thought assumes to many different aspects of experience, but pulled apart in seen heard etc seem untrue, no Swa.
I do not think I ever could because the 5 senses + thought is all that makes up experience.

That Swa is an story created by and in thought only.

Sounds good to me :)

There is a moment of clarity, then thought denies that, so the experience shifts (from clarity/seeing) into experiencing denying.
Obviously the two cannot be at the same time.

I am not fully certain what you mean . . . but I can offer the question - What is going to change this?
Would it involve a self that has control over the situation?

The experience of 'seeing' is real, until thought claims it to be real.
The experience is in fact already gone and now the experience of thought only.
Thereby thought can deny ‘seeing’ being not real in the sense ‘seeing’ has already been conceptualized. Now did seeing really happen ?
proof is gone cause thought is busy thinking about it and that’s what is then experienced.
+
Even if it is general seen there is no I, (lets say 80%), then when indentification arises, clarity is lost and its all about ‘I’.
If ‘I’ is seen not to exist in the 80% but ‘I’seems to exist in the 20%, there is a shadow of doubt,
Therefore there is an expectation that this clarity/seeing has to be constant.

This is all too much to deal with here, although I really commend you on your examination and determination. You remind me a lot of myself going through all this - Trying to make sense of it.

Let me just try to drag you back simply to this guidance for a self.
Your description implies control - An ability for things to change from one state to another state.
This clarity and seeing has to be constant - For who?
There is a shadow of doubt. For who?

If the 'I' thought appears and is believed in . . .
What is the 'I' thought pointing to? Anything?
Who is having the 'I' thought?
Who could stop it?
Who believed it anyway?
Who could 'not' believe it?

Maybe there just no 'I' . . . no Swa . . . AT ALL!

Xain ♥

[Swa]

Hi Xain

It may be better to leave certain areas of deconstruction alone for the time being until you are 100% clear on the area we are currently examining (the self, 'I').

I am with you.
I will try to be succinct, and maybe can isolate my stumbling blocks ,why there is resistance to simply accept that there is no ‘I’ ,when I cannot find an ‘I’.

I understand your phrase '. . . as a child'.
But in terms of this guidance, what is this 'I' that was a child?

This ‘I’ cannot be found outside thought, and this ‘I’ is only present when thought is there, if there is no thought like when I am busy doing something ‘I’ is not there. Only when thought arises again it claims that I was ‘unaware’ of myself.

If there is no self, no 'I' here now and there never has been - Why expect thoughts to change?

True, only for an ‘I’ having thoughts that some thoughts are better than others or more likeable then others.

If you expect that the 'I' thought itself will be permanently 'seen through' from now on, that assumes control in this area doesn't it?

Yes ,absolutely.

It also assume a real 'I' seeing through things, as opposed to life simply all 'happening of itself'.

Yes indeed , but ‘expectation’ and ‘seeing through things’ is also happening of itself.
The rsistance and confusion is, that ‘seeing through things’ ,done by, and happening to no one is therefore consequently also not true, and no more than an interpretation of an situation by the same ‘thinking’ that claims an ‘I’.
But the perspective changes, and this is mind blowing, I have to laugh as thinking can’t grasp this, and trying to make sense of that, keeps ”me” in that loop.

and the experience of suffering is experienced in the form of conflicting thoughts and bodily sensation and emotions,-

This would be the case if there was an inherently existing 'Swa' here right now believing and experiencing (and suffering).
If this is all seen-through then . . . it's all just 'happening' and could be no other way.
-and-
but I can offer the question - What is going to change this?
Would it involve a self that has control over the situation?
-and-
Your description implies control - An ability for things to change from one state to another state.
This clarity and seeing has to be constant - For who?
There is a shadow of doubt. For who?

YES YES, YES!!!
Clarity or ‘sseing’ doesn’t happen to a Swa, that’s thoughts about.
Everything happens in clarity, ‘in clear seeing’.
What a joke!!
There is no clear ‘seeing’ or clarity for ‘Swa’.
Clarity or ‘clear seeing’ is there whether there is 'clarity' and ‘clear seeing’ or not.
Not much different --yet worlds apart.

If the 'I' thought appears and is believed in . . .
What is the 'I' thought pointing to? Anything?

To the story of ‘Swa’ itself.

Who is having the 'I' thought?
Who could stop it?
Who believed it anyway?
Who could 'not' believe it?

Maybe there just no 'I' . . . no Swa . . . AT ALL!

Here I go again,
thoughts are tricky bastards, when belief is believed in, so the experience!
Again turning clarity into a conceptual frame. I lost it again :-(
embarrassing

I could say; ‘no Swa at all’, but from this ‘once again’ ‘identified’ state it doesn’t feel right and honest.
Xain, I am exhausted, just give me another day to LOOK, got to crack this one at its roots.
I will get back to you tomorrow.

An immense thanks to you

[Xain]

The rsistance and confusion is, that ‘seeing through things’ ,done by, and happening to no one is therefore consequently also not true, and no more than an interpretation of an situation by the same ‘thinking’ that claims an ‘I’.

I don't understand 'Not True' - True and False isn't really being addressed here.
There is a big difference between 'happening to noone' and 'Anything claimed that things are happening to, is only found as the content of a thought'.
'This is happening to noone' is a positive claim, requiring proof. Also, it can be considered the content of a thought.
We are not addressing 'noone' here anyway - We are addressing the 'I' that is assumed to be inherently real.

As I said 'There is an 'I' here' could be the content of a thought.
'There is no 'I' here' could also be the content of a thought.
However, we are dealing with 'I' which is assumed all along to be entirely independent of thoughts.
That's the one we're looking for.

I could say; ‘no Swa at all’, but from this ‘once again’ ‘identified’ state it doesn’t feel right and honest.
Xain, I am exhausted, just give me another day to LOOK, got to crack this one at its roots.
I will get back to you tomorrow.

You appear to want this guidance between true and false, exist or not exist.
That's not what we are addressing.
It is more about 'what depends on thoughts'.

So . . . describe the 'Swa', the 'I' that is NOT dependent on thoughts. The one that is here right now.

Xain ♥

[Swa]

Hi Xain,

You appear to want this guidance between true and false, exist or not exist.
That's not what we are addressing.
It is more about 'what depends on thoughts'.

But that is precisely why this inquiry is so intense for me as any description refers back to this ‘I’ , and therefore not inherently true (false).
I do get your point by now, and put all this aside like you said until I am 100% clear on examining (the self, 'I').
Sorry for that. and thank you for repeatedly dragging me back.

So . . . describe the 'Swa', the 'I' that is NOT dependent on thoughts. The one that is here right now

That is without doubt impossible. There is no ‘I’ independent of thought, period.

Dearest regards,

[Xain]

Aha! I think I know what you are describing now - Sorry - I think maybe we were talking about two different things.

That is without doubt impossible. There is no ‘I’ independent of thought, period.

Excellent - That is what this guidance was all about.

Ok, let's address what you said here:

But that is precisely why this inquiry is so intense for me as any description refers back to this ‘I’ , and therefore not inherently true (false).

I think I've twigged what you are talking about here.
This might be a biggee - But let me try to address it in simple terms.
Just because something has no inherent truth to it, does not mean that we have to switch into denial.

If we take an example of Santa Claus - We go from believing he is a real person when we are young, to realising there can be no such person at all.
Santa Claus has no inherent reality. (I like the word Inherent because when you understand what it means, it makes a lot of things clear).
If we were then to switch into denial upon making this realisation, we would then go around demanding people stop referring to Santa Claus at all and start ruining people's Christmases by demanding that all talk of Santa Claus is wrong. Instead of this, we simply realise - He's not 'real' and that's it.

Perhaps I can offer you a difference here because reading through some of your excellent replies you appear to be clued-up about things beyond the average seeker. This may help you.
Let me offer you a difference here.
A difference between two levels of truth / reality /existence etc
It is between inherent (or absolute) existence and relative existence. We can call relative existence, the existence level of language, words, concepts, descriptions and thoughts.
If that makes sense, then perhaps you can see that 'I' does have relative existence, but you have realised that 'I' does not have Inherent existence.
If that makes sense, then can you see that relative existence is fine. It's something. It doesn't have to be denied.
At later stages, we can see that EVERYTHING has relative existence, cups, chairs, the sky, Santa Claus, 'I', Direct Experience, etc, but none of these things has inherent existence (we look for them deeply, and we do not find them).
Does that help at all? Indeed, am I correctly addressing what you are meaning?

This entire guidance about me guiding you has relative truth.
But if we look for an inherently existing 'me' that has guided an inherently existing 'you' we do not find these things.
Because of this, we realise that this guidance has no inherent truth.
Both sides of the coin here, relative and inherent do not need to be denied.
In fact (hope you can get this!) denial would only itself be a relative description. A relative truth only (language, thoughts and concepts).

Xain ♥

[Swa]

Hi Xain,

Just because something has no inherent truth to it, does not mean that we have to switch into denial---
----Instead of this, we simply realise - He's not 'real' and that's it.
----If that makes sense, then can you see that relative existence is fine. It's something. It doesn't have to be denied.

That makes sense, thank you, that was indeed part of the struggle I was experiencing.

At later stages, we can see that EVERYTHING has relative existence, cups, chairs, the sky, Santa Claus, 'I', Direct Experience, etc, but none of these things has inherent existence (we look for them deeply, and we do not find them).
Does that help at all? Indeed, am I correctly addressing what you are meaning?

Yes you do, that’s where I flipped in and out of, I was really taking your questions to heart!
(and to mind ;)

This entire guidance about me guiding you has relative truth.
But if we look for an inherently existing 'me' that has guided an inherently existing 'you' we do not find these things

.
Trippy—but yes-- not fully clear on others yet (many unquestioned assumptions or maybe a bit of a seismic shift mind cannot cope with).

Because of this, we realise that this guidance has no inherent truth.

even more trippy ;) but Yes.

Both sides of the coin here, relative and inherent do not need to be denied.

Great,- but what I realized, or think I did, during this thread, that inherent truth does neither exist.
(if i got it right,then like you said denial or affirmation would only itself be a relative description)
When I said ; ’I’ is not inherently true’, I questioned that by ‘what is, or means inherently true?’
I cannot find anything inherently true.
At first I thought that awareness was inherently true, but that went out of the widow halfway our thread,
and to call that now life, does not fit with any idea that I believed life meant, therefore I can throw that one out as well.
Your insistence to Look, made me see that I can’t grasp anything with the mind, where upon now i can relax by your clarification of ‘relative truth’.
However looking at ‘nothing’ -,as inherent truth is not ‘something’-, plus the question ‘what is looking’ is dazzling and gives me an itch.

I know you asked me in this investigationto to leave, ‘what is looking’ aside, so I will,
but I can hardly resist.

In fact (hope you can get this!) denial would only itself be a relative description. A relative truth only (language, thoughts and concepts).

Yes, thanks a lot for all this :)

Dearest regards,

[Xain]

Nice, Swa - Yes, I think you got it. We are both on the same page.

Trippy—but yes-- not fully clear on others yet (many unquestioned assumptions or maybe a bit of a seismic shift mind cannot cope with).

If you mean my reference to cups, tables, chairs, the sky, direct experience etc - Yes, it's trippy.
This is waaaaaay beyond the scope of this guidance, but really nice to see that you are investigation this area with honesty.
These things can be both intellectually and experientially deconstructed and seen that they do not have inherent existence.
But this is light-years away from 'seeing no separate self'

Great,- but what I realized, or think I did, during this thread, that inherent truth does neither exist.

Damn, you, you swine - You are right! :-)

Just be careful on the 'does not exist' phrase. Perhaps better to say 'inherent truth' is. itself, a relative phrase?
Indeed, 'Truth' itself is relative. Exist is also relative. They are both dependent.
But I get your meaning, of course.

When I said ; ’I’ is not inherently true’, I questioned that by ‘what is, or means inherently true?’
I cannot find anything inherently true.

Me neither - Now we are both tripping :-D

At first I thought that awareness was inherently true, but that went out of the window halfway our thread,
and to call that now life, does not fit with any idea that I believed life meant, therefore I can throw that one out as well.
Your insistence to Look, made me see that I can’t grasp anything with the mind, where upon now i can relax by your clarification of ‘relative truth’.
However looking at ‘nothing’ -,as inherent truth is not ‘something’-, plus the question ‘what is looking’ is dazzling and gives me an itch.

Yes, yes. Wonderful and beautiful to see.
You get it.

Ok, your question 'What is looking'.
What sort of answer can you get to this question? Could I ever give you an answer that had inherent truth?
If the answer that is required, must be stated in words . . . what does that mean?

I know you asked me in this investigationto to leave, ‘what is looking’ aside, so I will,
but I can hardly resist.

Dammit - Neither can I!
:-)
The mind (and language) has a limited nature. It can only deal with separation / things that are separate.
Take any word, and it only has meaning to a direct opposite.
A Cup only has meaning if there are other things which are not cups, to compare it with.
Green only has meaning if there are other things (colours) which are not green.
Suppose the answer to your question has no opposite? Suppose the answer to your question is not something separate?
Could it be known? Could it be labelled? Could it even be said to have existence (which as you now know, is only a relative term and description anyway)?

Ooooh this is deep stuff.
Pass me some more of those Magic Mushrooms . . . ;-)

Xain ♥

[Swa]

Hi Xain,

Trippy—but yes-- not fully clear on others yet (many unquestioned assumptions or maybe a bit of a seismic shift mind cannot cope with).

If you mean my reference to cups, tables, chairs, the sky, direct experience etc - Yes, it's trippy

To be honest it includes these things that seem to stand on 2 feet straight up ,with a balloony thing and some strange colored fur on top.

There is a bit of distortion, it is like missing some pieces of the puzzle.
Sometimes it is seen from this angle, and the same thing from an other angle not, or not quite.

what is an apparent other other to ?
Of course to this body, a thought story, that this body seems to be here ,and not there (you etc). So in seeing, even if all attributes are not totally clear (e.g. space/location), it is still part of a story,
'Other' seem most convincing when 'other' opens mouth and says something, or speak 'their mind', but as we did the hearing exercise ,and this is pretty amazing.
Everybody, through all the ages, all over this planet, from politicians to guru’s to house wives all croacking like rainfrogs, and noone has never ever said anything,
including ‘this body Swa’.

But noone still implies someone,(like you said, noone requires proof).
This is what I mean with distortion,

Just be careful on the 'does not exist' phrase. Perhaps better to say 'inherent truth' is. itself, a relative phrase?

Beautifull, yes, and, don’t want to give another banana to my monkey.

However looking at ‘nothing’ -,as inherent truth is not ‘something’-, plus the question ‘what is looking’ is dazzling and gives me an itch.

Yes, yes. Wonderful and beautiful to see.
You get it.

sorry, i meant it with a slightly negative connotation.
It is not a space of wonder although it does happen at moments, it was more to point out
an obsessive urge, a feeling excited to get to the bottom of it.
‘I am trying to’ ,and that dazzles me in the sense that it is like trying to see my own eye.

Ok, your question 'What is looking'.

I had a burst of tears ,when suddenly realizing I am looking at myself.
For a moment, in absolute clarity there was only love.
And then thought of course spinning its relative interpretation.
But your explanation of relative and inherent has brought a lot of warships down, for which i thank you again, thereby not being fooled anymore by these great experiental moments.

What sort of answer can you get to this question?
Could I ever give you an answer that had inherent truth?

no

If the answer that is required, must be stated in words . . . what does that mean?

That that is exactly not what it is.

Suppose the answer to your question has no opposite?
Suppose the answer to your question is not something separate?

definitely it can’t be separate, so no opposite

Could it be known?

Not through the subject /object model

Could it be labelled?

No

Could it even be said to have existence (which as you now know, is only a relative term and description anyway)?

..........

Ooooh this is deep stuff.
Pass me some more of those Magic Mushrooms . . . ;-)

Sorry bro ,you ate them all,

you did not leave any for anybody ;)


Thank you So much

[Xain]

Wow! What a trip.
Look, we can talk lots more about this stuff later on, but it's not really part of this particular guidance.
Is it clear that there is no separate self? (We can examine 'others' later if you want to?)
If you are 100% clear on this (and you look to be pretty well cooked), there are a further six questions I must ask as part of the guiding process.
Would you be ready for them?
If so, I will ask them. The questions are to be answered simply without using too many technical details like inherent, relative and absolute etc
If I mention the word 'I', it is always to be assumed that I am talking about the assumed inherently existing one.
Would that be OK? Ready for the questions?

Xain ♥

[Swa]

Hi Xain,

Ready for the questions?

Ready, bring them on.

(We can examine 'others' later if you want to?)

love to :)

Thank you so much Xain,

[Xain]

Ok, here are the first three of the six.

Here are the first three of them:

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 and understanding. Describe it fully as you see it now.

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

Xain ♥