Self Banishing Rituals

[Canfora]

The experience is real, but it obscures the way in which things exist to apply the concept "real" to mentally abstracted phenomenon. I would be disinclined to use the negation "not-real" in regard to the "self" for the same reason.

So, are you saying the conceptual experience of a self is real? Does this mean an entity that is a you - a permanent, solid, separate person - can't be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted? Does this mean all the thoughts about a self are about a conceptual entity, like Santa Claus or Batman or Harry Potter?

[deesee]

The experience is real, but it obscures the way in which things exist to apply the concept "real" to mentally abstracted phenomenon. I would be disinclined to use the negation "not-real" in regard to the "self" for the same reason.

So, are you saying the conceptual experience of a self is real?

I wouldn't say that, no. I would say that the typical conceptualisation of the experience was not true.

Does this mean an entity that is a you - a permanent, solid, separate person - can't be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted? Does this mean all the thoughts about a self are about a conceptual entity, like Santa Claus or Batman or Harry Potter?

Yes!
Yes!
A conceptual entity, composed of real experience. :D

[Canfora]

Yes!
Yes!
A conceptual entity, composed of real experience. :D

:D

Does that mean there isn't a real findable self trying to prove its existence or non existence?

Let's do a checkpoint!

If you focus in the thoughts that are popping up right now, can you see a thinker can't be found?

If you focus in sensations, can you see a feeler can't be found?

If you focus in the seeing, the hearing, the tasting, the smelling, the touching, can you see a perceiver can't be found?

If you focus in the body, can you see a real entity - a you - can't be found inside the body or outside the body?

Hug,
S

[deesee]

Does that mean there isn't a real findable self trying to prove its existence or non existence?

Let's do a checkpoint!

If you focus in the thoughts that are popping up right now, can you see a thinker can't be found?

If you focus in sensations, can you see a feeler can't be found?

If you focus in the seeing, the hearing, the tasting, the smelling, the touching, can you see a perceiver can't be found?

If you focus in the body, can you see a real entity - a you - can't be found inside the body or outside the body?

Hug,
S

I had to take a few days out to let this all brew, and then ended up staying with friends for a bit, so apologies for not checking in sooner.

"Thinker" is a conceptualisation. There are thoughts.

"Feeler" is a conceptualisation. There are sensations.

"Perceiver" is a conceptualisation. There are perceptions.

While the identity does not exist in the manner it is commonly imagined to, the actual experience that arises presents as an apparent continuity of phenomenon, that implies individuation.

This is one reason why it's so confusing for many of us when we hear there is "no self".

[Canfora]

Hello! Glad you're still here!

That sounds a little intellectual. What can you see going on - here and now - that makes you say there is "no self"?

Take care,
S

[deesee]

Hello! Glad you're still here!

That sounds a little intellectual. What can you see going on - here and now - that makes you say there is "no self"?

Take care,
S

Thank you.

I need to let this one brew for a bit again. I wouldn't express it as there being "no self", but rather that identity is a construct. That much is obvious just by looking at what is there; a bunch of light and thoughts.

[Canfora]

I need to let this one brew for a bit again. I wouldn't express it as there being "no self", but rather that identity is a construct. That much is obvious just by looking at what is there; a bunch of light and thoughts.

When we let this brew for a bit, the natural tendency is to restart seeing things from a self perspective.

If you look with fresh eyes, it is easy and always possible to see a real, independent, separate self isn't here now.

But ... If you start pondering about all this, it's very likely that the thinking will go into its habitual "default mode" and doubts, feeling you are a self, and all the many things that make you believe you are a real entity, will start to came up.

So, when you remember, keep noticing the difference between the selfing - the mental activity that may be happening and makes it seem you are a self - and what can be seen/perceived here and now.

Notice how the selfing takes you into what isn't happening - the images/story of a self (a body) doing this and that, thinking this and that, etc, in a imaginary past or future.

[deesee]

I need to let this one brew for a bit again. I wouldn't express it as there being "no self", but rather that identity is a construct. That much is obvious just by looking at what is there; a bunch of light and thoughts.

When we let this brew for a bit, the natural tendency is to restart seeing things from a self perspective.

If you look with fresh eyes, it is easy and always possible to see a real, independent, separate self isn't here now.

But ... If you start pondering about all this, it's very likely that the thinking will go into its habitual "default mode" and doubts, feeling you are a self, and all the many things that make you believe you are a real entity, will start to came up.

So, when you remember, keep noticing the difference between the selfing - the mental activity that may be happening and makes it seem you are a self - and what can be seen/perceived here and now.

Notice how the selfing takes you into what isn't happening - the images/story of a self (a body) doing this and that, thinking this and that, etc, in a imaginary past or future.

Ok. Thanks for the refresher. :D

[deesee]

What can you see going on - here and now - that makes you say there is "no self"?

I can clearly see that the identity is imputed into apparent existence because when looked for it can't be found to exist in the way it is usually believed to.

The identity is a construct. The personality is a bundle of conditioned phenomena that arises " call and response" style to other phenomena.

All I see going on is perceptions, including thoughts and sensations, in a feedback loop with conditioned interpretations and reactions.

Most thoughts that arise are about an identity that the thoughts relate to in some way.

When feelings or sensations arise with the thoughts, the reality of the feeling is borrowed by the thoughts, making them feel meaningful.

My experience at the moment is that although I "know" this and can observe its activities in action, the thoughts about this personality/identity continue. Less powerfully than before, but still arising.

Right now, I am typing this while thinking in terms of what "I" know. For example, the thought: "How do I explain my understanding?".

The identity appears to be primarily wrapped up in the conceptual realm, or the map of reality. It exists as stories, ideas, beliefs and interpretations, reactive patterns of behaviour and tendencies.

If that's "too conceptual" then its just how "I" am wired I'm afraid.

A list of specific thoughts and perceptions could be produced if asked, but from my perspective that could be no more meaningful than a shopping list, if the insight of how the listed items exist and interrelate is not applied or expressed.

[Canfora]

Hello, good afternoon Donald!

A list of specific thoughts and perceptions could be produced if asked, but from my perspective that could be no more meaningful than a shopping list, if the insight of how the listed items exist and interrelate is not applied or expressed.

What do you mean by "if the insight of how the listed items exist and interrelate is not applied or expressed"?

If that's "too conceptual" then its just how "I" am wired I'm afraid.

Well... the I is always about having the attention caught up in concepts that are taken to be true. It's not that you are wired this way, it's more that the self illusion needs conceptualization to pop up. And the self illusion will keep popping up even when it is seen that it is an illusion. If the "right" conditions are in place, it will seem there is a real self here and now.

Let's go back to this question:

What can you see going on - here and now - that makes you say there is "no self"?

What the question implies is that if you can't sense/perceive a self, then a self is only a concept, just like Santa Claus, the Equator or America.

In other words, if you observe what is here now and can't see a self, touch a self, hear a self, smell a self, how can a self be more than a bunch of thoughts that seem to create the self-illusion?

Can you see a thing, an entity that is a self, if you look for one? Have a look. What do you see?

Take care,
S

[deesee]

What do you mean by "if the insight of how the listed items exist and interrelate is not applied or expressed"?

I mean that the imputation of identity could be listed as an item among other impressions. The list could be conceived as being like a tumbler full of lotto balls that arise in certain sequences, then go back into the tumbler.

Unlike an apparently random lotto, the conditions inside the tumber may mean that certain "balls" are apparently larger, stickier, more familiar, more meaningful, more personal, and more likely to arise than other balls, creating a greater impression of persistent continuity.

So I could create a list:

urgency to go to toilet
light translated into perceptions of room
pattern operating to express processing of data via keyboard interface
sensation of "keys under fingers"
interpretation of screen as data that feeds back out as processed data on the screen through unknown congnitive process
concept of "unknown cognitive process"
perceptions of various sounds in room that wave in and out of apparent conscious awareness:
clacking of keys
hum of refrigerator
ticking of clock
buzz of monitor
thoughts are heard
There is a half-disbelieved conceptual idea that what is heard internally and what is heard externally are different and a wondering of how so-called "hearing" really works.
Glance at mp3 player
there is an instant recognition of what the item is and what it does and how i feel about it; slight attachment is noted along with a small instantaneous relief that the mp3 player is there, simultaneously with the noting that i can use this complex of phenomena for this list. The totality of that one second could be further expanded and explained, but this type of process is continuously arising and passing in relation to whatever is arising.
awareness of body pops in and out; slight tension in shoulders, recurrent urgency to go to bathroom, awareness of sensations related to the construct i call "feet" under table.

This kind of list could be said to be arising within every "tumbler" of experience or "bodymind".

Noting it as a list like this could indeed be a useful tool, in and of itself.

Noting how the items on the list actually exist in experience could be seen as a potential spectrum of insight.

It's possible to not be aware at all that the items on the list are written on a particular kind of paper, in a particular font, or a particular colour, or as concepts, or as objects. The list can be seen as what we are, or it can be seen as an whole list at once, or it can be seen as individual letters making up words, making up concepts, making up activities and having effects.

The list may be seen as something to do, like a list of commands, or a list of ways to feel and act. There may not even be much conscious awareness of the list at all.

It could run almost entirely subconsciously and you have the impression of an apparent thinking, feeling, bodymind acting in the apparent world.

It's likely that the awareness of the list in deconstructed form, and of the context in which it exists will go unnoticed unless it is looked for, though this metaphor is by no means absolute.

Well... the I is always about having the attention caught up in concepts that are taken to be true. It's not that you are wired this way, it's more that the self illusion needs conceptualization to pop up. And the self illusion will keep popping up even when it is seen that it is an illusion. If the "right" conditions are in place, it will seem there is a real self here and now.

Let's go back to this question:

What can you see going on - here and now - that makes you say there is "no self"?

What the question implies is that if you can't sense/perceive a self, then a self is only a concept, just like Santa Claus, the Equator or America.

In other words, if you observe what is here now and can't see a self, touch a self, hear a self, smell a self, how can a self be more than a bunch of thoughts that seem to create the self-illusion?

Can you see a thing, an entity that is a self, if you look for one? Have a look. What do you see?

Take care,
S

There are perspectives or viewpoints that arise and pass, but every bit of it is made of myself.

I see nothing but myself. Every perception, idea, interpretation and action is me.

There are self-identified clusters that arise and pass.

There are other-identified clusters that arise and pass.

None of it is a true individual identity, separate from the rest of what is arising.

[Canfora]

Thank you for your reply.
Would you say you can see with 100% certainty that a separate self is a illusion?
Do you have doubts?
Does it feel like something is missing?
Did anything change since we start talking?

[deesee]

Thank you for your reply.
Would you say you can see with 100% certainty that a separate self is a illusion?
Do you have doubts?
Does it feel like something is missing?
Did anything change since we start talking?

Absolutely. Its a prank the universe is playing on a little fragment of the whole. There is no true individual identity separate from everything else arising. Can't be.

No doubts.

Nothing is missing. Everything is perfect and always was and will be. The apparent individual is a mirage, that is the effect of the universe rather than the cause.

Things have definitely shifted since we started talking.

Only so much can be said. I like the very direct pointing approach used here. Its been a very helpful process going somewhat against the grain of my intellectual tendencies.

There are subtleties to the understanding that might be difficult to communicate, mostly because of the limitations of conceptual structures, but its pretty much established that Donald is an illusion.

I now understand all the various teachers from Tony Parsons, to Rupert Spira, to Mooji are actually pointing to the same thing from different conceptual frameworks, whether they protest otherwise or not.

There is only one thing to know; all is Brahman. Whether you call it Brahman, the Self, or Energy is just a matter of conceptual semantics.

"Be still and know that you are God".

[deesee]

What is the difference
Between your experience of Existence
And that of a saint?

The saint knows
That the spiritual path
Is a sublime chess game with God

And that the Beloved
Has just made such a Fantastic Move

That the saint is now continually
Tripping over Joy
And bursting out in Laughter
And saying, “I Surrender!”

Whereas, my dear,
I am afraid you still think
You have a thousand serious moves.

- Hafiz, Tripping Over Joy

[Canfora]

Good morning Donald! Reading your posts was a very nice way to start the day. Thank you for the Hafiz poem! I'm happy to know that you are seeing experimentally that a separate self is an illusion.

We usually ask some questions to check if something is still unclear. Here are the first 3. Take your time with them, there is no need to rush:

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.