Dear Beanstalk,
This question keeps popping up: There’s clearly no me to be found in direct experience, but what if there is a me that is not within direct experience? A 'soul' for example? When I look, though, that idea doesn’t make any sense - how could ‘me’ be something that ‘I’m’ not even aware of? How could a ‘me’ outside DE be the 'do-er' if I’m not even aware I’m doing it? Every time the question of a ‘me’ outside DE comes up, I look into it again and immediately see how ridiculous it is, yet it just
keeps on popping up and I'm not sure why
This is pretty normal. There is quite a persistent momentum in the believe of an ‘I’.
Just continue looking again and again and try to verify.
Do not get trapped here. ( :
I'm definitely getting closer, and if I stop doing everything and just allow myself to be there’s always a moment where I feel it – just everything as it is with no-one actually there at all, but then it fizzles away. I can see there is no 'me' to be found anywhere but it's like I'm still not fully 'getting it' for some reason. When I look at something, for example, it still feels like there is a 'me' looking at it from the centre of experience. And even if there is no ‘me’, isn’t there still a centre of experience? Somewhere where experience originates?
Yes, a very good question.
Just think for a while being a newborn baby.
Or maybe you might have seen a baby recently – anyway.
Does the baby know anything about being a baby?
Does it know anything about the parents?
Does it know anything about its gender?
Now let us say the parents decide to call the baby John or Mary.
Does the term have any meaning to the child?
When it hears the name John, does it resonate?
How does this baby perceive through its senses?
Where or how does the experience originate?
Is it happening to a centre, or is the experience just the experience?
yes, just meaning there is no 'out there', only awareness
Here you give the answer.
After some time the child gets used to its name.
Someone might call ‘JOHN!’ while the child is half sleeping and some reaction might happen.
If someone calls ‘JONATHAN’ the child would not feel addressed.
Is this happening due to a ‘me’ who is resonating with the given name?
Or is it just a leaned pattern?
Also, I'm struggling with the idea that what can be seen, smelled, tasted, heard, felt and thought are all one. Even if there’s no ‘me’ involved, isn’t there a clear separation between these forms of experience, simply because they are all so different?
Yes, they are all separate.
Yet, at the same time they can be experienced together.
Look at it like many different colours in a picture.
The colours are all separate and at the same time all one within the picture.
Is there something like a separate self, has there ever been?
Whenever I look, there isn't, and in general I'm pretty sure now that there is no separate self. but for some reason it still 'feels' like there is
Whenever you notice the ‘feeling of the self’ just replace the term by ‘appearing as a self’.
Do you notice the difference?
Question all your believes and assumptions.
Even when it is clearly seen that the separate self is nothing but a unquestioned conviction there are
still lots of believes residing in the backyard.
Notice all those the believes, uncover them.
Look the tiger right into the eye.
Once seen and noticed the old believes cannot stay.
Once one is seen, another one might pop up, then again, look at it.
Stay with the sensation accompanied therewith.
When this is done deliberately you might even trace the hidden core believe.
Something like: ‘I’m not worthy of love’ , or ‘I’m different’ etc.
Just look at all this.
And keep on questioning:
Is it true?
Is it really true?
Warmly
nina
Now. Here. That.
