what is all this

[Ronaldo]

Is there anything that doesn’t feel clear and you would like to look at?

Yes please!

Now we are going to investigate the illusion of the self in your everyday life, to see it outside of meditation too.

that would be great.

A few items that keep coming up in thoughts:

• self/me/I is a thought, but there is also belief in a thought, is that just a thought too? If so, what makes one thought ignored and others clinged to?
• What is the process of learning and memory... thoughts again? What about "muscle memory" like riding a bike?
• What are thoughts... why are they so different from sights or sounds or other senses? (supposably "why not" is a good answer... :)
• this is hard to express without going into me/you terms, so clearly it is based on lots of beliefs. But to just let it out - how do different people share some experiences and not other? There is an appearance of an 'outside world' which is shared, and an "inside world" that is private and not shared.

there are many more, but what is most interesting is seeing the illusion of self.
Thank you!

[Vivien]

Hi Ron,

self/me/I is a thought, but there is also belief in a thought, is that just a thought too? If so, what makes one thought ignored and others clinged to?

After seeing through the self illusion, yo-yoing or flip-flopping happens. That’s normal.

But the question is; is there someone or something that sometimes believes in thought, while other times not?
Is there anything ignoring thoughts?

And what is it that is clinging to a thoughts?
Is there really such thing as clinging to a thought?

Is it ok to dive into a story or that should not be happening?

What is the process of learning and memory... thoughts again? What about "muscle memory" like riding a bike?

This has nothing to do with looking. You can find answer to these questions in neuroscience.

We will come back to your remaining questions.

Vivien

[Ronaldo]

But the question is; is there someone or something that sometimes believes in thought, while other times not?
Is there anything ignoring thoughts?

Clearly, there is no such thing. Only a story will tell such tale.

And what is it that is clinging to a thoughts?
Is there really such thing as clinging to a thought?

"Clinging to thoughts" is the appearance of more thoughts that point to the thought labeled here as "clinged to".
There is no clinger so clinging is illusory.

Is it ok to dive into a story or that should not be happening?

Thoughts appear but there is no one acting on them. Asking the question if it is 'ok' or 'shouldn't be happening' is irrelevant because these questions are just more stories (thoughts).

[Vivien]

Hi Ron,

this is hard to express without going into me/you terms, so clearly it is based on lots of beliefs. But to just let it out - how do different people share some experiences and not other? There is an appearance of an 'outside world' which is shared, and an "inside world" that is private and not shared.

This sounds as a philosophical question, and we don’t go into the realm of any speculation, we are only investigating the ‘facts of reality’.

What are thoughts... why are they so different from sights or sounds or other senses? (supposably "why not" is a good answer... :)

Imagine that you are holding a spoon. Imagine its shape, size, weight, temperature, color. Now keep it there, close your eyes, and feel the imaginary spoon.

Then, open your eyes:
Is there a spoon here, in real life?
So how did you see that there is no spoon?
What happened to the spoon?
Did it disappear or it never existed?

Now go and get a spoon from the kitchen and hold it in the same way that you imagined it.
Feel the spoon’s form, its size, its weight, its temperature. Close your eyes and feel the spoon for a while.
Now open your eyes ... is there a spoon here, in real life?
Are a visual thought of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?
How does imagining and experiencing differ?

So can see why thoughts are so different from sense perception?

Vivien

[Ronaldo]

Hi Vivien,
You've become a very loved part of my day (please don't ask me who's day :)
You ask such great questions.

imaginary spoon:

Is there a spoon here, in real life?

No

So how did you see that there is no spoon?

It wasn't there when looking took place

What happened to the spoon?

It was never there in the first place.

Did it disappear or it never existed?

It never existed.

real spoon:

Now open your eyes ... is there a spoon here, in real life?

Yes.

Are a visual thought of the spoon and the experience of the spoon the same?

No.

How does imagining and experiencing differ?

Imagining quality is flawed in every way compared to the real thing (color, resolution, weight etc).
Imagining lacks a solid experience (interrupted with ease)
Imagining is known to be imagining, real experiencing has a quality of knowing/being now.
Dreams are an exception to this, but that may fall under philosophy?

So can see why thoughts are so different from sense perception?

Because they are pointing to real, but are not. To clarify, the thoughts are real, their content is not.

[Vivien]

Hi Brett,

Because they are pointing to real, but are not. To clarify, the thoughts are real, their content is not.

Exactly.

Dreams are an exception to this, but that may fall under philosophy?

Yes, that’s belongs to philosophy/speculation, since we cannot investigate ‘dream’ here now. Since that would be only a memory.

By the way, what is memory?
Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Please spend lot of time with EACH question… Look very carefully… Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Vivien

[Vivien]

Sorry, not Brett.. I replied to your comments in a wrong file :)

[Vivien]

Hi Ron,

I wonder if you can you speak to the concordance of what is sensed? For example, a creature called a cat is seen, soft and warm texture felt, purring is heard. Each sensory experience is just what it is (as we covered previously). The thought alone combines them and says that these senses are originating from a cat entity.

You described well how it happens. This is all there is to see. Everything else would be just more thought conceptualization added or layered over to the simplicity of what is.

How does it feel to see that the self is imaginary?

Do you notice any change, something that can be called a shift?

Is there any doubt? Or can you say with a big fat YES that it’s clear the I, as a separate self is an illusion?

Vivien

[Vivien]

Hi Ron,

The blurb I wrote about illusion, it diverts from direct observation and was a personal observation/analysis of the source of beliefs that I found helpful to me, but I regret wasting your time on this, please ignore it. You asked me if there was anything else I wanted to dive into, and I wonder if there are more direct observation for investigating beliefs? From what I can see, the problem here is that a belief is just contents of a thought and that limits our ability to go there.

I’ve seen this comment just after I posted my reply.

and I wonder if there are more direct observation for investigating beliefs? From what I can see, the problem here is that a belief is just contents of a thought and that limits our ability to go there.

It’s not clear for me what is it that you would like to look at. And why do say that beliefs are just content of thoughts and limits the ability to go there?

Could you be more specific? Is there a certain belief(s) that you would like to investigate?

What is the difference between a thought and a belief?

[Ronaldo]

Hi Vivien,

The inquiry doesn’t work like this. Just because the self is seen to be just an illusion, it doesn’t mean that in the next moment it’s not believed to be real.

Yes, this is the experience, the 'I' is not gone.

It’s not enough to make a generalized statement that there is no self, so from now you, we just look over the words of I/me.
Even when the self is seen through, looking needs to continue again and again. Seeing the same thing again and again.

OK, understood and accepted with gratitude.

When I asked you if you can say with a big fat yes if the self is seen through, you didn’t give a clear answer. So it means that the self is not totally seen through and then more looking is needed, or you didn’t want to let go of this conversation, thus you didn’t give a totally honest reply.

There was an experience of no self, the idea of the self was given up, and so "the self" has been seen through (so to speak). The self thought keeps appearing and there is often confusion arising, but that illusion often met with presence and dissolved . This is a new experience, in and out of the illusion is expected to continue, but there is certainty it will never be forgotten again. More practice will continue for the rest of this body's existence.

As long as there is an expectation of wanting more peace, you can be sure that in that moment of wanting, the self is believed to be real. Since peace matter only to the self. I want peace.
It’s not enough to make a generalized statement of there being no self, while the self is taken to be real in the moment of wanting.

No disagreement, but the experience of no-self is not a constant realization. When resistance, wanting or suffering is noticed, the opportunity arises to reveal the illusion taking place.

Looking and seeing no self is not a one-time even. It requires thousands of looking to see it again and again to have no doubt about it.

That is precisely why I didn't provide a clear answer when you asked.

You ALWAYS have to LOOK AFRESH and NEVER RELY ON MEMORY of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief.

Wise words, relying on memory does turn this into a stale belief, I will keep this statement handy.

Could you be more specific? Is there a certain belief(s) that you would like to investigate?

Only the core 'I' belief.

why do say that beliefs are just content of thoughts and limits the ability to go there? What is the difference between a thought and a belief?

A belief is just a thought, but the belief thought contents a false statement about a self, or related to a self.

What is fuzzy to me right now is this, a thought "I am sad" arises. At times that thought is believed, at time it seen as illusory. How?

[Vivien]

Hi Ron,

the 'I' is not gone.

The illusion of the self won’t stop appearing. Thoughts about I/me/mine will still go on.
Why should they stop? The self has never been there, and yet these thoughts have been appearing all along.

The ‘I’ thought will never be gone. That wouldn’t be a practical living :)
What can be gone is the belief in its realness.

The self thought keeps appearing and there is often confusion arising, but that illusion often met with presence and dissolved . This is a new experience, in and out of the illusion is expected to continue, but there is certainty it will never be forgotten again. More practice will continue for the rest of this body's existence.

Yes, exactly, this is a good description.

No disagreement, but the experience of no-self is not a constant realization. When resistance, wanting or suffering is noticed, the opportunity arises to reveal the illusion taking place.

And it’s not continuous. And it’s normal. Yo-yoing is totally normal and will go on for a long time. Yo-yoing can lessen only with persistent looking.

So every time when the story is taken to be real, it’s a good opportunity to look and investigate what is here, right now in this moment.

That is precisely why I didn't provide a clear answer when you asked.

Does the self need to be seen as an illusion 24/7 in order to have an experiential conviction about it being an illusion?
Is it ok to dive into a story or that should not be happening?

Is there a permanent state? A final feeling? The last insight?
Or this is ever fresh and spontaneous?

What is fuzzy to me right now is this, a thought "I am sad" arises. At times that thought is believed, at time it seen as illusory. How?

The question is not about how. Any reply to the how would be just a thought speculation, just more story.

The question rather is:
Is there someone or something believing and then not believing?

Please, don’t just say that there is no self, therefore no believer, but actually look at experience, search for a believer.

Now let’s go a step further.

Is there really such thing in ‘reality’ that the story is believed?
Is there actual believing going on?

Or rather the sometimes there is a ‘zoom IN’ to the content of thoughts, such full focus that it’s not seen to be a thought, since it’s totally ‘zoomed IN/ON’ to the content (called believing), and some other times there is a ‘zoom OUT’ and then not just the content is seen but the ‘thoughtness’ of it, the thought phenomenon itself too (called not believing)?

Investigate this (by looking) very thoroughly to see if it matches the experience.

Vivien

[Ronaldo]

Hi Vivien,

Does the self need to be seen as an illusion 24/7 in order to have an experiential conviction about it being an illusion?
Is it ok to dive into a story or that should not be happening?

Not at all, there just needs to be sufficient conviction (and there has been). Diving into a story WILL happen again and again, how fantastic is that!. I used to worry about that process from BS I read and thought I'd become a vegetable.

Is there a permanent state? A final feeling? The last insight?
Or this is ever fresh and spontaneous?

Not for me, fresh, spontaneous, at times challenging - there is a sense of excitement and welcoming to that freshness. Thank you for expressing that.

The question rather is:
Is there someone or something believing and then not believing?

When I look, there is no believing, when I don't look, there is often believing. In other words, the belief vanishes as I look. This means there is no one believing.

Is there really such thing in ‘reality’ that the story is believed?
Is there actual believing going on?
Or rather the sometimes there is a ‘zoom IN’ to the content of thoughts, such full focus that it’s not seen to be a thought, since it’s totally ‘zoomed IN/ON’ to the content (called believing), and some other times there is a ‘zoom OUT’ and then not just the content is seen but the ‘thoughtness’ of it, the thought phenomenon itself too (called not believing)?

I really love your description, that illustration agrees with my experience perfectly. It used to be 100% believing, such as bouts of depression or frustration that were so deep that the light did not shine in for days. Now that zoomed-IN contents is seen almost as it occurs. There is not always an immediate zooming out, but looking at the thought contents with the knowing that it is a thought (what you called thoughtness) and allowing it to wash over the nothing that believes it, eventually dissolves it. There is no substance there, there is nobody to fuel or feed the illusion and it dies. I am used to looking straight at the emotion or thought, but now there is also looking for who is the one who is thought to be suffering.

[Vivien]

Hi Ron,

I used to worry about that process from BS I read and thought I'd become a vegetable.

:) That's a common belief. But there has to be a separate self which could turn into a vegetable as the result of looking, otherwise there is nothing to become a vegetable :)

I am used to looking straight at the emotion or thought, but now there is also looking for who is the one who is thought to be suffering.

Let’s look at this. Please bring up the memory of something that triggers suffering. It’s important for the sensations to be there, but it doesn’t have to be too overwhelming, just enough to work with it.

So when the sensation is there, investigate:

Does the raw sensation itself suggest it any way that this sensation is suffering (or this or that emotion)?
Or only thought labels suggest so?

Does the sensation contain an inherent suffering (or anger, or sadness, or fear, etc)?

Now, try to find the sufferer.

When the fear/suffering/ anger/etc. appears, it is 'attached' to anything? Or does it free-floating without being attached to anything?
Is it located somewhere?
Does the suffering anchor anywhere in reality?

Vivien

[Ronaldo]

Hi Vivien,
- bringing up a memory that triggers suffering....

Does the raw sensation itself suggest it any way that this sensation is suffering (or this or that emotion)?
Or only thought labels suggest so?

Not at all, there is just a raw sensation felt and assumed to be located in this or that part of the body - that too is just thought. In reality there is just a sensation. The sensation is labeled uncomfortable or painful and as suffering. Fear is an even stronger sensation, and no different.

Does the sensation contain an inherent suffering (or anger, or sadness, or fear, etc)?

No, it's a simple raw sensation, without the thought there is no story of sadness anger etc..

Now, try to find the sufferer.
When the fear/suffering/ anger/etc. appears, it is 'attached' to anything? Or does it free-floating without being attached to anything?
Is it located somewhere?
Does the suffering anchor anywhere in reality?

Excellent question, usually there is focus on the emotion, it is recognized as an emotion composed of sensations and thoughts. Zooming out occurs and the emotion/thoughts are just revving in neutral for a while and eventually subside. Looking if they are attached to anything is a bit harder so I did that multiple timed. That constantly neighbor's barking dog next door volunteered to help with the experiment and triggered some suffering this fine Sat morning. I looked for the sufferer, I noticed a sensation that is associated with a body location - somewhere in the imaginary chest area. I focused on that and revealed nothing but another sensation that a thought associated with "me". So there is nothing here but free-floating sensations and thoughts that create a full illusion. It is an amazing work of art.

Vivien, this got me thinking about positive emotions and sensations. Most of them seem just as illusory as the bad ones, only nobody cares to expose them because, well, they are labeled with a "good" thought. With the dissolution of the 'me' illusions, will they naturally lose their power too? (the veggy idiom comes to mind again).

There is one exception, which is what we call love/beauty/peace - these CAN be mimicked as emotions (e.g. love that says "be mine", "save me" etc. or peace that says "leave me alone"). In the genuine love experience, there is no 'me', in the beauty there is no 'me'.

[Vivien]

Hi Ron,

I looked for the sufferer, I noticed a sensation that is associated with a body location - somewhere in the imaginary chest area. I focused on that and revealed nothing but another sensation that a thought associated with "me". So there is nothing here but free-floating sensations and thoughts that create a full illusion. It is an amazing work of art.

You did a nice looking.

Vivien, this got me thinking about positive emotions and sensations. Most of them seem just as illusory as the bad ones, only nobody cares to expose them because, well, they are labeled with a "good" thought. With the dissolution of the 'me' illusions, will they naturally lose their power too? (the veggy idiom comes to mind again).

No :) no veggy garden here :) why would they? Even the negative emotions won’t dissolve. Many people believe that awakening is about not having any emotions at all, or at least not the negative ones, only the positive, uplifting ones.

But this cannot be further from the truth. Emotions won’t stop, it’s not in the cards. The human experience won’t stop, and emotions are ingrained part of being human. So it’s not about stop being human with no emotions and becoming some lofty god-like who-knows-what or even a vegetable, but rather to see that emotions are temporary, free-floating, and doesn’t belonging to anything or anyone. That they don’t anchor to anything in reality. That’s all.

In the genuine love experience, there is no 'me', in the beauty there is no 'me'.

Exactly, that’s the whole point. Emotions are there, but there is no ‘me’ in them.

Please sit for a while and just observe as the story of me playing. After a while, investigate:

The story of "me’ can seem to have continuity. But is it really continuous? Or are there simply isolated thoughts that never can truly touch each other, some of them claiming that there's one continuous story?

Vivien