At the front door, waiting for you

[1llusion]

Do you see your contradiction here?

Yes. Let me rephrase: the "I" in the mind is a pointer/label to a something, which must be experiencing all this but cannot be experienced itself.

Your "I" hides in your mind. You are not your mind. Look without the mind.

Conceptually, I get that. However, I have difficulties "looking without the mind", which leads to a feeling of frustration. Do you mean "experiencing without thought"? If I manage to do that, there is nothing other than sensations such as seeing, hearing, feeling.

[kenbok]

the "I" in the mind is a pointer/label to a something, which must be experiencing all this but cannot be experienced itself.

B, I appreciate what you are saying, having spent time with this myself, and you may well be right. But for the purposes of this process, I am going to ask you to gently let this go for now. Remember that we are only concerned with direct experience, and not conceptualization.

Conceptually, I get that. However, I have difficulties "looking without the mind", which leads to a feeling of frustration. Do you mean "experiencing without thought"? If I manage to do that, there is nothing other than sensations such as seeing, hearing, feeling.

No, experiencing without thought is not the same. Looking has an intent behind it. All you need is a little willingness, that's all. Easy, relaxed but focused.

[1llusion]

As far as declarations of willingness go, there are thoughts screaming "I WANT TO DO IT!", but besides feeling around in the body, which seems to produce a sensation of excitement, not much happens.

Now, I would say that I am what switches the focus/awareness from this sensation to that sensation, from thinking back to feeling the foot, etc.. I feel like I am in control of it (at least most of the time, sometimes a sound comes and then the focus goes there automatically), and it does not need a thought to tell me this.

[kenbok]

ok friend. this can go on for a long time, but at the end of the day, you just have to jump out of the plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kenbok]

Or if you like, you can run through all of these.

Ownership

Do you own your body? Do you own right leg? Take a look with eyes open and eyes closed.

Do you own your mind? How do you know?

Do you own story about ........?

Or all ownership IS a story about owning.

When you close your eyes and sit for a bit, in your experience, is there an owner? What is here now that owns this moment?

In a conventional way, yes, you bought the computer and its yours, in practical way, everyday experience way you can say that. But what about direct experience? Which sense tells that there is an owner? Does thinking that there is an owner proves the owner to exist as an independent entity?



Real and image.

Hehe, there is no "this me". That's the whole point. There never was a me, it's mind created image. Take a look closer how mind creates images and how an image is different from what is happening, what IS.

Close your eyes and imagine you are in the kitchen. Just visualise and look around, notice where things are put.
This is an image, it can trigger feelings and contractions - expansions.

Open eyes and see how a image can be created and explored in the mind.

Go to the kitchen and look at same things that you saw in the image, how does imagining and experiencing same things differ?

See where I'm going? Me is an image. It is not what is ever happening. thIS is what is happening.

Write to me your observations from this exercise.



Eat imaginary cookie.

I can give you an imaginary cookie- here you go. {cookie}

Imagine that you take a cookie and eat it. Feel it happening, sensations, texture, taste.

If you have some cookies, eat one, if not, eat something else for the exercise, a fruit, and compare, what is the difference between an imagined cookie and the real one, that is experienced. See if you can dive in the sensations of taste, smell. Take your time to investigate, how actual cookie smells and tastes, feels in the fingers. Focus on sensations and perceiving, without naming it.

Then for a couple of minutes describe the taste and smell.

What does description have to do with actual experience?
Is sense of self referring to imaginary self or something that is experienced?
Is there a self/ I in experience?



Fruit

Have it in front of you. Close your eyes and imagine that you take the fruit in your hands, feel it. Texture, weight, shape, colour. Imagine that you are smelling it. Take a bite. Feel the sensation of taste.

Open your eyes and take a look, did anything happened to the fruit in front of you? Is there a sign of bite on it?
Do you need to look in order to know that the bite is not there?

Now take that fruit in the hands and experience the shape, colour, texture, notice details. smell it and bite it. Feel the taste, texture.

What is the difference between the same fruit imagined and experienced?

How does imaginary fruit taste?



take a chair.
Really look at a chair.
What exactly gives that object it's 'chairness'?
Imagine back when that chair was being made.
When exactly did the components become 'chair'
think and picture in your mind all the infinite different sorts of chairs. really make it vivid.

What makes them all 'chairs'?....

then think of the words 'i' and 'me' in the same way...imagine all different people saying 'i did this, i am that'- whilst watching tv with all the different characters etc.
Whilst with group of people in conversation...
What makes them all 'i'?
tell me what comes up.

[kenbok]

Put it this way: you have not looked in the only place which it can really hide, which is in your experience.

[1llusion]

OK, thank you for giving me something to work with.

1. Without thought, there is no ownership of anything.
2. The difference between imagining something and experiencing it is that experiencing is effortless (no focus needed), much more rich than imagination (I presume imagination can only construct something from past memory, so not everything can be imagined?) and "real" in the sense that it is simply there and cannot be denied by thought.
3. I cannot say what makes a chair a chair -- prior to thought it just "is". With thought, it is e.g. what can be done with it, or, in how far it adheres to the learned description/definition of a chair. If I would not have learned that "this thing" is a chair, it still would be -- even without me recognizing it as such.

I suppose you do not want to discuss this, but I will put it here anyways: I really wonder what it is I am supposed to look for (i.e., how can I recognize it) and how can I do it, if, actually, I cannot do anything?

In any case, I would appreciate some more "direct pointing" -- if possible.

[kenbok]

Okay B. Let's freestyle here. I am going to go as fast as I can, since you seem to be able to handle it well. Maybe speed can help here, who knows. lol.

Without thought, there is no ownership of anything.

Ownership only works with a owner. "I" hiding again?

The difference between imagining something and experiencing it is that experiencing is effortless (no focus needed), much more rich than imagination (I presume imagination can only construct something from past memory, so not everything can be imagined?) and "real" in the sense that it is simply there and cannot be denied by thought.

This difference is a thought. Don't go there.

I cannot say what makes a chair a chair -- prior to thought it just "is". With thought, it is e.g. what can be done with it, or, in how far it adheres to the learned description/definition of a chair. If I would not have learned that "this thing" is a chair, it still would be -- even without me recognizing it as such.

Yes, but in what would it exist as a chair???? In pure experience... No labelling. Yes?

I really wonder what it is I am supposed to look for (i.e., how can I recognize it) and how can I do it, if, actually, I cannot do anything?

You are cute. :)

I would appreciate some more "direct pointing" -- if possible.

So far, you seem to be saying that "I" is an idea. But methinks you behold the seer of all perceptions and thoughts too dearly. Can the seer be seen?

[1llusion]

Ownership only works with a owner. "I" hiding again?

To put it directly: There IS no ownership, just mental chatter about it.

Yes, but in what would it exist as a chair???? In pure experience... No labelling. Yes?

It would be possible to experience the chair and without labeling it would just be experiencing.

You are cute. :)

That made me smile. ;)

So far, you seem to be saying that "I" is an idea. But methinks you behold the seer of all perceptions and thoughts too dearly. Can the seer be seen?

How could he? That way, he would have to be simultanously inside and outside of the experience.

[kenbok]

yes... so why do you believe in one then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1llusion]

For this I have two "excuses":
a) They eye cannot see itself, but it is there.
b) Even if smt cannot always be experienced, it could still be there (i.e. people believe to commune with spirits)

[kenbok]

this eye is not the i we are concerned with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kenbok]

are you meditating much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1llusion]

What is "much"? Lets say 20 minutes per day; recently I started going to zazen which is an addition of 3x20-30 minutes once per week.

[kenbok]

might be helpful to get into your body or take a walk in nature. just saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk