Tat Tvam Asi

[Frankos]

Approach this with an 'I don't know, we'll see' frame of mind.

Daniel, Can I apologize for what I've said?

I want to do the pen and paper exercises, will you give me a second chance?

[DanielP]

Hi Frank,

I need first to clarify what just happenend. I had the feeling that our exchange was really open and honest. Do you feel the same? If we are going to work together, some kind of mutual respect if absolutely mandatory. If you agree we shall continue. Do you agree? If not, then I wish you the best.

This process has a lot of potency but can be quite challenging at times because a lot of very deep beliefs are questionned. And this can bring up fear, confusion etc.

Now, I would like to come back to my ‘grain of salt’ : this realization never happens in 'a future'. As long as you push it forward, it eludes you cause then your not looking at what's here now.

If you recall I said in another post that any asserion is not absolutely true since it is related to another one. For example, the idea of non-duality was born in contrast to the idea of duality. Without the idea of duality nobody would be talking about non-duality.

In our case, you quoted Nisargadatta which I happen to know very well.

Nisargadatta said :

"When I met my Guru, he told me, 'You are not what you take yourself to be. Find out what you are. Watch the sense I AM, find your real Self...' I did as he told me. All my spare time I would spend looking at myself in silence...and what a difference it made, and how soon! It took me only three years to realize my true nature." His message to us was simple and direct with no propounding of scriptures or doctrines. "You are the Self here and now! Stop imagining yourself to be something else. Let go your attachment to the unreal."

But somewhere else he also said :

If you leave it to time, millions of years will be needed…

So this is where my grain of salt came from :)

Please read the quote I use at the end of my posts, it is parly inspired by the first quote of Nisargadatta, the one you quoted.

Daniel, Can I apologize for what I've said?

Of course.

I want to do the pen and paper exercises

Good.

Regards

Daniel

[Frankos]

I had the feeling that our exchange was really open and honest. Do you feel the same?

Yes, I agree. Our exchange was open and honest.

some kind of mutual respect if absolutely mandatory. If you agree we shall continue. Do you agree?

Yes, I definitely agree. I am surprised that I acted the way that I did. I guess it's the frustration that the obvious isn't apparent here.
I want there to be mutual respect between us and I don't want to ever react like that again.

After saying what I did I realized that even though I am frustrated. I couldn't wish for anything better to be happening than to be discussing the most important thing to me (by far) with someone.

I do wish to continue this with you Daniel.

It's now late on Sunday evening here. At some stage tomorrow morning I'll write my response to the pen and paper exercise!

[DanielP]

Great Frank talk to you tomorrow.

[Frankos]

Labelling experiment

First write what you are experiencing right now using the words ‘I’ and ‘me’. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just plain description of what’s here now. It should read something like this: I am laying in bed, I am hearing the rain, I am typing these words etc.
Do it for 10 minutes. Watch the body, are there any sensations of tightness or relaxation?

Then for next 10 minutes write without the words ‘I’ and ‘me’. Instead, just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs.
Something like: Waiting for next thought, typing, breathing, blinking, hearing the rain etc.
Then again watch what is happening in the body.

Once done, compare the two ways of labeling experience,
is one truer than the other?
If so, which one?
What’s here now without the labels?
Do labels really affect the experience or they just describe it?
Whether you are describing the experience as ‘hearing the rain’, ‘I’m hearing the rain’ or ‘the rain is heard’, does it change the experience?

With the two ways of labeling it is obvious that the 'I' is not required.
One way of labeling is not truer than the other.
With the labels or without them the same thing is happening now, the labels are not required. We just use them because we believe we have to describe everything relative to this false 'I'.
The experience just happens, the 'I' is not required.

[Frankos]

My closest and dearest friend put me onto LU (his name here is Pip2).

We have been spiritual brothers for over thirty years. We have done many spiritual things together and even traveled to India together.

He currently lives in an Ashram in our city and we get together regularly.
In the last few weeks I have seen changes in him and I am know he has let go of the ‘I’.
He has become a member of the “Gatecrashers” group here and I am so excited for him.
This gives me so much encouragement now, wow!

It's like my right arm has become enlightened!!!

[DanielP]

Hi Frank,

Sorry for the delay, these last two days were very busy. I'll answer tomorrow.

Regards

Daniel

[Frankos]

Sorry for the delay

That's fine, get back to me when you can.

Thanks

[DanielP]

Hi Frank,

Here it is:

With the two ways of labeling it is obvious that the 'I' is not required.

Yes

One way of labeling is not truer than the other.

Yes

With the labels or without them the same thing is happening now, the labels are not required. We just use them because we believe we have to describe everything relative to this false 'I'.

Yes

The experience just happens, the 'I' is not required.

That’s true.

One of the questions in this inquiry which I think was very important is :
What’s here now without the labels?
We both know that experience can be described. That’s what words or labels are for, so you have to look at this question from a different angle. The question should read something like : can you REALLY describe it? In other words, are words pointing to something which is absolutely true or they are just labels.

For example, what is a sound? Is it not something kind of immaterial perceived in a sort of aware space?
What is a thought if not also something perceived in the same aware space?
Where do thoughts come from? Where do they go?
In some previous inquiry, you told me there was no ‘I’, only hearing, and only thinking.
Then tell me, fundamentally, is there a difference between hearing a sound and hearing a thought?
If there is, what is this difference besides another thought that says so?
If not, then thoughts don’t have any special status, they are being experienced in exactly the same way sounds are. They are not truer then sounds neither are they falser. Why believe thoughts then?

Regards

Daniel

[Frankos]

I see this now, "words are just labels".
There is no difference between hearing a sound and hearing a thought.
Thoughts are false identifications.
Thoughts have no special status, they just happen without a director. There is no false 'I'.
I see this now!

[DanielP]

Hi Frank,

I see this now, "words are just labels".
There is no difference between hearing a sound and hearing a thought.
Thoughts are false identifications.
Thoughts have no special status, they just happen without a director. There is no false 'I'. I see this now!

Great! Things seems to be clearing up. So let’s keep the momentum :)

Was a real ‘Frank’ ever guided? :)
Did a real ‘Frank’ ever write a message to me?
Was there any choice AT ALL that this guidance, you coming here, your replies, could any of this been any different? Other than, of course, an idea saying that it could have been?

Is it totally clear that there never was a Frank . . . other than in thought?
Also is it clear that the thoughts themselves are not created or witnessed by a Frank?
And that any thought with 'I' in it, doesn't point to anything absolutely real? It is 'just a thought’ / an idea?
Is it clear that life isn't being experienced by a body, an 'I', a Frank or anything else that you could refer to?

Do you have any particular area that you would like to look into or are unsure about?

Regards

Daniel

[Frankos]

could any of this been any different?

This couldn't have been any different. There is no control, it just appears!
There never was a Frank making decisions. It was all just a thought pattern.
This thought pattern that called itself Frank, in reality doesn't exist.
It is clear that the thought pattern (Frank) wasn't in control and isn't even real.

[DanielP]

Hi Frank,

This couldn't have been any different. There is no control, it just appears!
There never was a Frank making decisions. It was all just a thought pattern.
This thought pattern that called itself Frank, in reality doesn't exist.
It is clear that the thought pattern (Frank) wasn't in control and isn't even real.

Things are clearing up! Yes!

How do you feel now?
Do you feel that you saw what it is we are talking about when speaking of the illusion of a separate self?

Regards

Daniel

[Frankos]

Do you feel that you saw what it is we are talking about when speaking of the illusion of a separate self?

Yes, definitely. Without any doubt!

[DanielP]

Wow! That's good to hear Frank!

There are six further questions for you.
Here are the first three :

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 (if anything) from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

Regards

Daniel