Greetings!

[Iconoclast]

Good evening Vince,

It's a little more complex than that. The illusion is experienced. What is shows you, is not actually happening.
No matter what your mind says or how you perceive it, that lady still looks like she is being cut in half.
You don't call an ambulance because you believe that your senses are fooling you.
The story that has the greatest influence, the one that you believe is that she is ok.

I see, the illusion is EXPERIENCED, yet it is not real and we know that it is not real.

"I am in a deep hypnosis probably. I know this, I sense it, but can’t do much about it."
This is true for most people in this world. Do you know how hypnosis works?
i do. There was a period in my life where is was a practising hypnotherapist (for 5 years)
When you watch a movie, you actively suspend disbelief in order to immerse yourself in the story. The same thing happens when you agree to be hypnotised.
Now the hypnosis that you talk about uses this same process. There is no coercion. There is willing participation in it.
It's called wanting to be 'normal'. To do this we willingly accept others (or at least out perception of others) outward description of 'normal'.

I see we willingly participate into the Hypnosis (i.e. the so-called and so-believed 'Normal').

In this state we are suggestible. With our disbelief suspended, we accept what we are told without question or examination.
Something happened to you when you were 13 where you accepted as your truth things that caused that sadness and sorrow.
Do you recognize that the way this happened was that you began to tell yourself stuff that caused this? (now we are looking at the nature of the hypnosis - the 2nd step)

Yes, I started to see "myself" from the eyes of the society since then, which is the root cuase of suffering.

Can you find the narrative behind the suffering?
..and, going deeper, can you isolate the belief that is attached to that narrative that says it's true?

"I will be worhless if I don't behave as a 'normal' person" is the narrative behind the suffering.
"If all, or almost all people believe in this and behave according to the society's (egoic) norms, then it shoud be true" is the belief that makes us believe the narrative is true.

Even while you respond to the above, it is important that you actively invest in recognizing the happening of any trigger that results in an unpleasant emotion and celebrate that recognition with a laugh. This should happen at least several times each day. There is no need to be able to describe that trigger. Just the recognition that one has occurred. It's the recognition that will re-wire the brain.

Since yesterday, I have done that once or twice. I will continue doing it at least a couple more times during the day, and also in the upcoming days. Ten minutes ago I "felt" how important such re-wiring is!

Love

Ico

[Iconoclast]

"I will be worthless if I don't behave as a 'normal' person" is the narrative behind the suffering.
"If all, or almost all people believe in this and behave according to the society's (egoic) norms, then it shoud be true" is the belief that makes us believe the narrative is true.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Vince,

I have realized that there are at least 10 or 11 specific thoughts or beliefs that are deeply incongruent with no-self. I will ask them one by one, if that’s ok? I will be completely frank and tell all my feelings without any censor. No doubt that is the best way to have a real communication and develop.

1. Since childhood I believed in Soul. That I am a soul and responsible from what I do.
Now the “assertion” that I (personal Soul?) doesn’t exist is not easy to swallow.
It seems the people who are liberated do not “believe” in or perceive a Soul?

(as far as I know, unlike Hinduism where the existence of souls is accepted, in Buddhism which teaches anatta, there is no belief in soul or separate selfhood. I actually don't want to go into religious issues here, but it is inevitably related to our work here. I am a secular person myself but the predominant religion in Turkey, Islam also teaches a belief in "separate" and responsible personhood, the so-called Soul).
....

Smth related to this topic: In one of the dialogues of Ilona (with Eric I think), she says what remains after liberation is Presence (“the feeling of I am”).
What is the difference between Presence (“I am”) and the “Me”?
Is “presence” same with some sort of soul, or different?

It seems “Soul” has been one of my most fundamental (indestructible?) spiritual and moral pillars in life.
So deep down I think I intuitively reject no-self, although I want to experience it as some others did: Because the results they experience are good and satisfactory in many ways, practical, ethical, etc…

[Iconoclast]

...
I am well aware that we are not interested in beliefs here but direct experience,
however deeply held explicit or especially implicit beliefs might hinder direct experience
since the brain relies on past interpretations, convictions etc. while "perceiving".

So I believe I need to closely work on my "beliefs" and attitudes etc. to reach a clearer perception.

[Iconoclast]

It seems beliefs and perceptions are so closely intermingled that it's not easy to differentiate what is a belief and what is a direct perception, since perceptions are always (almost always?) filtered through beliefs (interpretative strategies).

Do you think "pure perception" where no thoughts or beliefs intervene, is possible?

[Iconoclast]

What is the difference between the "sense of me" felt by the liberated ones
and the
"sense of me" felt as (by) a separate person?

It seems they both consist of a "sense" of me; what is the qualitative difference between the two?

[Iconoclast]

I have realized that there are at least 10 or 11 specific thoughts or beliefs of mine that are deeply incongruent with no-self. I will ask them one by one, if that’s ok? I will be completely frank and tell all my feelings without any censor. No doubt that is the best way to have a real communication and develop.

[Iconoclast]

"The sense of something
is “I am”. It’s the sense of being, it’s unshakeable and yes, it is always
here now. When you close your eyes it can be felt clearly. It’s not going
to go away."
Ilona

The sense of (separate?) me I feel in daily life "also" feels like a sense of being which is unshakeable and always here.
A sense of me is a sense of me anyway. I can't "see" any difference between what she describes and what I experience?

[vinceschubert]

'evening Ico,

I can't "see" any difference between what she describes and what I experience?

Of course, it's unique for everybody, but in essence there is no difference, except that she recognized that the SENSE of self is an (sometimes useful) illusion, and carries it somewhat lighter.
Those who believe what their senses are telling them are deluded (hypnotised) and they will suffer as a side affect of their beliefs.

I will be completely frank and tell all my feelings without any censor. No doubt that is the best way to have a real communication and develop.

Of course. As I am with you. (my development is contingent on this too)

What is the difference between the "sense of me" felt by the liberated ones
and the "sense of me" felt as (by) a separate person?
It seems they both consist of a "sense" of me; what is the qualitative difference between the two?

Some of the answer is in my response above. When I said that Ilona carries the sense of self more lightly, I was alluding to the ramifications of recognizing it as an illusion perpetrated by the bodily senses.
Maybe it's best to come at this from the angle of the deluded ones. They believe that they have a self running the show. This means that they imagine that they have control, in order to make decisions and choices None of which are actual. They are all mind tricks that arrive after a happening.
They also believe that that (imaginary) self needs protecting. That reputation is actually something.
When any of these things are challenged, they get angry or even depressed is the mind convinces them that it is hopeless.
One of the things that seekers suffer from is the idea that because they are a seeker, that they are a good person.
Because the self holds memory as an integral part of their identity, they also see time as something actual and important, whereas will the slightest examination it is obvious that the past is entirely memory. Mind stuff. Just as the future is.
This is somewhat simplistic but it is the source of all suffering, for without this desire has no influence.

we are not interested in beliefs here but direct experience,

Not so. Yes it is important that we appreciate what direct experience actually is, but as you saw with the cup exercise, it is fleeting. That story arrives immediately.
It is much more important to appreciate that your entire world is created by the stories that you believe. That the quality off your experiencing is directly related to the quality of your thinking.

however deeply held explicit or especially implicit beliefs might hinder direct experience
since the brain relies on past interpretations, convictions etc. while "perceiving".

Absolutely. You nailed this one.
A story that I tell occasionally is about a time just a couple if months after the shift happened here.
My sister in law, a good friend had passes away and I was asked to deliver her eulogy.
Deeply saddened by her death I imagined that I wouldn’t be able to do this without breaking down in tears. I believed that I couldn’t do it.
On considering it for a while, I came to the conclusion that as vince was a created character, a story, that all I need to do was to add a chapter about being able to do it.
Well, the day came and I was treated to a surprise. It wasn’t like the chapter that I inserted, but what happened remains a chapter in the story of vince.
There was no stage fright. Yes, I broke down, but it was good. There was no self consciousness. Just an open hearted outpouring of wonderfull love.
Ha, eleven years later, I still remember that experience (and tears flow with the memory)

So I believe I need to closely work on my "beliefs" and attitudes etc. to reach a clearer perception.

Yes/no. You don't need to work on anything. Effort is misdirected. What you resist you make stronger.
You simply need to see them. Maladaptive beliefs evaporate with the light of examination.

It seems the people who are liberated do not “believe” in or perceive a Soul?

I resist the constraints of a definition. i don't know anything. i have stories that I believe.
My story about souls is that I have no experience with anything that I might call a soul, so it remains a mystery for me.
i rule nothing in or out. One day I might experience (or not) a soul.

What is the difference between Presence (“I am”) and the “Me”?

She said the "feeling" of I am.
So no difference between the feeling of I am and the feeling of me.
No difference between I am and me. They are both concepts.

It seems “Soul” has been one of my most fundamental (indestructible?) spiritual and moral pillars in life.

If you take any experience and look at it closely enough it will come down to sensations. Only one sensation at a time. and just like the direct experience of looking at that cup, it will elude clear description.
Soul and moral pillars are cult(urally) made up concepts. They are unnecessary as the nature of one without suffering is benevolent. (love)

"I will be worthless if I don't behave as a 'normal' person" is the narrative behind the suffering.

That's what society has you believe. If we internalize this, we are easily controlled and certainly suffer.


with love

vince

[Iconoclast]

Good evening Vince,

Of course, it's unique for everybody, but in essence there is no difference, except that she recognized that the SENSE of self is an (sometimes useful) illusion, and carries it somewhat lighter.
Those who believe what their senses are telling them are deluded (hypnotised) and they will suffer as a side affect of their beliefs.

I see, carrying it lighter makes the difference.

Some of the answer is in my response above. When I said that Ilona carries the sense of self more lightly, I was alluding to the ramifications of recognizing it as an illusion perpetrated by the bodily senses.

Is the sense of me perpetrated by the “bodily senses”? I thoght it was perpetrated rather a “thought” (I-thought)?

Maybe it's best to come at this from the angle of the deluded ones. They believe that they have a self running the show. This means that they imagine that they have control, in order to make decisions and choices None of which are actual. They are all mind tricks that arrive after a happening.

I see.

Because the self holds memory as an integral part of their identity, they also see time as something actual and important, whereas will the slightest examination it is obvious that the past is entirely memory. Mind stuff. Just as the future is.
This is somewhat simplistic but it is the source of all suffering, for without this desire has no influence.

Yes psychological time is a prison to most of us. I want to get out of it.

we are not interested in beliefs here but direct experience,
Not so. Yes it is important that we appreciate what direct experience actually is, but as you saw with the cup exercise, it is fleeting. That story arrives immediately.
It is much more important to appreciate that your entire world is created by the stories that you believe. That the quality off your experiencing is directly related to the quality of your thinking.

Exactly!

A story that I tell occasionally is about a time just a couple if months after the shift happened here.
My sister in law, a good friend had passes away and I was asked to deliver her eulogy.
Deeply saddened by her death I imagined that I wouldn’t be able to do this without breaking down in tears. I believed that I couldn’t do it.
On considering it for a while, I came to the conclusion that as vince was a created character, a story, that all I need to do was to add a chapter about being able to do it.
Well, the day came and I was treated to a surprise. It wasn’t like the chapter that I inserted, but what happened remains a chapter in the story of vince.
There was no stage fright. Yes, I broke down, but it was good. There was no self consciousness. Just an open hearted outpouring of wonderfull love.

Touching story. It’s all stories that create our reality yeah.

You don't need to work on anything. Effort is misdirected. What you resist you make stronger.

I see, “working on” and “seeing” the stories are two different things. Ok, I will “see” them. But let me ask to learn about the nuances of seeing:
What is “looking” and “seeing” that are constantly used on this forum? It seems they are so central to this work? I think I mostly "think" when I try to "see"??

I resist the constraints of a definition. i don't know anything. i have stories that I believe.
My story about souls is that I have no experience with anything that I might call a soul, so it remains a mystery for me. i rule nothing in or out. One day I might experience (or not) a soul.

I see. Soul seems to be a name for a “separate self”. Having a soul (in religious as well as in a mundane context) implies being separate from the World. Do you think you can experience a soul (separate self) one day?

She said the "feeling" of I am.
So no difference between the feeling of I am and the feeling of me.
No difference between I am and me. They are both concepts.

They are both concepts. But it seems carrying them lightly can be functional to survive etc.

“It seems “Soul” has been one of my most fundamental (indestructible?) spiritual and moral pillars in life.”
If you take any experience and look at it closely enough it will come down to sensations. Only one sensation at a time. and just like the direct experience of looking at that cup, it will elude clear description.

This seems to imply that what we we refer to by soul can be reduced to sensation(s).

Soul and moral pillars are cult(urally) made up concepts. They are unnecessary as the nature of one without suffering is benevolent. (love)

I see.

"I will be worthless if I don't behave as a 'normal' person" is the narrative behind the suffering.
That's what society has you believe. If we internalize this, we are easily controlled and certainly suffer.

"I will be worthless if I don't behave as a 'normal' person"
WAS the belief in early childhood when I internalized a "belief in the self" which was given by the society (which is the very basis of being ‘normal’). At the time I didn’t have the power or vision to question what the society told me.

But starting by age 18-20 I became defiant and questioned society’s values including the above sentence about being 'normal'.

Today I might be considered quite critical and radical in many ways including politics, spirituality, etc.
Today 'being normal' doesn’t mean anything to me, it’s just BS. Many times being normal (which is marketed) is nothing different from being a sheep.
I don't want to be normal, I want to be real.
I question everything that society wants me to believe, including a “belief” in a separate self. That's why I’m here.

Love

Ico

[Iconoclast]

Is the sense of me perpetrated by the “bodily senses”? I thought it was perpetrated rather by a “thought” (I-thought)?

[Iconoclast]

Is there a “you” in any shape or form in reality?

A question asked many times in the dialogues (of the book "Gateless Gatecrashers")

Yes there is a me in a specific form!
A lively BODY-MIND of whose (inner and outer) movements I can OBSERVE is named "me" in the culture.
So there IS a me if the me is DEFINED as bodily and psychic vitality which we OBSERVE.

Me is just a language tool, a name which does have a "substantial" reference, which is this vitality here.

[Iconoclast]

Does anyone "own" the experience(s)?

The body-mind "owns" itself as an autonomous (or semi-autonomous) Energy Being.
That Energy Being can be called "me".
....

So if me equals to body-mind complex, then me owns the experience(s).

[Iconoclast]

My guess is that what finally triggered it was an instruction about my
meditation sits. I was told to “just observe the thoughts, but there is no
need to obey the contents of the thoughts, they are just thoughts arising
and not commands to be obeyed.” Reading this, what you all have been
trying to say fell in place.
The “I” thoughts will still keep arising, but there is no need or compulsion to believe in it or buy into their story anymore. For me, no big shifts
or big bangs or anything, just this realisation. The “I” thought arises,
just like all other thoughts, but giving it energy by engaging in it is what
makes it important.
This is a big realisation,

Charles (Gateless Gatecrashers)

I got this! I need to acknowledge that I still strongly feel the I-thought as a separate (thought)-Entity. However I now see it as a Thought, despite how strongly it might arise, and how much it might feel so-real.

It might take possibly long time to be completely free from (believing) this particular (I) thought, but I'll persistently follow the new Pathway which follows as: "It is only a Thought, just observe it". This approach, I believe might considerably decrease the Momentum of "that" thought.

This feels as quite a new attitude in regards to approaching the "Me."

...

Daily meditation: I-thought Meditation, as it arises.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Ico,

I now see it as a Thought, despite how strongly it might arise, and how much it might feel so-real.

Excellent. Yes, thoughts are just thoughts. Even when they give rise to feelings, it isn't 'real'. (of course, the thought is, but what they are about isn't.)
The test is that if it's about something, it's a concept. ..and if an emotion (sensation) arises because of it, then it's a sensation, nothing more. To draw a logical conclusion about what it means is getting even further away from reality.

I'll persist

then me owns the experience(s).

then me owns the experience(s).

ently follow the new Pathway which follows as: "It is only a Thought, just observe it".

This is good, but to do it skillfully means not resisting anything. To say "it's only a thought", is to approach it from a negative perspective. With our exercise of celebrating the recognition that the thought arise (which engendered identification) with a laugh, is much more powerful as it actively promotes the establishment of new neuronal pathways as well as making the old pathway redundant.

then me owns the experience(s).

Ownership is a redundant concept. Think about it. How can anybody own anything except as mind stuff?

A lively BODY-MIND of whose (inner and outer) movements I can OBSERVE

Your body is a concept. Consider it. Can you experience (with any of your senses) more than one part of your body at the same time? No!
When you are looking at your finger, you can't experience your foot (or any other part) You can only imagine a whole body in your head. You can only deduce it. Derive it from a logical conclusion. You can't OBSERVE a lively BODY-MIND! you can only imagine it.
So here DE is important. It seems that you haven't yet seen the ramifications of the difference between concept and what is actual yet.

Is the sense of me perpetrated by the “bodily senses”? I thought it was perpetrated rather by a “thought” (I-thought)?

It's believing the I thought that gives rise to the sensations that are interpreted (mind stuff) to mean that the illusion is real.

Yes psychological time is a prison to most of us. I want to get out of it.

The prison door isn't locked.

It’s all stories that create our reality yeah.

It's our belief in those stories that do it.

But let me ask to learn about the nuances of seeing:
What is “looking” and “seeing” that are constantly used on this forum? It seems they are so central to this work? I think I mostly "think" when I try to "see"??

It is being aware of thoughts and sensations. Yes thinking, but being aware of the thoughts and what they are about. Not being lost in acting out their content. It's not unrelated to using your physical eyes either. If I ask you what color are your socks that you put on this morning, you can use memory or you can look now and report. Which one would you trust more?

Do you think you can experience a soul (separate self) one day?

I have no idea. ..and I'm happy to leave it as a question without an answer at this time.

They are both concepts. But it seems carrying them lightly can be functional to survive etc.

Yes. The lighter we carry them the wider the perspective. This opens up our experiencing to wider possibilities.

This seems to imply that what we we refer to by soul can be reduced to sensation(s).

There are a lot of words that I call corrupted. That is that their meaning is unique to whoever is using them. i find that it's best to avoid using them. (reality is one of them - and I seem to be using it more than I'm comfortable with)

I don't want to be normal, I want to be real.

You're at the right place for this. ..and you are doing well at it.
Can you imagine how it will be when you are surrounded by people still deluded by social conditioning, being the only one awake, yet not feeling superior and filled with compassion and love for them and having no inclination to fix them?

with love

vince