Dance with me - A request for guidance

[John86]

OK that link put me right. Labeling things does have shortcomings. I feel like I have "rubber mind illusion". Separating experience and thought is tough. Can we 'experience' without thought?

The rubber hand illusion is illuminating but I still think that if my head is chopped off the lights will go out.

[John86]

<Can we 'experience' without thought?> In the linked article d.E. is divide into 3 aspects, which seemed reasonable at first, but now I am questioning this: What is sensation without some sort of mental image (thought)? Likewise with the sense of aliveness?

[John86]

Both links worked by the way, and to some extent addressed the "There is a LOT going on in the mind" thought. I think there is overlap between thought and sensation, and I'm not at all sure about this "unmistakable sense of aliveness"! - if there were no thought and sensation I doubt there would be a sense of 'being'. Anyway it does give a useful classification that will help communication and navigation through all this smoke.

With the Rock exercise, I look at the rock and find it is labelled and understood as rock as soon as I recognise it. I cannot glimpse it the moment before, when it an unrecognised visual pattern. I've taken the rock inside and find I've become quite attached to it - by this I mean that I imagined someone taking it away from me, and found to my surprise, some sort of possessive feeling toward it, I wasn't neutral.

[otterrivers]

What is sensation without some sort of mental image (thought)? Likewise with the sense of aliveness?

yeah i have to agree it seems that way, but is it anything other than thought that says this is true? this is what i mean by direct looking/experience.

About the rock, you obviously have an insight into the thought "my" which is another self-referencing thought pointing at....

pointing to what? anything?
Yes, you can find "rock" and the though/feeling "mine" which implies without verification that there is an inner "someone" for this to belong to. a single solitary being. can you find this being? you can find the feeling of being and the self referencing thoughts, right? these parts seem to give an illusion of a core self. but can you find an "I" that is not just another part?

[John86]

<yeah i have to agree it seems that way, but is it anything other than thought that says this is true? this is what i mean by direct looking/experience> OK I'll bear this in mind - look at the subject before any internal dialogue.

I realised I had some unfinished business with the rock, some plan/thoughts for my future self.

some plans - thats ok... Plans are ideas. Ideas just appear, self takes the credit - all illusion.

Now I'm trying to connect the possessive feeling with the illusion idea to get cause and effect, and realise that cause and effect are more illusion....

this feels like the right direction ...

[otterrivers]

I would like you to check out another link. only because it seems to sum up what we have looked through so far, and it seems a good way to figure out where to move next by how you respond.
it is from a fellow guide here as well. let me know how you feel about it and we will continue looking.

http://markedeternal.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... s.html?m=1

[otterrivers]

an important question to ask you here:
Have you seen through the illusion of self?
Any questions left?
Any doubts remain?

[otterrivers]

another way to ask that:
is there ANY illusion of I, me or self remaining?

[John86]

Before reading the link my reaction to the question <Have you seen through the illusion of self? > was:
I have an intellectual understanding of no self
There is still plenty of self around judging from the way I react, irritation, pride, frustration, embarrassment etc are some of the negative ones. I am more aware of the reactions, and now the thought has come that these reactions are fine - just let them flow. So now I'm not sure how much of an indicator of self they are.

After reading the link:

My post of 3rd April where I referred to illusion was 'felt' albeit briefly. It occurs to me that this witnessing of 'life happening' could not have been felt in the presence of 'self'. ?

So the material in the link is familiar, and the exercise is convincing.
There are no outstanding questions. As for doubts - not really, but when asked the question "any doubts?" there is a little uneasiness.

I cannot look inside and state confidently that self has gone. There has been no 'felt' revelation that self has gone.

<is there ANY illusion of I, me or self remaining?>

If I focus I can see there is no self, but in day-to-day living or with more casual looking things are much as they were.

Last night (before I read your new posts) I read LU's Awakening vs Liberation article, it contains descriptions of how long it takes to completely remove self and appears very much at odds with the idea that my self has gone in such a short time-frame.

[otterrivers]

(I don't know about this article. I will have to check it out. yet I would maintain that no matter what ANYONE says-including L.U.- you stick with your experience. not what you are told from someone else.)

that's fine to say you only have an intellectual understanding. but is there any self left? do you see what I mean? of course it may not be easy to see that until you actually see there never was a self, but I gotta ask, if there isn't a y self then what could disappear?

becoming more aware or making improvements may be a nice side effect of the intellectual understanding, but that's not our goal is it?
we aren't working to get rid of self. and after seeing it was never there, you may be surprised at what does NOT change. so in day to day life self referencing thoughts may continue as a habit (conditioning) learned over many many years and deeply ingrained. however, if you see an illusion as it is, can you really be fooled by it again for long?

here is an example:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sex ... tedIndex=1

Do you see anything strange about this picture?

[otterrivers]

just read that article. interesting. it seems to me it is just a difference in wording.

ALL we are offering is pointing to see through the illusion of self. All the rest is Thoughts about what, if anything, that *means*.
And it doesn't *mean* anything except that self is seen to be an illusion, and not an entity in reality.
I suggest you stay with Direct Experience and away from Thinking About stuff.

So someone has written something. Is it believed? Do you know for a fact that what is written is true. What is the direct experience? is it an idea that 'I' is gone, or has it never existed?

[otterrivers]

Just to help settle this seeming disparity(then we can get back to looking)
- from the l.u. disclaimer:

Concerning Liberation

"""We are fully aware of the fact that the term “Liberation” has different meanings in different traditions. In order to not set up false expectations, we'd like to make it clear that we use the word in a very specific way. In the context of Liberation Unleashed, liberation refers to the clear, unambiguous and direct realisation of the absence of a separate self. Because not everyone, perhaps no one comes to the Gate without at least some degree of latent tendencies, what we refer to as liberation may not be what you expect of it. Seeing self for what it really is - a story, does not mean that your life is suddenly upgraded in every conceivable way. Old habits, beliefs, programming and conditioning will very probably remain in place. Awakening from the story of you allows old patterns to drop away quickly. The foundation upon which these patterns were based is gone. In this sense, liberation is just the beginning."""

[John86]

Normally I don't get a coherent answer when I look for self, but today I found nothing and realised "No, can't find anything. Of course you can't find it, because it's not there, you daft bugger.", which was more or less the answer I was hoping to hear.

<if you see an illusion as it is, can you really be fooled by it again for long?> that remains to be seen

<I suggest you stay with Direct Experience and away from Thinking About stuff> Hey, I like thinking about stuff, but yep, I'll try to lay off it a bit in this context.

[otterrivers]

it's not that there's anything wrong with thinking you daft bugger (your words, hahaha)
but thinking things through into infinite detail is like running all around the pool. you gotta jump in and get wet.
you could read about water all day. it's molecular structure, it's surface tension, it's freezing point...
but you want to drink it right? you'll die of thirst sitting there reading about it. :)
I may not be able to respond today again. sorry for this quickly thrown together post. I know it is not an adequate response. (or is it?)
i'll reply again as soon as I can.

[otterrivers]

today I found nothing and realised "No, can't find anything. Of course you can't find it, because it's not there, you daft bugger.", which was more or less the answer I was hoping to hear.

in conditioned logic there is a recipient of a realization. a "One Who" has the realization.
realization happens. can you find what HAS the realization? (and what is hoping to hear anything?)
there are parts like mind and personality and ego which are all made of other parts... what owns it?
is there a point where information terminates and becomes 'sensed'?

The exercise about finding the point where a sound becomes heard (or is it one thing happening?)
it is the same with realization.
It's too easy to understand this intellectually and conditioned self referencing thoughts may say "I have seen there is no self" or "there is no self. I have seen that". these aren't something we need to get rid of but is it seen that those thoughts point to nothing?
thoughts are just there. can't deny that, but what about the content of the thoughts? sometimes those are there as with the "chair" "rock" exercises. and sometimes they are not there in experience like "santa" or "batman".
now how about "I"?