Would love a guide!

[Armstrong]

Ok. I hope you recover soon.

[SimonStark]

OK.

Well, I'm sorry if this seems repetitive, but could you give these a fresh look and answer based on direct experience? Please avoid giving canned answers - please take a look now and answer based on what you see.

I'll ask other guides to look at your responses.


1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

No.

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.

It's the idea that there is a concrete self. Something that actually exists when you refer to yourself. It was taught and never examined. As I see it now, there just wasn't anything there all this time.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

It gives a lot of freedom. It gets me out of my head and into the world. Into what's actually there, instead of imagined things.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

The audio you gave me made me see, but not clearly. Later on, I had a moment where I got it clearly.

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

In direct experience, nothing makes those things happen. Example from direct experience: my fingers are moving to type this. There is nothing driving it.

6) Anything to add?

No. It's all pretty clear to me.

[SimonStark]

P.S. I would like for it to be examined in extreme detail. And be tested on it. There are things, realizations, that I haven't shared yet. I might, but give me the hard treatment. I need it to be solid.

[Armstrong]

Thanks. Please be patient. I hope you have good health now.

[SimonStark]

I have. Thanks.

[Armstrong]

"It was taught and never examined."

Who or what was it taught to?

"Something that actually exists when you refer to yourself."

Is there ever a 'you' that refers to 'yourself'?

[SimonStark]

"It was taught and never examined."

Who or what was it taught to?

"Something that actually exists when you refer to yourself."

Is there ever a 'you' that refers to 'yourself'?

Interesting questions.

"Who or what was it taught to?"

In reality, to no one. It couldn't have been. What was it taught to? The mind. Creating the illusion.

"Is there ever a 'you' that refers to 'yourself'?"

No.

[Armstrong]

Thanks for your replies. Here are some more:

In Q3: "It gets me out of my head and into the world. Into what's actually there, instead of imagined things."

What is it that's actually there (in the world)?

[SimonStark]

Thanks for your replies. Here are some more:

In Q3: "It gets me out of my head and into the world. Into what's actually there, instead of imagined things."

What is it that's actually there (in the world)?

In direct experience, there's an undefined whole. It is one whole that includes this body. It wasn't until I read the question that I understood how there is no separation.

It's not known what's actually there in reality, it is just perceived to be there. It's not until thoughts arise that you know what it consists of.

[Armstrong]

Ok. More questions:

You said 'It gets me out of my head and into the world. Into what's actually there'. What exactly do you mean? What are you referring to exactly?

[SimonStark]

Isn't that the same question as the previous one? Could you be more specific?

[Armstrong]

Maybe this helps - you just wrote, " It's not known what's actually there in reality, it is just perceived to be there. It's not until thoughts arise that you know what it consists of."

So is what it consists of? How do you know that? In terms of direct experience, of course.

[SimonStark]

In direct experience, you don't know what it consists of. It's just being perceived by the senses. There is no knowing about it.

When thoughts arise, you can say "That's a trashcan", "That's a car", "That's the color green". Which is useful, but in direct experience, you really don't know what you're perceiving. There isn't even time. The current moment is all that exists, any experience of time happens in the mind. In reality, things stand still.

Which is a point I've come very close to experiencing and it is extremely blissful. I don't know if it's possible to experience the current moment fully, but the closer you get to it, the more intense it gets. And the less you know what it is you're experiencing.

I don't think such experiences are useful to live in constantly, but they are insightful.

To get back to the original point, in direct experience, you know nothing. At all. Then you often need your personal filters in order to communicate.

[Armstrong]

More questions:

Do the senses perceive anything? Does anything happen in the mind? Is there a mind? Is there a now the gets fuller the closer you get? Who or what needs personal filters in order to communicate?

[SimonStark]

Do the sense perceive anything?

-- I would say no. The senses get input and that's it. Perceiving is an activity that does not happen in direct experience.

Does anything happen in the mind?

-- To get ahead of the questions, there is no mind, just the processes that are considered to be in the mind. Those processes do happen though.

Is there a mind?

-- No. there is no "bubble" in which the processes that are considered to be inside the mind happen. A thought happens. There is no mind in which it happens. The mind is made up, much like the self.

"Is there a now the gets fuller the closer you get?"

-- Not sure what you mean by this.

"Who or what need personal filters in order to communicate?"

-- No one and nothing. It's just something that becomes a necessity in this whole of existence.