Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

Why would this be so? Just because you believe this to be the case? Because that is what we have been told?

I assume this is so after trying to contemplate what a leaf is without anyone knowing about it. How would it be green if there's no one to distinguish green from red? How could it be any concept when there's no one to even recognise an experience, let alone label it as red or green?

But what if there is no I at all, what if this "I" is again just a thought?

The leaf is also just a thought. Yes, unlike the "I", it does point to something real, but without that convincing sense of a separate "I", who would know it is there? Who would appreciate it's being and beauty?

Contemplate that and look at direct experience. Can you ever find this recogniser, this thinker, this doer? If not why would it be so strange if there really is no separate any-one?

One could argue that the fact that billions of people on the planet (me still included) believe they exist as separate entities is probably much stranger. Yet I'd say it persists because it's an incredibly persuasive illusion: There's this body, with it's memories, emotions, interests etc. and with an awareness of these being continuous, consistent and appearing wherever I happen to be awake. This collection has an internal consistency and integrity that serves to distinguish it from the things that are not part of what define it. The fact that this entity is taken to be a very real and separate "I" is unfortunate and yet seems inescapable. Knowing to separate pain (physical or emotional) from suffering is not an easy when that pattern somehow thinks itself to be really separate. How that thought enables a sense of a "real" separate existence is beyond me and yet, here I am stating my existence...

[Alexw]

Yes, unlike the "I", it does point to something real, but without that convincing sense of a separate "I", who would know it is there? Who would appreciate it's being and beauty?

Do you require a separate I/self to see, recognise and appreciate a tree, a leaf, nature? Does knowing require a separate knower?
Yes, knowing anything is a thought, but this does not mean that there has to be a knower separate from the thought, does it?

How is this "sense of a separate I" experienced? Can you please look at this sense-of-I in some depth.

There's this body, with it's memories, emotions, interests etc

Does the body really have/own these memories, emotions and interests? Or are these again just conditioned thoughts?

and with an awareness of these being continuous..

does the body have awareness? Or are "awareness" and the sensations that seem to make up the body one and the same?
Sit down and put your hand on the desk. Feel the sensations that define "my hand". Is there any awareness that is aware of the sensation? Or is there simply the sensation - some pressure, some tingling... Can awareness and the pressure/tingling be separated?

This collection has an internal consistency and integrity that serves to distinguish it from the things that are not part of what define it

Yes, true. A nice collection of thought based learning/knowledge... what is left when this knowledge is gone? Is this collection (the self) still there?
What if we keep this knowledge but see it for what it is - not a separate entity, but simply a story of events, ideas, beliefs that has no owner... is it still personal?

How that thought enables a sense of a "real" separate existence is beyond me and yet, here I am stating my existence...

Does existence, being, require separation to be "real"? Why?

What states that "I am!" ?

[placebo8]

Yes, knowing anything is a thought, but this does not mean that there has to be a knower separate from the thought, does it?

I'm not sure I know how to answer this question. On one hand, how can a thought know anything? A thought is something that can be known, but then knowing it is yet another thought. The same goes for anything else that can be known. Seems that this "I" exists only when thoughts are there, but when my thoughts are not there, it appears that it doesn't even matter whether this body is alive or dead because anything that happens has nothing to do with "me" (as there is no me anymore). I understand that there are things happening and then the mind makes up a story that makes it seem as if I make them happen or that they are happening to me - but for this to work, there has to be an ability for something to believe this story. How can an illusion believe anything?

How is this "sense of a separate I" experienced? Can you please look at this sense-of-I in some depth.

The separateness is experienced as the ability (or frustration at the disability) to influence what is experienced by believing in the ability (or inability) to exercise "will power" to do so.

Does the body really have/own these memories, emotions and interests? Or are these again just conditioned thoughts?

It's the same cycle that I can't see a way out of - From researching the concepts we see the body contains the brain, which in turn enables these conditioned thoughts, which are "implemented" by complex neural processes, which themselves are enabled by chemical processes, which are governed by physical laws and entities which themselves are (and can only ever be) thoughts about reality (and not reality) and we are back to square one...

Can awareness and the pressure/tingling be separated?

Suppose it wasn't pressure/tingling but excruciating pain. Beyond the awareness of the pain there would be a thought of "this is bad, I don't want this, I want it solved now, I have to find a way to end it immediately, I can't stand this anymore etc." The experience/belief of a personal pain, of it happening to "me" against my will is what suffering is, and I see no way around it other than seeing there is no "me" - but this belief is a tough nut to crack.

What if we keep this knowledge but see it for what it is - not a separate entity, but simply a story of events, ideas, beliefs that has no owner... is it still personal?

I wouldn't know as I'm not there yet, but it's hard for me to comprehend an existence without me in it. I can only compare it to how existence was before I was born, or when I'm in deep sleep - both are meaningless from the perspective of a personal/dualistic existence

Does existence, being, require separation to be "real"? Why?

What states that "I am!" ?

Things have existed long before any "I" started believing it was real, so obviously reality doesn't care a bit about my personal illusion. However, this illusion has a very real "I am" part to it. I could say that this "I am" is what exists before the subject and object, before the thought that it is something else but that's just speculation on my part. I honestly have no idea what states the "I am!"

[Alexw]

On one hand, how can a thought know anything?

Yes, true, a thought doesn't know anything.

A thought is something that can be known, but then knowing it is yet another thought.

Yes, well seen!
Can you find a separate knower that would be existent separate from thought? Or is there simply one thought following another thought? And the knower is just an imaginary entity conjured up by thought?

it appears that it doesn't even matter whether this body is alive or dead because anything that happens has nothing to do with "me"

The "me" is just an idea so how could anything depend on it? The body being dead will definitely end the idea of there being a separate self, but the body doesn't have to end to end this belief, does it?

Also, for something to be alive and for this something to die would mean that it is somehow separate from the rest of creation - it means that there is a body that has been born and is now a separate entity which will somewhen die... But is this body really more than just a collection of atoms that will eventually be reshuffled into other forms? Is it really separate from life? If not, what would it be that dies? The idea of there being a "you" will die when the body and thus thought stops, but this idea can also die right now and the body will happily go on living.

for this to work, there has to be an ability for something to believe this story. How can an illusion believe anything?

An illusion can not believe anything - it is not an entity - the belief is itself the illusion, it is just a story.
Believing happens when a thought appears saying "Yes, this is true! I believe it!". But is there someone there that does the believing? Is there a believer? Or is there simply the belief arising as a thought belonging to no one?

The separateness is experienced as the ability (or frustration at the disability) to influence what is experienced by believing in the ability (or inability) to exercise "will power" to do so.

Can you please find a simple, real life example for this?

Suppose it wasn't pressure/tingling but excruciating pain. Beyond the awareness of the pain there would be a thought of "this is bad, I don't want this, I want it solved now, I have to find a way to end it immediately, I can't stand this anymore etc." The experience/belief of a personal pain, of it happening to "me" against my will is what suffering is, and I see no way around it other than seeing there is no "me" - but this belief is a tough nut to crack.

Sure, there will be thoughts accompanying the sensation, but what I wanted you to look at is if you can separate the awareness of the sensation and the sensation itself... can the pressure/tingling and the experiencing of it be separated?
If there is no thought arising about a me owning the sensation, is it still yours?

[placebo8]

I tried to explain to my wife what I'm asking you. Her response was that she thinks my questions are petty and she doesn't understand how you have the patience to answer them :-) She does has a point - your patience is admirable...

The separateness is experienced as the ability (or frustration at the disability) to influence what is experienced by believing in the ability (or inability) to exercise "will power" to do so.

Can you please find a simple, real life example for this?

Oh, I can find plenty. For one, anything involving an internal struggle between what you desire and what you know you should be doing that goes contrary to that desire. That point of conflict is the epitome of separateness. To take a specific simple example - trying to see how far you can swim underwater. You want to beat your personal record and you're very close to it. At some point there's this struggle - on one hand you're just dying to come up for air yet you know that if you just summon up all your will power the record will be broken.
From an "objective" standpoint there is no struggle - what will happen is what will happen - there is no one there exercising any will, just a story unfolding. From a "subjective" view, this is an epic and real struggle between "me" (my imagined will) and what is "outside of me" (forces acting against this so-called will).

Just wanted to address that question. Will continue to contemplate the others you asked.

[Alexw]

I tried to explain to my wife what I'm asking you. Her response was that she thinks my questions are petty and she doesn't understand how you have the patience to answer them :-)

Haha... thats funny... I think my wife would say exactly the same :-)
Its not really patience, its more like playing a game of chess with myself. Some games take longer and some are shorter, but all are interesting.

To take a specific simple example - trying to see how far you can swim underwater. You want to beat your personal record and you're very close to it. At some point there's this struggle - on one hand you're just dying to come up for air yet you know that if you just summon up all your will power the record will be broken.

Yes, thats a good example... maybe you should test your theory... do you have a pool? If yes, give it a go and observe how the decision is made that you come up for air. Does it require a separate decision maker to decide or are there just thoughts racing... "I can do it a few more seconds... No.. I should stop... No... I can do it.." Eventually you will surface again - have "you" decided to stop diving?
Sure, there seems to be this struggle... but is the struggle more than a rush of thoughts stating opposite interests?
Do these interests belong to a "you"?

You can maybe replicate this struggle in a more tame version - without the risk of drowning...
Sit down and simply open and close your hand - fist - open - fist - open... Do this for a minute or so. Now decide when you should stop... Think "Stop!"... Does the hand stop moving? Try to experiment a bit with the idea that "you" control this body... Really do it and don't just think about it. See what you find.

[placebo8]

You can maybe replicate this struggle in a more tame version - without the risk of drowning...

no risk of drowning - from past experience, the exponentially growing discomfort and eventual panic that accompanies it will make sure I'll come up for air long before I pass out, but let's consider the tamer exercise you suggested:

Sit down and simply open and close your hand - fist - open - fist - open... Do this for a minute or so. Now decide when you should stop... Think "Stop!"... Does the hand stop moving?

I tried it and yes, of course the hand stopped moving when I thought "Stop!". I didn't conclude from this that "I made it stop" though. I felt more like a participator than a controller. I could perhaps say that you made it stop because I was following your directions, but by the same token you were not controlling your directions either. This insight might be accessible for a tame inquiry. I can't imagine though how one can remain detached and unidentified with the story when things aren't so tame. I keep wondering whether it is something one needs to work up to or is it more like an analogy where once you can learn to stay afloat in the shallow waters then it's equally simple to stay afloat in the deep?

From the earlier reply, you wrote:

But is this body really more than just a collection of atoms that will eventually be reshuffled into other forms? Is it really separate from life?

True, from the "objective" view of chemistry/physics the body can be seen as an intractably complex pattern of interactions between atoms - a pattern which disperses when the body dies and then these atoms can paricipate in new patterns. While romantic and almost mystical, this understanding does very little to shake the fundamental feeling of a personal "I", more so if one buys into this story, at which point the atoms are always "out there" while the one "in here" feels alone and separate from them.

But is there someone there that does the believing? Is there a believer? Or is there simply the belief arising as a thought belonging to no one?

I believe there is no believer, though I don't know it yet. More contemplation required...

[Alexw]

It seems you are stuck somewhere between believing/not believing that there is a separate self existing and in control...As you are not sure about it you put it into the I-dont-know category. Depending on the situation you take on one or the other point of view. If the situation is intense you believe that there is a separate self, an individual person, that is suffering or happy or... and if there is a peaceful situation at hand then you see that there really is no one there besides thought about such an entity.
Now the question is, what kind of proof is required to shift this point of view into one or the other direction... and if such a proof would be found, what could be gained from it?
The situation - no matter if peaceful or intense - won't change, right? The physical reactions and the physical perception won't change, right? What do you think will change?

Your attachment or rejection of certain sensations..? Yes, true. But this does not mean that when you are drowning, you won't care. You will still fight for your life just because it is your nature. You will still scream in pain when you burn your hand in the fire. You won't turn into Superman.
All that is changing are the stories that go hand in hand with each moment. Your identification changes - or rather the identification with the separate self disintegrates and life takes its place - all is life - all is That. Thus also everything that happens is That happening to That. Even your stories about an individual person looking for That - for no separation - is That looking for itself... What proof do you think you can find if every proof is That proving itself?

There are all these hints, everywhere... Look, hear, smell, taste, touch... Where is the separation? Where are "you"? What are "you" without your story? Does it require scientists to prove that there really is just one (no)thing? No! You experience it all the time. All you have to do is to take a step back from the logical thoughts and ideas you have acquired and look. Look. When you sit down and simply look and feel - without all the stories about identity - are "you" to be found? Don't wait for a special experience of "one-ness" - every experience is not anything else but "one-ness". How could you become one with something that has never been separated into pieces - the only pieces are your concepts about the world, but when you look at direct experience, do any of your concepts stand up to truth?

Try to approach this process without the idea of gaining anything that you don't have yet. You won't be given anything thats not already fully available.

[placebo8]

I think you described a quite an accurate assessment of my situation.

It seems you are stuck somewhere between believing/not believing that there is a separate self existing and in control...As you are not sure about it you put it into the I-dont-know category.

To put it even more accurately, the only things I know with certainty are experiences that are noticed. Everything else is in the I-don't-know category. However this category has various shades of probability that I associate with the beliefs it contains. I don't know that the moon landings indeed took place. I don't know whether the sun will shine tomorrow and likewise, I don't know that this "I" is just a story, but I believe with a very high probability that these beliefs are all true based on a combination of observation and common sense.

The situation - no matter if peaceful or intense - won't change, right? The physical reactions and the physical perception won't change, right? What do you think will change?

Your attachment or rejection of certain sensations..? Yes, true. But this does not mean that when you are drowning, you won't care. You will still fight for your life just because it is your nature. You will still scream in pain when you burn your hand in the fire. You won't turn into Superman.

This is what seems to be completely beyond my grasp. How can I scream in pain yet be unattached to the situation? In what sense is there no sufferer when all external indications seem to point to one? When I read about Thích Quảng Đức who burned himself to death as a means to achieve a change to the persecution of Buddhists in Vietnam and consider his total disregard and peace with what would be unbearable torment for me, I can accept that as a good indication that one has surpassed suffering, but when there is absolutely no way to distinguish someone who is attached to the "I" thought from someone who isn't, then what is the difference between them?

Try to approach this process without the idea of gaining anything that you don't have yet. You won't be given anything thats not already fully available.

I won't be given it, but it will be realised, and even though when the "I" drops it would perhaps seem like nothing has been gained (as there was no one to gain it), from where I stand, this realizatdion and the end of suffering that comes with it definitely look like something great has been gained.

[Alexw]

this realizatdion and the end of suffering that comes with it definitely look like something great has been gained.

Where there is an end of suffering, there will also be an end of happiness (in the way we normally define it).
It simply is the end of dualistic ideas taken for truth. Suffering happens, but no sufferer is there to suffer, happiness happens, but there is no one being happy. So these concepts don't really stick that much anymore.
Now there is the Advaita idea of sit-chat-ananda, especially ananda which often is translated as "eternal bliss" and is therefore the goal of many seekers. But the bliss that is referred to here is better translated as "equanimity", as dualistic concepts of suffering or happiness/bliss don't really work without a separate entity being in this state. Its more like "Whatever happens happens. No problem either way."

How can I scream in pain yet be unattached to the situation?

Is there a "you" that could control if the body utters a scream or not? Yes, there might be some ways of training the body/mind complex to not react to pain (or to react in a different way) - everything can be learned - even being a separate self can be learned :-)

Now, when you are in pain, no matter if "you are awake" or not, there will be physical discomfort and thoughts arising condemning the situation. But while the first one believes that there really is someone there that suffers, the other one knows that these are just temporary experiences and that it is just what happens right now. Can you change it by suffering in a personal way? No. Does it make easier to suffer? No. Is there any sense in following this idea/illusion of a sufferer? No. So why would you keep at it? If a story is not helpful discard it.

[placebo8]

I feel the need to apologise for my pace - looking back at our correspondence, I wonder if I could apply for "Liberation Unleashed most stubborn self" award...

Where there is an end of suffering, there will also be an end of happiness (in the way we normally define it).

I'm well aware of this, and prepared to give up the "bad" with the "good" if that indeed is the ultimate truth of things. It's just that with my current tools, I can't wrap my mind around how this could work (and considering the fact that the mind is exactly what's keeping me from understanding how it works, I guess that shouldn't be too surprising...).

At first glance, the description you provided of realisation, seemed identical to the definition of a philosophical zombie, defined by wikipedia as "a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. For example, a philosophical zombie could be poked with a sharp object, and not feel any pain sensation, but yet, behave exactly as if it does feel pain" , which ironically is used to try and counter philosophers who do not believe in the existence of consciousness as a real phenomena.

I now see that the subtle but important difference is that you say all the sensations, feelings and emotions are there, it's just that they don't belong to anyone. Ok, this makes sense. Can't quite understand yet how at the same time there can be "a someone that cares" about something while at the same time "a no-one that doesn't care either way". Hopefully this will crystallise too eventually.

Yes, there might be some ways of training the body/mind complex to not react to pain (or to react in a different way) - everything can be learned - even being a separate self can be learned :-)

Ok, touché :-) Just hope I can unlearn it before the time is up...

I guess one thing I should really let go of is the test of whether I'm finally there, which as you correctly hinted at could be summarised by the question: "Am I superman yet?" - a sure way of setting oneself up for disappointment and perpetuating a "self" .

[Alexw]

No need to apologise. The issue is that you would like to fit everything into a rather tight logical framework which should make sense in the way a mathematical equation makes sense. Many things also do, but when we hit the frontier, where the absolute and the relative "meet", thought will always remain on the relative side, while (the real) You are at home on the other side.
We look for answers in the relative side as this is the only place questions exist (this does not mean that there are any separate sides at all). We define things and objects, including the self, by drawing artificial lines into the sand. When the tide comes in there are no lines left...

What makes things and objects out of "no-thing"? Thought. So one would like to drop these thoughts...
But thought can't drop itself just like sound can't make itself not make a sound. This would be a hint that the dropping of thought is also not what is required in this quest. It would rather imply the opposite... Now the question is if there is a quest at all? Is there a path to walk to get anywhere? If all paths and quests are on the relative side of You, will you ever reach the other side? Are there two sides at all?
You seem to walk a path from self to no-self, but if the self is just a belief - a thought story - then how far do you have to go to drop this wrong self? And how would you know once it is gone? What are the signs and proofs of having no separate self anymore? If the signs and proofs are again just a thought-story, does it matter? You want a new self and "give up the "bad" with the "good"" - maybe first look if there is anything to give up at all... If there is no "good" or "bad" outside of your story of it, how would you give it up?

[placebo8]

If there is no "good" or "bad" outside of your story of it, how would you give it up?

By giving up the story. Then again the belief that there's a story that should be given up is itself another story. This is what I call being totally locked up in the mind. How did you manage to escape this mess?

By the way, I mentioned inner struggles as experiences where the "I" feeling is strong, the thought that my will could somehow oppose things "outside" of it. This "resisting what is" or the thought that there can actually be something that can be resisted seems to be the main fabric of the "I". Recently another thought surfaced about scenarios where there's a strong sense of "I": Over the years there are situations where I repeatedly make the same mistakes that put me at a disadvantage and then feel angry that I'm somehow programmed to fall into the same trap because of my conditioning/personality etc. Many times I can even see this as it happens but that doesn't change the outcome. In these situations there's also a strong sense of "me", and a very frustrated one at that, as it believes the situation could be different if only I'd stop believing that it couldn't...

[Alexw]

By giving up the story. Then again the belief that there's a story that should be given up is itself another story. This is what I call being totally locked up in the mind. How did you manage to escape this mess?

Yes, sure it is. Everything that can be thought of is based on conceptual knowledge - we might also call it a "story".
Who needs to escape it? There are only two options, trying to remain without thought - this is only possible when in deep sleep or when being dead - so not such a great option or accepting that thought is present and that all thought is story. The story of me, you, the world, the universe.
You can fight the story and try to change it to a better story, which is also fine, but if you don't know that its all just an act, when you believe that there is a separate you that is controlling the story, then the whole situation becomes critical as you believe that whatever happens in the story is under your control and that it is your responsibility to change it... frustration, fears, anxiety will be the result of not being able to succeed.
Once it is seen clearly that there is the story and that there is no you separate from the story that could control its destiny then you hit a wall - no hope left... Doesn't sound like a desirable state (from the point of view of the separate self), but no hope also means perfect freedom once it is accepted that it is just like that. You stop fighting a fight that can't be won and rather enjoy the story - or you hate the story - both sides are perfectly fine. Its just what shows up... It is also important not to misunderstand acceptance with trying to be artificially "happy" with whatever shows up. Also anger and dislike are fine - there will always be the full spectrum from love to hate...

[placebo8]

Sorry for the delayed reply. The past 4 days I caught a bad cold and had an opportunity to practice acceptance of high fever and delirium - you know, the type where your mind endlessly tries to solve unsolvable problems where you don't even understand what the problem was after the fever returns to normal. Guess it's a good analogy to what I'm trying to do also when I don't have a fever :-)

You wrote:

It is also important not to misunderstand acceptance with trying to be artificially "happy" with whatever shows up. Also anger and dislike are fine - there will always be the full spectrum from love to hate...

I don't know - something doesn't add up. For one, this suggests a complete symmetry between the "worth" of opposite sides of feelings and conduct, and yet liberated individuals seem to follow only one side in their conduct - the side that strives to diminish suffering, and I'm not only referring in attempting to diminish suffering by helping others see it for what it is, but also to diminish it for those that are lost in the illusion, by performing deeds that those in duality perceive as "good". Another thing is How can anger be fine when any anger could be said to be due to ignorance - to not accepting reality as it is? It goes back to not understanding this simultaneous "no-one non-dual" equanimity while at the same time an experience of local emotional turmoil is raging.