Hi Tim
Just a couple of questions or ‘thoughts’ on the subject please?
As part of this process we arrive at recognising that the self, me, personal identity are in fact labels or thoughts and the process points us to realise the truth of what we are. In seeing this truth, there is the experience of awareness - awareness aware of itself. However, isn’t awareness itself a label just like the me, i etc?
So in realising that what we are isn’t even awareness but rather blank - nothing and more blank just life experiencing?
If this is what life is or does, when emotions thoughts arise - this is simply experiencing - so it matters not whether we call ourselves an i me or awareness itself - what is left is simply experiencing - it doesn’t matter how the body mind sees itself , it still experiences suffering no matter what label it gives or label it remove from itself - no matter whether or not it calls itself ‘i’ or awareness or anything for that matter?
So Tim please help me to understand what is the point of this exploration - the point of seeing the character or not? We come back to experience and it’s there is no control over its quality? It comes no matter what, something experiences it no matter what...and it will be whatever it’s going to be????
Is there a missing link being overlooked? What truth besides a no me is the real truth of all this searching, teachers, sangas, utubes? This is where the ‘anti climax’ label is poignant? Perhaps just a beginner... hopefully this fruit will ripen 🤔
To be or not to be
Re: To be or not to be
Good and bad are also just labels.
So what would happen if you simply stopped labelling emotions and experiences as good or bad?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So what would happen if you simply stopped labelling emotions and experiences as good or bad?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seen in the moment of looking, freed in the moment of seeing.
Re: To be or not to be
Hi Katie,
I thought I’d post something an LU colleague shared on Facebook today, it seems a good answer to your question “what is the point?”
————
Blaming another or blaming self, requires the idea that the other plus the self are separate independent entities that are the doers, thinkers, sayers and feelers.
In the kitchen sink was a jar with its lid on full of water, soaking to dislodge what was in the jar ready for the next time washing up was to be done. When I picked up the jar from the lid, the jar fell back into the sink because the lid had not been screwed on, it was just sitting on top.
The immediate thought appeared saying…Luke (my son) should know better than that! And I watched as the story expanded and the finger was being squarely pointed at Luke for his ineptness in the kitchen and for never listening! And so the story was starting to expand into other seeming past grievances of where he hasn’t listened….and well…you all know how it works!
I had to laugh as I saw in that instant that here I am thinking that Luke is the doer, thinker, feeler and sayer, and that he should know better! Is he responsible for not putting the lid on? Is he responsible for not remembering stuff? Is he responsible for listening or not? Is he responsible for anything? Absolutely not! Putting aside the fact that there is no ‘other’ and staying with practicalities…no, he cannot be responsible for what he thinks, does, says and feels.
Can I then blame myself for the thoughts and stories that appeared around Luke and the jar? Could I have blamed myself if I had gotten angry and had words to Luke about his seeming thoughtlessness? Am I responsible for any of those things? No, as I, too am not an independent separate entity.
So where can blame land…absolutely nowhere! Seeing this is peace.
————
As I have said all along, this cannot be understood intellectually. Only having the experience of cessation of the belief in existence of the “self”, allows in the realisation of non-duality, i.e. that there is in fact no separate self or other. Then the above becomes obviously true.
THIS is the reason why seeing through the illusion of self is vital. It is the key to unlock all else.
If the above does not ring truth with you, I would suspect this means you have not yet had the direct experience there is no self and we need to go back and re-look at it.
I thought I’d post something an LU colleague shared on Facebook today, it seems a good answer to your question “what is the point?”
————
Blaming another or blaming self, requires the idea that the other plus the self are separate independent entities that are the doers, thinkers, sayers and feelers.
In the kitchen sink was a jar with its lid on full of water, soaking to dislodge what was in the jar ready for the next time washing up was to be done. When I picked up the jar from the lid, the jar fell back into the sink because the lid had not been screwed on, it was just sitting on top.
The immediate thought appeared saying…Luke (my son) should know better than that! And I watched as the story expanded and the finger was being squarely pointed at Luke for his ineptness in the kitchen and for never listening! And so the story was starting to expand into other seeming past grievances of where he hasn’t listened….and well…you all know how it works!
I had to laugh as I saw in that instant that here I am thinking that Luke is the doer, thinker, feeler and sayer, and that he should know better! Is he responsible for not putting the lid on? Is he responsible for not remembering stuff? Is he responsible for listening or not? Is he responsible for anything? Absolutely not! Putting aside the fact that there is no ‘other’ and staying with practicalities…no, he cannot be responsible for what he thinks, does, says and feels.
Can I then blame myself for the thoughts and stories that appeared around Luke and the jar? Could I have blamed myself if I had gotten angry and had words to Luke about his seeming thoughtlessness? Am I responsible for any of those things? No, as I, too am not an independent separate entity.
So where can blame land…absolutely nowhere! Seeing this is peace.
————
As I have said all along, this cannot be understood intellectually. Only having the experience of cessation of the belief in existence of the “self”, allows in the realisation of non-duality, i.e. that there is in fact no separate self or other. Then the above becomes obviously true.
THIS is the reason why seeing through the illusion of self is vital. It is the key to unlock all else.
If the above does not ring truth with you, I would suspect this means you have not yet had the direct experience there is no self and we need to go back and re-look at it.
Seen in the moment of looking, freed in the moment of seeing.
-
Katiebrown54
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:15 am
Re: To be or not to be
Hi Tim,
Thanks for sending me this. In this example, I understand completely how the father arrived st these conclusions because the ‘no existence of me’ seems easy to see.
In the personal situation that’s been presented to you over the past weeks, my daughter was distraught over the fact her husband had been having an affair for some time. As you can imagine, much pain has been expressed by many entities in this situation. As much as ‘i’ Have tried to reason in the same way as this Facebook story, it has been to no avail. Conversations with the ‘self’ have included ... ‘ her husband is not to blame, his wife is not to blame, their problem relationship is not to blame because after all .., there is no one there?
But still, it’s hard to feel convinced or clear how this story can practically be processed given the intensity of emotions spilling out everywhere.
The ‘no ones home’ approach just doesn’t seem to cut it?
Clear seeing was achieved with smaller examples we have worked through... there was however no wow factor which may explain why the nature of this current conversation. With what has been presented to you today, it’s hard truthfully to feel certain nothing in fact actually happened between them, and consequently the grief experienced by the rest of the family is not real either. The point is, with small examples it’s esst to see, but with the toughies how does one really make sense of this?
There is confusion how to process this?
Thanks for sending me this. In this example, I understand completely how the father arrived st these conclusions because the ‘no existence of me’ seems easy to see.
In the personal situation that’s been presented to you over the past weeks, my daughter was distraught over the fact her husband had been having an affair for some time. As you can imagine, much pain has been expressed by many entities in this situation. As much as ‘i’ Have tried to reason in the same way as this Facebook story, it has been to no avail. Conversations with the ‘self’ have included ... ‘ her husband is not to blame, his wife is not to blame, their problem relationship is not to blame because after all .., there is no one there?
But still, it’s hard to feel convinced or clear how this story can practically be processed given the intensity of emotions spilling out everywhere.
The ‘no ones home’ approach just doesn’t seem to cut it?
Clear seeing was achieved with smaller examples we have worked through... there was however no wow factor which may explain why the nature of this current conversation. With what has been presented to you today, it’s hard truthfully to feel certain nothing in fact actually happened between them, and consequently the grief experienced by the rest of the family is not real either. The point is, with small examples it’s esst to see, but with the toughies how does one really make sense of this?
There is confusion how to process this?
-
Katiebrown54
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:15 am
Re: To be or not to be
Ps
Let’s have a reload at it please tim. But would still like your perspective on previous situation?
Let’s have a reload at it please tim. But would still like your perspective on previous situation?
Re: To be or not to be
Looking at all this drama, what does this drama belong to?my daughter was distraught over the fact her husband had been having an affair for some time. As you can imagine, much pain has been expressed by many entities in this situation
Please, no answer from knowledge "how it is supposed to be".
Be honest about how it feels.
Does this drama belong to "me"?
If so, what "me" exactly does it belong to?
Please describe this "me".
How is it experienced?
Is it more than a word, more than a thought?
Can drama belong to a thought?
Does this drama belong to Katie?
If so, what is "Katie" in actual experience?
More than a thought created dream character?
Can drama TRULY belong to a thought character?
What does this drama truly belong to?
Some thing, or no thing?
Some one, or no one?
Seen in the moment of looking, freed in the moment of seeing.
-
Katiebrown54
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:15 am
Re: To be or not to be
Hi Tim
It’s been tempting to write back sooner but as you requested the answer required a feeling response rather than an intellectual one.
The only feeling arising is nothing...
blankness
The drama itself feels the same, belonging to no one, no me present or any me’s, the drama itself consisting of a series of thoughts
Is this an intellectual response? It is impossible to tell the difference to tell the truth ...it all feels like nothing happening when it is felt - no thing being experienced
Given the blank feelings/response - the drama also feels the same ...non existent from this angle, so too the characters and therefore Katie brown
Is intellectualising still occurring?
It’s been tempting to write back sooner but as you requested the answer required a feeling response rather than an intellectual one.
The only feeling arising is nothing...
blankness
The drama itself feels the same, belonging to no one, no me present or any me’s, the drama itself consisting of a series of thoughts
Is this an intellectual response? It is impossible to tell the difference to tell the truth ...it all feels like nothing happening when it is felt - no thing being experienced
Given the blank feelings/response - the drama also feels the same ...non existent from this angle, so too the characters and therefore Katie brown
Is intellectualising still occurring?
Re: To be or not to be
I do not think this is intellectualising.
Sometimes, when you ask a question and get nothing in response -- that IS the answer. Nothing!
I asked you, "to what does the drama truly belong?". For the first time perhaps, you looked directly at what was there, without any intellectualising. Nice! The answer you saw there was "nothing".
This is exactly what we are looking for. There is no doer of the drama, and no owner of the drama. So there is no one to be wounded.
Sometimes, all that is required is to accept the answer that has already been seen clearly.
Sometimes, when you ask a question and get nothing in response -- that IS the answer. Nothing!
I asked you, "to what does the drama truly belong?". For the first time perhaps, you looked directly at what was there, without any intellectualising. Nice! The answer you saw there was "nothing".
This is exactly what we are looking for. There is no doer of the drama, and no owner of the drama. So there is no one to be wounded.
Sometimes, all that is required is to accept the answer that has already been seen clearly.
Seen in the moment of looking, freed in the moment of seeing.
-
Katiebrown54
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:15 am
Re: To be or not to be
Thanks Tim
Re: Your comments -
‘Sometimes, all that is required is to accept the answer that has already been seen clearly.’
With regards to your last comment, this has also arisen in the inquiry as a concern - perhaps it is a question of belief? The question - Is there belief in what has been shown?
- - perhaps this is where the stumbling block may be??
Then the concern arises...is this just another belief, another thought also?
Re: Your comments -
‘Sometimes, all that is required is to accept the answer that has already been seen clearly.’
With regards to your last comment, this has also arisen in the inquiry as a concern - perhaps it is a question of belief? The question - Is there belief in what has been shown?
- - perhaps this is where the stumbling block may be??
Then the concern arises...is this just another belief, another thought also?
Re: To be or not to be
Well!! The thing is.
There are only two types of "data" available:
1 - There are facts of actual experience (which can directly be seen to be true).
2 - There are ideas/fantasy/untruths/etc (these are just thoughts only).
Now facts, require no belief - they are always true, IRRESPECTIVE of belief. This is NOT the domain of belief.
Fantasy/untruths are the only ones which REQUIRE a belief to persist. This IS the domain of belief.
No-self is a fact which can be directly seen in actual experience. You have seen this. When we go looking for it, no such entity can be found.
"Self" is an untruth which requires continued belief in order to survive.
So "I still have a self" this is a belief.
"I will never get it" this is a belief. How can you tell the future?
"I need to believe in no-self", this is a belief. Direct experience shows the fact so no belief in it is necessary.
"No-self will be like X,Y,Z type of experience", this is a belief. As you already know, thought can NEVER accurately represent the reality of a direct experience, therefore expectations of what an experience will be LIKE is always a BELIEF.
Now, all beliefs are merely THOUGHTS.
We have already seen directly, that all thoughts are empty. They simply do not exist.
So what more concern or belief is left to cling to, exactly?
Show me the thought, concern or belief, which has substance in actual reality which you still cling to?
Where is it located?
What shape or form does it have?
There are only two types of "data" available:
1 - There are facts of actual experience (which can directly be seen to be true).
2 - There are ideas/fantasy/untruths/etc (these are just thoughts only).
Now facts, require no belief - they are always true, IRRESPECTIVE of belief. This is NOT the domain of belief.
Fantasy/untruths are the only ones which REQUIRE a belief to persist. This IS the domain of belief.
No-self is a fact which can be directly seen in actual experience. You have seen this. When we go looking for it, no such entity can be found.
"Self" is an untruth which requires continued belief in order to survive.
So "I still have a self" this is a belief.
"I will never get it" this is a belief. How can you tell the future?
"I need to believe in no-self", this is a belief. Direct experience shows the fact so no belief in it is necessary.
"No-self will be like X,Y,Z type of experience", this is a belief. As you already know, thought can NEVER accurately represent the reality of a direct experience, therefore expectations of what an experience will be LIKE is always a BELIEF.
Now, all beliefs are merely THOUGHTS.
We have already seen directly, that all thoughts are empty. They simply do not exist.
So what more concern or belief is left to cling to, exactly?
Show me the thought, concern or belief, which has substance in actual reality which you still cling to?
Where is it located?
What shape or form does it have?
Seen in the moment of looking, freed in the moment of seeing.
-
Katiebrown54
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:15 am
Re: To be or not to be
Sorry Tim
Feeling very confused regarding your last set of questions. Can you please reframe ...?
Feeling very confused regarding your last set of questions. Can you please reframe ...?
To be or not to be
You asked, “is there belief in what has been shown?”. You suggested this may be the stumbling block.
My point is, we are NOT looking for a belief here! In fact the thing we do NOT want is for you to create yet another belief in what is being pointed to, because that would only block you further from the truth.
What is actually required, is the DROPPING of a belief - in the “self” being a real entity.
What is also required, is the DROPPING of a belief - that there is any “belief” or achievement for a supposed “self” to attain, or a path that it is on.
Can a non-existent thing attain anything?
Is the “self”/“me”/“I” just a thought, and nothing more?
Can a thought think?
Can a thought believe in something?
Can a thought do anything at all?
My point is, we are NOT looking for a belief here! In fact the thing we do NOT want is for you to create yet another belief in what is being pointed to, because that would only block you further from the truth.
What is actually required, is the DROPPING of a belief - in the “self” being a real entity.
What is also required, is the DROPPING of a belief - that there is any “belief” or achievement for a supposed “self” to attain, or a path that it is on.
Can a non-existent thing attain anything?
Is the “self”/“me”/“I” just a thought, and nothing more?
Can a thought think?
Can a thought believe in something?
Can a thought do anything at all?
Seen in the moment of looking, freed in the moment of seeing.
-
Katiebrown54
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:15 am
Re: To be or not to be
Thanks Tim for your clarification and of course your continued time and interest you have shared in this process.
Not sure if you are asking for an answer in the previous post...
with certainty the response to the question of thought is ... thought comes and goes, empty and transient in nature, it does not think, a thought is a belief and it does nothing more than seemingly appear and disappear. There is recognition that emotion derives from thought and the drama of the life ‘i’ have been describing over this period is all contained in thought, that thought creates the ‘i’ entity and which gives the appearance of separation from the whole.
Not sure if you are asking for an answer in the previous post...
with certainty the response to the question of thought is ... thought comes and goes, empty and transient in nature, it does not think, a thought is a belief and it does nothing more than seemingly appear and disappear. There is recognition that emotion derives from thought and the drama of the life ‘i’ have been describing over this period is all contained in thought, that thought creates the ‘i’ entity and which gives the appearance of separation from the whole.
-
Katiebrown54
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:15 am
Re: To be or not to be
Ps.
To conclude:
Therefore, my question “is there belief in what has been shown” is an irrelevant question since the belief is just a thought and if the fear of belief shows up in the process of seeing, it is recognised as just another thought anyway attempting to block the truth of what we are not.
Your support has been so valuable and appreciated during all this process.
Thank you.
To conclude:
Therefore, my question “is there belief in what has been shown” is an irrelevant question since the belief is just a thought and if the fear of belief shows up in the process of seeing, it is recognised as just another thought anyway attempting to block the truth of what we are not.
Your support has been so valuable and appreciated during all this process.
Thank you.
Re: To be or not to be
You are very welcome.
Now, a reminder is necessary here. I will never ask you pointless or rhetorical questions.
Every question is carefully chosen to provide an opportunity for you to LOOK back at the “self” and see what is not there.
Every question is important.
Within each question, there is an opportunity to end the entire illusion, in a single moment, if you only follow where the question is pointing and LOOK.
So, please always answer every question individually. Only a short sentence is required in answer to each (not analysis and discourse!). But to answer each question, you must LOOK at what it is pointing to, in the present moment, and not rely on existing knowledge. Otherwise the opportunity to SEE is missed for that round.
Is this crystal clear? We can only proceed forward by following this simple protocol.
I need you to promise this is understood please.
So now, please again bring up the thought of this “me” who seeks to attain something through this process, LOOK closely, and answer my questions, one by one:
Can a non-existent thing attain anything?
Is the “self”/“me”/“I” just a thought, or anything more than that?
Can a thought think?
Can a thought believe in something, or not believe?
Can a thought DO anything at all?
Yes! Exactly.Therefore, my question “is there belief in what has been shown” is an irrelevant question since the belief is just a thought
Now, a reminder is necessary here. I will never ask you pointless or rhetorical questions.
Every question is carefully chosen to provide an opportunity for you to LOOK back at the “self” and see what is not there.
Every question is important.
Within each question, there is an opportunity to end the entire illusion, in a single moment, if you only follow where the question is pointing and LOOK.
So, please always answer every question individually. Only a short sentence is required in answer to each (not analysis and discourse!). But to answer each question, you must LOOK at what it is pointing to, in the present moment, and not rely on existing knowledge. Otherwise the opportunity to SEE is missed for that round.
Is this crystal clear? We can only proceed forward by following this simple protocol.
I need you to promise this is understood please.
So now, please again bring up the thought of this “me” who seeks to attain something through this process, LOOK closely, and answer my questions, one by one:
Can a non-existent thing attain anything?
Is the “self”/“me”/“I” just a thought, or anything more than that?
Can a thought think?
Can a thought believe in something, or not believe?
Can a thought DO anything at all?
Seen in the moment of looking, freed in the moment of seeing.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Semrush [Bot] and 11 guests