Hello

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Hello

Postby Xain » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:12 am

WHACK!

Here are the first three of the six questions:

1) Is there a real separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I'? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience and understanding. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference (if anything) between now and before you started the guidance?

Xain ♥

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:51 pm

1) Is there a real separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I'? Was there ever?
Never has been.
2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience and understanding. Describe it fully as you see it now.
I'll answer this one later when I have more time.
3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference (if anything) between now and before you started the guidance?
It feels a bit of a relief only because it took some time to get here, but in general it doesn't really feel any different. It's always been this way after all. There's no sense of liberation or enlightenment. Just a sense of semantic clarity. I was calling this condition self hood but that was a misnomer from the perspective e of experience. Self hood only makes sense from the perspective of the story/ narrative we use to talk about stuff, not the perspective of experience.

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Hello

Postby Xain » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:10 pm

Ok, I await your answer to question 2.

In the meantime, here are the final three questions:

4) Was there something specific you looked into or something that was mentioned that made you fully realise? - Was there a specific moment where you 'tipped over' into realising 'no real self'?


5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control as you understand it now. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Please give examples from experience if you can, and explain what you have realised.

6) Do you have anything further you would like to add?


Xain ♥

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:09 am

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience and understanding. Describe it fully as you see it now.
Maybe I'm not ready to answer this question ... But, I'm tempted to say that there isn't an illusion of a separate self, and never was, but instead only a lack of introspection or attention to the language I was using to notice that the language doesn't match the experience. I just didn't notice that the language didn't match what was happening. I have never felt like a separate self in the way that thoughts suggest I am. The difficulty then comes when there is no suitable replacement language to speak of what is actually happening. Is this an unsatisfying answer to that question?
4) Was there something specific you looked into or something that was mentioned that made you fully realise? - Was there a specific moment where you 'tipped over' into realising 'no real self'?
I'm not sure. I can't remember. Another unsatisfying answer!
5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control as you understand it now. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Please give examples from experience if you can, and explain what you have realised.
What makes things happen? I don't know. Seemingly nothing makes 'free choices' happen. How does it work? Total mystery. What am I responsible for? You might be able to spin a story to give a sort of answer here (see the Compatibilst notion of Free Will) but in experience responsibility doesn't make any sense. Responsibility is only a part of the story version of events. Responsibility can only be a feeling, but it isn't a feeling in its own right, but rather a fluid set of different conditions that if met might produce certain habits of considering actions that I make.

Inclinations to act just appear, and as a matter of experience, there's no self being inclined, just like there's no seer of images.
6) Do you have anything further you would like to add?
I'm a little worried that I've only grasped this linguistically and not 'properly'. Do I just know what words to say? Or do I have a proper understanding beyond just knowing what I SHOULD say?

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:16 am

Just to clarify my last point: I feel like a lot of what I'm saying is based on things I noticed a few days ago, or that I notice intermittently when the whole thing strikes me a certain way, but at other times I lose track of the thing. You mention the Santa Claus analogy where you can't unsee the truth, but I don't quite feel like my realisation is that stable. Sometimes I consider this and I still don't get it, and other times it seems clear if only for a few moments before it slips again.

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:17 am

Thoughts like: "Am I just being tricked by my own use of language?" crop up. I keep getting worried that I've tricked myself with sophistry.

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Hello

Postby Xain » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:03 am

But, I'm tempted to say that there isn't an illusion of a separate self, and never was, but instead only a lack of introspection or attention to the language I was using to notice that the language doesn't match the experience.
Is there a real self 'using language' and 'not noticing'?
The difficulty then comes when there is no suitable replacement language to speak of what is actually happening
Is language 'wrong' then? How should it change and why?
Seemingly nothing makes 'free choices' happen.
Did you find 'nothing' when doing the experiment? Is that exactly what you found?
I'm a little worried that I've only grasped this linguistically and not 'properly'
Ok. How are you expecting it to appear if you 'get it'? Clouds opening? Choirs of angels descending? (Joking)
What is the 'I' that hasn't yet grasped something?
Thoughts like: "Am I just being tricked by my own use of language?" crop up. I keep getting worried that I've tricked myself with sophistry.
Yes, that's the content of a thought.
What is the 'I' that is witnessing the thought?
What is the 'I' being tricked by language?

Xain ♥

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:18 am

Is there a real self 'using language' and 'not noticing?
No. Thoughts aren't heard by anything and spoken words aren't spoken by a self. Sounds of spoken words just happen and vibrations in the neck just happen. The noticer, self, speaker, etc isn't in experience, only in thoughts.
Is language 'wrong' then? How should it change and why?
It's not wrong in the context of the story or narrative of the 'external world'. I get the impression that if we tried to use language that would more accurately track experience it would be really hard to live in a society like ours. Bottom line seems to be that actual experience is sort of ignored and problems arise when I start to think that experience must cohere with the story. The truth is it actually doesn't. People say things like "experience is the most obvious thing/undeniable" but don't seem to realise that what they're talking about when they're talking about experience is actually not best called experience, it's only experience when thought about in terms of the 'external world' story. The external world as talked about in the story isn't here right now, only what were calling experience is here right now, (and in the context of this story those two things are separate.)

I'm going to post my reply in multiple parts to minimise the risk of losing the text in a website error. Using my phone.

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:38 am

Did you find 'nothing' when doing the experiment? Is that exactly what you found?
I don't mean I found emptiness, or a void, or blackness, or some feeling of emptiness or sense of nothingness. I just mean there's literally nothing and nowhere for it to be. I mean the actions and stuff that can be called choices just exist. The perceptions that are associated with those actions just exist, and this includes thoughts which might have content like "I'm choosing this" or the opposite. When you ask what makes things happen, I think the notion of things making other things happen doesn't really exist in experience, but only in thoughts. Of course thoughts are a kind of experience, but causality is only an inference and not here right now anywhere apart from the contents of thoughts.
Ok. How are you expecting it to appear if you 'get it'? Clouds opening? Choirs of angels descending? (Joking)
What is the 'I' that hasn't yet grasped something?
Of course not! No clouds or rapturous phenomena of any description! But I think I sometimes forget where to look to notice that there's nothing there. I know that doesnt really make any sense now that I wrote it out. I think the realisation might be so simple that I'm trying to make it more complicated than it is for some reason. Much ado about nothing!
Yes, that's the content of a thought.
What is the 'I' that is witnessing the thought?
What is the 'I' being tricked by language?
1. Only the contents of another thought. Actually there is no witnesser in experience. There is a thought and other thoughts crop up in 'reaction' to that thought, though reaction is just a concept and all there really is right here is one thought and another thought.
2. The contents of another thought.

The thoughts are real and here right now but their contents are stories.

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Hello

Postby Xain » Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:10 am

The thoughts are real and here right now but their contents are stories.
Why aren't they BOTH 'the content of a story'?
What is NOT 'the content of a story' as you put it?

Xain ♥

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:05 pm

I suppose the notion of thoughts is partly a story because all that's really here is sounds. (When referring to the inner monologue). Designating this sound or that sound as a thought is just another interpretation, I can see that might be true. Thought is a label reflexively applied by certain sounds to certain sounds. When I consider thoughts, there also seems to be some kind of understanding aswell as just hearing (as in, there is a comprehension of the sound or words used in the thought, aswell as just hearing noises as if in a foreign language), but when I try to get to that feeling of understanding, it seems to be nothing more than a vague warmness or pressure in my chest and neck. The notion of understanding could just be another label, interpretation, or part of the story, applied to certain patterns of sensations.

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:39 am

Just been reflecting a little more, and I'm thinking that the kind of self you've been guiding me to look for is a kind of self that I never actually believed in. I dont mean this as a slight to you or the site. I just mean I think I was a little confused about what I was supposed to look for and what you might suggest doesn't exist. The experiencer in experience that can't be found is such a strange concept and so obviously not here that thinking about it now I don't think I ever believed that it was there. I at least know I never experienced it because it's never been here to notice.

Any occasion where I've defended any existence of self, all I've ever really been defending was the existence of experience itself. When the only evidence supplied for something is evidence based on experience, then the only thing you can prove is experience itself. Seems obvious, doesn't it? If there's a suggestion or an assumption or a thought that experience necessitates an experiencer, then that isn't based on experience because the experiencer cant be experienced. And of its not based on experience then it's just a thought or an idea or an assumption. Or would you just say 'not inherent'.

So, in experience, all there ever has been or will be is experience. I think I've suggested earlier in this thread that when I'm not actually examining the issue, the sense of self comes back again, or that the realisation isn't 'stable', but no sense of a separate self which is actually in experience comes back, because that was never here before and isn't here now. I never even believed in that!

Does this make sense?

The only kind of self that I ever believed in was basically just the notion that there was experience going on, or at least some thing which we call experience (I've indicated before how I think it's a misnomer), and I think any resistance to this idea might have come from some kind of impression that this was being called into question. But if I'm correct, this isn't being called into question. Only the notion that there is an experiencer also in experience was being challenged. Is this right?

Isn't the main insight that we can call this state 'experience', but as a matter of fact it's not 'experienced' in this state, it only 'exists' in this state.

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Hello

Postby Xain » Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:50 am

Just been reflecting a little more, and I'm thinking that the kind of self you've been guiding me to look for is a kind of self that I never actually believed in.
Not sure about your phraseology - Are there different kinds of self? (Selves?)
I just mean I think I was a little confused about what I was supposed to look for and what you might suggest doesn't exist.
I wasn't suggesting that something doesn't exist.
It is more HOW something exists.

Does Santa Claus exist as an real person? No
Does Santa Claus exist a fictional character? Yes
Any occasion where I've defended any existence of self, all I've ever really been defending was the existence of experience itself
The only thing we deconstruct at LU is the self. Other things are not examined or deconstructed.
When the only evidence supplied for something is evidence based on experience, then the only thing you can prove is experience itself.
You are reifying 'experience' - Turning into a 'thing'. Experience is an abstract concept. It doesn't work like that.
And of its not based on experience then it's just a thought or an idea or an assumption
Indeed. But you want to exclude 'experience' itself.
Why is that not also an assumption? (Obviously realised purely on a mental level at this stage)
So, in experience, all there ever has been or will be is experience.
You are reifying experience and forming a conclusion based on doing so.
It is also a circular argument.
(And doesn't really have anything to do with this guidance - I'm not sure why you are bringing this up to be honest).
The only kind of self that I ever believed in was basically just the notion that there was experience going on, or at least some thing which we call experience
The only thing we examine at LU is the self. We don't examine or deconstruct anything else.

We are going to a very strange place in this dialogue.

Xain ♥

User avatar
Space6006
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 am

Re: Hello

Postby Space6006 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:51 am

If you consider my last post to be irrelevant we can put it to one side and return to the post I made before that. I don't want to get bogged down if it's not relevant to the task at hand. Unless there's something I said which you think needs attention before we can continue as before.

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Hello

Postby Xain » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:27 pm

Do you feel that you have realised something?
The most concerning response from you I got was 'I'm a little worried that I've only grasped this linguistically and not 'properly''.

There has never been a real 'I'. What is expected other than to realise this?
If you do not feel you have realised this, can you tell me where the issue is? Where is the sticking point?

Xain ♥


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests