Stubborn Mind

[StrongGate]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this? To understand that I am not the doer, not the thinker, not the chooser. All these are thoughts arising in me.

What are you looking for at LU? To be free of the idea that I am the doer, the thinker, and the chooser. To stop the mental fabrication of being a separate self. I have read about shifts. I would like to experience a definite shift so that I can be part of the group. It's also fine if no such shift occurs. Either way, I am committed and happy to deepen my direct experience and letting go of mental ideas.

What do you expect from a guided conversation? I would like to be guided by a person who is in no rush. I expect that my thoughts will want to skip the questions by giving the answers that I read from existing threads. I will need somebody who is not shy in pointing out when I am not in direct experience.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry? I have a background in Vipassana as well as non-duality. I do meditate daily. I enjoy it. I listen to lectures on Advaita Vedanta. I enjoy that too. Spiritual practice has become a way of life. The knowledge of non-duality has become a blissful reminder.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 11

[gmalen]

Hey there,

My name is Gunnar - I’d be happy to guide you.

Disclaimers & FAQ:

- You may like to write your response first in Docs or Word and then copy it over to the site's text editor. Sometimes people lose paragraphs of writing due to random site time-outs. I've never had this issue. I just make sure I have stable wi-fi.
- Please read LU’s disclaimer here: [http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/](http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/)
- Please read “Liberation Unleashed is not…” in LU’s FAQ here: [http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/](http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/)

Agreements together:

- The momentum of inquiry is important. **Post at least once a day or every second day.** If you need more time or are unable to post for several days, nbd, just write a quick post on the thread to let me know. I will do the same.
- Please do not hold anything back: what you tell me is what I use to point you. 100% honesty is very important. **If you have difficulty expressing anger, fear, guilt or shame, just your best and we can work from there.**
- When answering questions, don’t answer from memory, **look into your immediate, direct experience: smell, taste, sound, sensation, color and observed thoughts (not the content of thoughts).** Long-winded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress.
- Throughout this exploration, I would like you to **answer questions that I have written using the quote function:** [https://youtu.be/-fAToDNh9hQ](https://youtu.be/-fAToDNh9hQ). Even if a question seems redundant at times, it has a purpose. The identity structure is fickle but quite simple in how it functions. So trust the process even when it feels like you’ve ‘already looked there’. If it has a question mark, give it a response!
- **Please put aside all other teachings** (videos, books, teachers, etc) during this period together. Direct all your focus into the inquiries we’re exploring. If you have a daily meditation practice, I encourage you to continue it.

Do these agreements work for you?
By what name shall I call you?

If this feels like a good fit for you, I’d like to start by exploring your expectations around awakening or passing through the gate:

I have read about shifts. I would like to experience a definite shift so that I can be part of the group.

What exactly in your experience would shift?

How will you change?

What will be different?

What is missing right now in your direct experience?


Cheers :)
Gunnar

[StrongGate]

Thank you Gunnar,

Do these agreements work for you?

Yes.

By what name shall I call you?

You can call me Prasad

What exactly in your experience would shift?

The assumption that I am choosing. I do know from what I have heard from lectures that I am not choosing. I also know it from having read some threads on here. The question is, is there a shift to happen? I don't think there is a shift. I assume it is just a subtle knowing. Is this right?

How will you change?

I won't change.

What will be different?

I don't think anything will be different.

What is missing right now in your direct experience?

Right now, in my direct experience I am doing fine.

[gmalen]

Great, hello Prasad,

What exactly in your experience would shift?
The assumption that I am choosing.

Who or what is assuming this? Look in direct experience and tell me what is deciding to make this assumption. Where does the assumption originate?

I don't think there is a shift. I assume it is just a subtle knowing. Is this right?

Yeah, something like that. It's like realizing the man in the red suit at the mall taking pictures with kids is not actually santa. There still is a man in a red suit at the mall taking pictures with kids (AKA nothing changes about the experience itself)... But there is no longer a belief that santa is real.

How will you change?
I won't change.
What will be different?
I don't think anything will be different.

Lovely, yes. This is not therapy or self-help. Prasad does not become a better person. This is seeing through the illusion of Prasad as a separate self entity. Nothing really changes about the character of Prasad.

Right now, in my direct experience I am doing fine.

Very nice. It's nice when the character is at ease. So why are you interested in this waking up shenanigans in the first place? What are you hoping to get from 'seeing through the illusion'?

Gunn

[StrongGate]

Hi Gunnar,

What exactly in your experience would shift?

The assumption that I am choosing.

Who or what is assuming this? Look in direct experience and tell me what is deciding to make this assumption. Where does the assumption originate?

Well, as a thought. The thought repeatedly shows up, it intensifies, this goes on until an action follows. Another thought appears that tells me that I have made the choice.

Very nice. It's nice when the character is at ease. So why are you interested in this waking up shenanigans in the first place?

Well, the waking up shenanigans brought me to this state of ease.

What are you hoping to get from 'seeing through the illusion'?

Nothing really. If there is a conflict in my thoughts, then I resolve it via various kinds of tools, such as trauma and shadow work. If conflicts with the outside world happen, then seeing it from their positions help release the conflict. I don't hope anything from seeing through the illusion, except the end of seeking.

[gmalen]

Prasad,

Well, as a thought. The thought repeatedly shows up, it intensifies, this goes on until an action follows. Another thought appears that tells me that I have made the choice.

Okay, so the thought shows up "I have made the choice". You say it appears and tells 'me'? Who/what is the receiver of this thought "I have made the choice"?

As you look into your experience in the exercises and pointers together, let's make sure we are on the same footing with what it means to look into direct experience:

Colored Socks

There is a big difference between knowing that there is nothing to give up and seeing that there is nothing to give up.

Here is an example to illustrate the difference:

If I ask you what color socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to come up with an answer:

• You can think about it, you can think back to this morning and try to remember putting your socks on, and you can probably tell me what color you think they are.

• Alternatively, you can take a quick look at your socks and tell me what color they actually are!

Hopefully you would agree that you can only be 100% certain by looking.

For the purpose of seeing this "no self" idea, it is very important that you are clear about this difference.

Knowing is about knowledge which is all in the mind and we are not interested in that

We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on in your present moment-to-moment experience. We are only interested in your Direct Experience in the moment..

Direct or Actual Experience is

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (Sensation, not emotion. Emotion is Sensation plus made-up thoughts & labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content)

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.

I don't hope anything from seeing through the illusion, except the end of seeking.

What are you seeking? Try to pinpoint it for me. What would be better if you were not seeking? What do you not like about seeking?

----

Great looking so far and happy to get off to a quick start with you, Prasad.

Gunnar

[StrongGate]

Hi Gunnar!

Okay, so the thought shows up "I have made the choice". You say it appears and tells 'me'? Who/what is the receiver of this thought "I have made the choice"?

Well, there is no direct experience apart from the thought "It is me to whom the thought appears", "I am the receiver of the thought!" It is an idea that it is ME who receives the thought. A thought, not the direct experience. There is no direct experience of I. There is no direct experience that "I made the choice". None at all.

Direct or Actual Experience is

Seeing
Hearing
Feeling (Sensation, not emotion. Emotion is Sensation plus made-up thoughts & labels)
Tasting
Smelling
Thoughts Arising (but not their content)

This is very clear, thank you!

What are you seeking?

My first thought was the end of the thought that I am this person and the attainment of peace and happiness. But I could also just say that I am seeking: Direct Experience. Direct experience seems synonymous with peace and happiness.

What would be better if you were not seeking?

Just noticing the direct experience would be better than seeking!

What do you not like about seeking?

That the focus of the mind goes outwards, instead of focusing on direct experience.

Great looking so far and happy to get off to a quick start with you, Prasad.

Likewise, very happy about your pointing and quick responses, very clear so far to me!!

Gracias!

[gmalen]

Prasad,

Well, there is no direct experience apart from the thought "It is me to whom the thought appears", "I am the receiver of the thought!" It is an idea that it is ME who receives the thought. A thought, not the direct experience. There is no direct experience of I. There is no direct experience that "I made the choice". None at all.

Great. It appears clear to you that the experience of thinking occurs in direct experience as a mental image or inner sound, but the content of the thought cannot be found in DE.

What are you seeking?
My first thought was the end of the thought that I am this person and the attainment of peace and happiness. But I could also just say that I am seeking: Direct Experience. Direct experience seems synonymous with peace and happiness.
What would be better if you were not seeking?
Just noticing the direct experience would be better than seeking!
What do you not like about seeking?
That the focus of the mind goes outwards, instead of focusing on direct experience.

Thanks for articulating this more. Helps to understand your orientation.

---

Let's continue on:

I don't know if you did the noting style of vipassana like this below, but either way, give it a go as we set the foundation for clear seeing together :)

**So the primary colors are: red, blue, and yellow. They are primary because every other color can be created out of them. Purple, for example, is just red and blue. Orange is just yellow and red.

**Experiences can be broken down just like colors can. As we've discussed, every experience can be broken down into the six “primaries”: image/color, sound, smell, taste, sensation, and thoughts.

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try now and throughout the day when you think of it. Label daily activities simply image/color, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

_Seeing a cup, simply = image/color
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought_

Break down 3 daily/current activities into these primaries (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and write them down here.

Gunn

[StrongGate]

Hi Gunnar,

Well, there is no direct experience apart from the thought "It is me to whom the thought appears", "I am the receiver of the thought!" It is an idea that it is ME who receives the thought. A thought, not the direct experience. There is no direct experience of I. There is no direct experience that "I made the choice". None at all.

Great. It appears clear to you that the experience of thinking occurs in direct experience as a mental image or inner sound, but the content of the thought cannot be found in DE.

I don't understand the second part of your sentence "the content of the thought cannot be found in DE". What's the difference between a mental image and the content of a thought?
Isn't a mental image the content of a thought?
When a thought appears, another thought comes right afterwards interpreting and judging the previous thought, e.g. "Does this thought make sense?", or "This thought is just following a repeated pattern from the past, that doesn't make sense.", or "There is no basis for this kind of thoughts, it doesn't make sense." or "Yes, this thought makes sense, let's follow it, e.g. going to bed or waking up".

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

_Seeing a cup, simply = image/color
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought_

Break down 3 daily/current activities into these primaries (which are all Actual/Direct Experience) and write them down here.

Okay, here is my first example:

Seeing the screen = Colors
Smelling my skin occurs = Smelling
Typing on the keyboard occurs = Sensation
Tasting the drink I am having = Taste
Hearing the cracks from the fire = Hearing
Thoughts about going to bed occur = Thoughts

I will write two more examples tomorrow,

Have a good night!
Prasad :)

[gmalen]

Lovely,

Please do another noting of a daily activity, and then one for an object around you, and one for a recent or current emotional experience.

I don't understand the second part of your sentence "the content of the thought cannot be found in DE". What's the difference between a mental image and the content of a thought?
Isn't a mental image the content of a thought?
When a thought appears, another thought comes right afterwards interpreting and judging the previous thought, e.g. "Does this thought make sense?", or "This thought is just following a repeated pattern from the past, that doesn't make sense.", or "There is no basis for this kind of thoughts, it doesn't make sense." or "Yes, this thought makes sense, let's follow it, e.g. going to bed or waking up".

I'm highlighting the difference between the experience of a mental image vs. the content of the mental image. Try this exercise:

Have a look at an apple (or any fruit you like.) Grab a ‘real’ apple if you have one, otherwise this picture will do - not sure if it will come through, you can look one up otherwise.


When looking at an apple, there's color; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Color is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?

Actual experience is sound, color, smell, taste, sensation, and the fact of thought arising, but not its content.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience? Is there a tag or label on the item that verifies 'oh indeed, that is objectively an apple!'

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by "looking in actual experience." What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labeled ‘apple’ is known
Color labeled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an 'apple' actually known?

Have fun and let me know what you find out.

Gunnar

[StrongGate]

You got me, Gunnar! The stubborn mind is there, it disagrees with your statements, see below:

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

Yes, only a thought about an apple.

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience? Is there a tag or label on the item that verifies 'oh indeed, that is objectively an apple!'

No, there is no tag or label on it that says it is an apple. It could just as well be a piece of ceramics or plastic that mirrors an apple. In direct experience I can only smell, see and touch an apple but the final confirmation would be taste. Only if all four would be appropriate the inference of "this is an apple" occurs.

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

Ok, here is an example. I have recently made fire in the stove. I put some wood on top of the stove in order to get it dried. The stove was fully filled. Once the fire was going full speed, massive heat got released. I then noticed that there is a slim line of fog in the room. After looking for the cause, I found that the wood i put on the stove started smoking.

If there is smoke coming from the stove, there is direct experience of fog. The inference that the wood is burning outside the stove, can only be confirmed by looking for the actual experience. The thought about possible danger can only be confirmed by actual experience, until then the thought about danger is only an idea, it requires confirmation by actual experience.

Thus, what the thoughts talk about CAN be found in actual experience!

This is what is meant by "looking in actual experience." What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labeled ‘apple’ is known
Color labeled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an 'apple' actually known?

Yes, the apple can be known but only by inference. The inference is based on the smell, the touch, the colors, the sensation and the taste. The inference says it is an apple.



Ps. Here are the other two examples:

Please do another noting of a daily activity,

Making fire in the stove:

Color labeled ‘fire’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘heat’ is known
Smell labeled ‘smoke’ is known
Thought about ‘fire’ is known

This is not actual experience, it is a hypothesis: Thought inferring the possible danger from the fire if it would somehow be released occurs.

one for a recent or current emotional experience.

Getting a message from my employer about trespassing my duties:

No taste is known
Color labeled ‘message’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘my back is tense’ and 'my chest feels numb' is known
No smell is known
Thought about ‘he is angry’ is known.

This is not actual experience, it is a hypothesis: Thought inferring that I should not message him for a couple of days until my trespassing is forgotten.

[gmalen]

Prasad,

Welcome stubborn mind, I've been waiting for you!

If there is smoke coming from the stove, there is direct experience of fog. The inference that the wood is burning outside the stove, can only be confirmed by looking for the actual experience. The thought about possible danger can only be confirmed by actual experience, until then the thought about danger is only an idea, it requires confirmation by actual experience.

Thus, what the thoughts talk about CAN be found in actual experience!

Our confusion may be a matter of semantics, though I think important to parce out. Let's use the example of fog. Fog is directly experienced as SEEING cloudy mist, SMELLING something earthy, FEELING sensations of warmth, etc. Those things do exist in actual experience, I'm not denying that.

Now, does the content of that thought that labels that experience ' fog' affect the direct experience of it in any way? Does calling it 'fog' turn the seeing, smelling, feeling into something that it wasn't before? What if we called it 'stooper' or 'R'. Does that seeing, smelling, feeling, now turn into a different experience or become something else?

Oh, I just thought of an exercise I like that touches on this, hope it's not redundant.

-----

Label-Reality Correlation

There is often a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

Is 'GREEN' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Let me know what is SEEN.

-------

Yes, the apple can be known but only by inference. The inference is based on the smell, the touch, the colors, the sensation and the taste. The inference says it is an apple.

The label 'apple' can be known, and the sense experience that that is pointing to can be known. But are the letters A P P L E joined together in thought actually known in direct experience or only in concept? As I asked before - Is there a tag or label on the item in the actual experience of seeing, feeling, or tasting that verifies 'oh indeed, that is objectively an apple!'

Curious to hear your thoughts. Appreciate your honesty and please do be as stubborn as is genuine. It's necessary for this process.

Gunnar

[StrongGate]

Hi Gunnar!

Our confusion may be a matter of semantics, though I think important to parce out. Let's use the example of fog. Fog is directly experienced as SEEING cloudy mist, SMELLING something earthy, FEELING sensations of warmth, etc. Those things do exist in actual experience, I'm not denying that.

Now, does the content of that thought that labels that experience ' fog' affect the direct experience of it in any way?

No, it doesn't. The words are interchangeable. Any word is good. The word only indicates the actual experience that are associated with it. The actual experience doesn't change, the word can change.

It's the same with the "I". The "I" is indicating the actual experience of sensations, thoughts, tastes, sounds and smells. It doesn't exist as such. Only the actual experience exists.



-----

There is often a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. Just like it is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

That's interesting, labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are indeed just thoughts.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?

Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?

The color red is experienced, contrary to what the label ‘GREEN' suggests.

Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?

The label suggests something else than what is seen.

Is 'GREEN' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?

The label overlays the actual experience of red.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

The redness is not affected in any way.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

The labels have no effect on the actual experience.

-------

The label 'apple' can be known, and the sense experience that that is pointing to can be known. But are the letters A P P L E joined together in thought actually known in direct experience or only in concept?

As I asked before - Is there a tag or label on the item in the actual experience of seeing, feeling, or tasting that verifies 'oh indeed, that is objectively an apple!'

There's no label on the apple that says it is an apple, except in the supermarket. The mind came up with the term apple to categorize the particular actual experiences.

That's it, right?

[gmalen]

Prasad,

Appreciate how you answer all the questions clearly, very helpful. This is truly a matter of looking into experience and saying yes or no, or voicing the doubts that get in the way. Nice work.

There's no label on the apple that says it is an apple, except in the supermarket. The mind came up with the term apple to categorize the particular actual experiences.

And still, that label at the supermarket is its own visual image, it doesn't reach out and touch or affect the apple. It's just a piece of paper with letters on it. If the sign for 'apple' were misspelled, the red circular fruit would still be in tact.

No, it doesn't. The words are interchangeable. Any word is good. The word only indicates the actual experience that are associated with it. The actual experience doesn't change, the word can change.

It's the same with the "I". The "I" is indicating the actual experience of sensations, thoughts, tastes, sounds and smells. It doesn't exist as such. Only the actual experience exists.

Yes, the actual experience exists. The label for it simply points to that experience. To drive home the emptiness of the label itself..

Suppose there is a university with all its students, libraries, employees, buildings, etc. In direct experience, can you point to the 'university' and find it? What if you took away the students, would it still be a university? What if you took away the professors or the buildings - still a university then?

Likewise, as you said, 'I' is pointing to the direct experience of sensations and thoughts especially. Is this 'I' label a real entity that you can locate when you look?

------

Also, let's look at 'you' right now, let's say your face. Standing in front of you, I might say, 'oh that's prasad'. But let's say I get a microscope on you, close up to your face. I might say, 'oh, that's an atom, a molecule'. Or let's say I zoom out 10,000 miles from you, and I say, 'oh that's the earth'. And all the variation of perspective in between these. So largely the label that arises is based on the perspective taken, again, highlighting its emptiness.

--------

Okay, so maybe it's clear that there is no such 'I' entity, "but it still feels like it gosh darn it!"... What to do about it.... hmmm.....

Suppose I extend my hands to you and, lying, say, here is a watermelon. 

And I give you an imaginary watermelon. 

You take the imaginary watermelon and “hold it”. Go ahead, do it. Hold the imaginary watermelon—huge—in between your hands. Now I ask you: what should you do to get rid of this watermelon in your hands? 

You can’t. There’s nothing there. It doesn’t make sense to ask that question, and in exactly the same way, it doesn’t make sense to ask the question “how can I get rid of or unmask the separate self?” There actually is no self. Never was. Ever. It was always imaginary, right from the start. 

It doesn’t need to fade. It’s not about identity fading. 

It’s about the truth — that identity doesn’t point to anything. Fade, not fade—whatever. The point is that it is fiction. The strength of the fiction or the content of thought is irrelevant - you can be out in nature with lots of mental space to see the truth of the fiction. OR you can be busy at work, caught up in trying to get things done and solve problems. Either way, the key is seeing again and again untiil there is a deep knowing that the separate self is fiction. Some days, I meditate a bit more and things are quieter and thi sis clear. Other days I'm busy and the mind is a flurry of thoughts. SAME underlying reality. Impermanent states/feelings/thoughts come and go. No self or 'I' to be found.

So look at the “I” thought. That’s all that is needed. Look behind the “I” thought. What’s there?

Blessings,
Gunn

[StrongGate]

Hi Gunnar!

Suppose there is a university with all its students, libraries, employees, buildings, etc. In direct experience, can you point to the 'university' and find it?

No, the university is just a pointer. Nobody ever saw a university. All what was seen were buildings, young people, old people and lots of rooms and chairs. But to make sense of it, to communicate it, to discuss its problems, to be employed, to educate oneself one needs the pointer 'university'.

What if you took away the students, would it still be a university? What if you took away the professors or the buildings - still a university then?

No, without the students, there would only be buildings with lots of rooms and a few old people.

Likewise, as you said, 'I' is pointing to the direct experience of sensations and thoughts especially. Is this 'I' label a real entity that you can locate when you look?

No, there are sensations and colors and sounds and thoughts but the I comes afterwards.

Is this 'I' label a real entity that you can locate when you look?

When I close my eyes and say 'I' then I notice the sensations in my back and stomach. But the sensations in my back and stomach are there regardless of I or no I.

Okay, so maybe it's clear that there is no such 'I' entity, "but it still feels like it gosh darn it!"... What to do about it.... hmmm.....

Suppose I extend my hands to you and, lying, say, here is a watermelon. 

And I give you an imaginary watermelon. 

You take the imaginary watermelon and “hold it”. Go ahead, do it. Hold the imaginary watermelon—huge—in between your hands. Now I ask you: what should you do to get rid of this watermelon in your hands? 

Haha, my first response was "open your eyes, Prasad!"

You can’t. There’s nothing there. It doesn’t make sense to ask that question, and in exactly the same way, it doesn’t make sense to ask the question “how can I get rid of or unmask the separate self?” There actually is no self. Never was. Ever. It was always imaginary, right from the start. 

It doesn’t need to fade. It’s not about identity fading. 

It’s about the truth — that identity doesn’t point to anything. Fade, not fade—whatever. The point is that it is fiction. The strength of the fiction or the content of thought is irrelevant - you can be out in nature with lots of mental space to see the truth of the fiction. OR you can be busy at work, caught up in trying to get things done and solve problems. Either way, the key is seeing again and again untiil there is a deep knowing that the separate self is fiction. Some days, I meditate a bit more and things are quieter and thi sis clear. Other days I'm busy and the mind is a flurry of thoughts. SAME underlying reality. Impermanent states/feelings/thoughts come and go. No self or 'I' to be found.

So look at the “I” thought. That’s all that is needed. Look behind the “I” thought. What’s there?

Yes, I can see that there is a change!

Yes, there is no I, no separate self, no separation.

That's pretty good :)