Revisiting the past

[Onlyanegg]

Is there anything else that you want to inquire together?

It seems there is much better understanding of what I am not....Thoughts. They come and go and condition some of the perceptions around what's happening.
What isn't seen is what I am? Doesn't feel like any kind of shift, just a better understanding of how things were structured before. There is kind of a checkmate feeling, like no more amount of thinking this over will change anything.

Is there still seeking?

In thoughts. In direct experience there is just what's happening.

How is life these days?

Life is a bit uncertain. Job, love life, age, goals...all present challenges. Looking forward to the holidays being over!

Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

What isn't seen is what I am? Doesn't feel like any kind of shift, just a better understanding of how things were structured before. There is kind of a checkmate feeling, like no more amount of thinking this over will change anything.

This is not a Neti Neti inquiry, that at the end you discover that you are awareness that is ALL, replacing a small self with a BIG (huge) Self.
Let me be brutal here – you are nothing. There is nothing that “you” are. There is aliveness, there is being, there is knowing, there are seeing, smelling, thinking, feeling, tasting, and hearing, but you are not any of these things. There is no you in any possible form. In truth you do not exist. All these are not personal, they are not yours. “I am”/ “I exist” are an illusion. Rather than “I am everything”, it’s just “everything”. It’s like saying there is no Santa but there is the Spirit of Christmas – it’s ALL an illusion. Christmas is just a holiday when people celebrate family, love, giving etc. Similarly, there is no I in any form or shape (or formless-ness and shapeless-ness). There is just THIS/everything. It’s all one package with no parts. Even the “am-ness”/”aliveness” and the senses/mind are non-existent. There are just useful tools for pointing, but otherwise there are just creations of language. There is no witness in any form to THIS/what is happening, there is just THIS (witnessing included) and you are not IT. It “seems” that THIS is like a coin – with experiencer on one side and experience on the other, but THIS does not have sides – exeperincerexperience is inseparable. Thus there is no place for “you” to be any of THIS. That is the ILLUSION.

Let’s do some LOOKNG!
Focus “I Am…”/”I exist” a few times: does that seem like a true statement? Do you tend to refer to a certain aspect of experience, such as sensations in a certain portion of your body, when you make that statement? Does it seem as though there is something like consciousness, awareness, knowing, presence or similar that notices what is happening? And however you describe what knows or notices, does it seem like something you have, or something you are? Does “I am” seem to point to something “in here”? Is there anywhere else it could be?

Now focus on a sensation (e.g. “left leg”). Notice if and when a sense of “I” or “me” arises. For example, is it as soon as the sensation is recognized as that particular experience, or shortly thereafter? Are there any sensations that arise in those first few milliseconds, associated with the arising of the “I” or “me” sense? For example, it may seem as though there is a closing or tightening that occurs. Does it feel like you are awareness, consciousness, one with everything, or presence? Is there a subtle sense of comfort, stability or reliability in affirming your existence?
Now, close your eyes and allow all thoughts, images and sensations to again fade. What happens to the sense of “I” or “me”? What happens to the sense of there being an inner and outer aspect to experience?

If and when the sense of “I” or “me” (and thus “not-I” or “not-me”) arises, and/or the sense of interior (and thus an exterior) aspect to experience, what seems to have done that? Is there a verb that seems to best apply (e.g. "me-ing", "I-ing")? How is it that a portion of experience is now associated with "I" or "me", and a portion is not? Is there some kind of sorting mechanism that differentiates/ filters/sorts which experience is “me” and “not me”? Is there a boundary or border where your inner experience ends and the outside world begins? Look for this border continuously - every time the sense of “I am” appear. Please let me know what you have discovered (literally and not)

Life is a bit uncertain. Job, love life, age, goals...all present challenges. Looking forward to the holidays being over!

Yup! That’s life’s main quality – uncertainty. What will happen will happen. Wanting security comes with thoughts or fear about the future. The mind creates endless what-if scenarios about how the future is uncertain, unwelcome, and scary. Interestingly, fear shows up when thoughts about the future come up. If there is no anxiety/thoughts about what will be, then life is not an issue.
If you stopped thinking about what may happen and paid attention to what is actually happening right here, right now, there wouldn’t be any room for fear; there wouldn’t be any need to protect a self-image from things that may or may not happen.
Consider this: the future never comes—all you have is now. Thinking about the future happens NOW. Thinking about problems does not always solve problems, it creates them. Thinking about the past or future creates a sensation that there is a lack of safety. All of this is happening in the mind, not in reality, so stop it. Don’t feed the stories with more stories. Instead, focus on the sensations that are happening now; let them be seen, and let them pass. Out of curiosity, look behind the fear. What is it trying to protect?
Love'
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Focus “I Am…”/”I exist” a few times: does that seem like a true statement?

The sense of being here is undeniable.

Do you tend to refer to a certain aspect of experience, such as sensations in a certain portion of your body, when you make that statement?

Mostly refers to the thoughts about it. And then on reflection I refer to the sensations in the body to check it,

Does it seem as though there is something like consciousness, awareness, knowing, presence or similar that notices what is happening?

Yes, "seems" like it.

And however you describe what knows or notices, does it seem like something you have, or something you are?

It seems like something I am. There is nothing to have it.

Does “I am” seem to point to something “in here”? Is there anywhere else it could be?

It points to everything and nothing.

Now focus on a sensation (e.g. “left leg”). Notice if and when a sense of “I” or “me” arises. For example, is it as soon as the sensation is recognized as that particular experience, or shortly thereafter?

It's just a geeling. It doesn't seem to belong to a me, as long as it's not painful. Then the sense of me holds tighter.

Are there any sensations that arise in those first few milliseconds, associated with the arising of the “I” or “me” sense?

The sense of trying to direct attention in response to reading these words.

For example, it may seem as though there is a closing or tightening that occurs. Does it feel like you are awareness, consciousness, one with everything, or presence?

Just feels like an awareness of a thing, and the context is thoughts about what that means.

Is there a subtle sense of comfort, stability or reliability in affirming your existence?

Yes, very much so. I like to be alive.

Now, close your eyes and allow all thoughts, images and sensations to again fade. What happens to the sense of “I” or “me”? What happens to the sense of there being an inner and outer aspect to experience?

I just seem to go into a grey solipsism. Sometimes it seems like nothing exists until sound or sensation intrude.

If and when the sense of “I” or “me” (and thus “not-I” or “not-me”) arises, and/or the sense of interior (and thus an exterior) aspect to experience, what seems to have done that?

Seems like awareness notices something inside or outside, and then thoughts attach and label it in the context of a me.

Is there a verb that seems to best apply (e.g. "me-ing", "I-ing")? How is it that a portion of experience is now associated with "I" or "me", and a portion is not?

Me-ing, self-ing, ego, lots of terms can be used.

Is there some kind of sorting mechanism that differentiates/ filters/sorts which experience is “me” and “not me”?

The sorting happens in thoughts, not in direct experience.

Is there a boundary or border where your inner experience ends and the outside world begins? Look for this border continuously - every time the sense of “I am” appear. Please let me know what you have discovered (literally and not)

The boundary, what feels like looking through the glass darkly, is just thoughts. I am slowly starting to recognize that thought is just another kind of layer to the emptiness.

Out of curiosity, look behind the fear. What is it trying to protect?

In one way of looking at it, the sense of self protects time space, because without that particular illusion "I" might cease to exist.
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter
There are plenty of “seems like” in your answers…

The sense of being here is undeniable.

Is there being without anything else? Is there being without sensations “heartbeat”, “breathing”? Is there being without seeing (even with eyes closed there is still some kind of seeing)? Is there being with no hearing? What is an absolute silence? Do you see what I’m pointing to? Can you isolate pure being? So what makes it a separate “thing”? How would you know that there is being without the rest (sensations, seeing,…)?

Here is a refresher on short emptiness and dependent origination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqaWmc ... 4&index=41

Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

Is there being without anything else? Is there being without sensations “heartbeat”, “breathing”? Is there being without seeing (even with eyes closed there is still some kind of seeing)? Is there being with no hearing? What is an absolute silence? Do you see what I’m pointing to? Can you isolate pure being? So what makes it a separate “thing”? How would you know that there is being without the rest (sensations, seeing,…)?

Yes...I understand...there is no being without the context of all of it! It's all of a beingness....never thought of it that way. Like my awareness just existed by itself....that cannot be. It's all a big one thing. There is no independent existence. It all depends on everything else. Therefore my sense of being depends on heartbeat, breathing, etc. So you can't isolate pure being either.
I always had this idea that the extraneous stuff would drop away and I would be left with the truth. But it can also be seen that it's all truth. Still not clear what might happen when this sense of self connected to all things stops happening, as in death. I think I'm clinging on because of fear of death, basically.
Thank You
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Yes...I understand...there is no being without the context of all of it! It's all of a beingness....never thought of it that way. Like my awareness just existed by itself....that cannot be. It's all a big one thing. There is no independent existence. It all depends on everything else. Therefore my sense of being depends on heartbeat, breathing, etc. So you can't isolate pure being either.

Awesome stuff!!

Still not clear what might happen when this sense of self connected to all things stops happening, as in death. I think I'm clinging on because of fear of death, basically.

How can something that never existed die? Was it ever born in the first place? What is your original face before your "parents" were born? Have you ever experienced dying or being born personally? How do you know then what "death" is? It must be an assumption/fiction... You just don't know. There is a story about death and wanting not to die, and uncertainty, but besides that where is the evidence? And before you start spinning more stories, let me ask you again... how are "others" expeirenced in DE? And is there a future? Is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time? (without thought content!!!) Consider this: the future never comes—all we have is NOW. Thinking about problems does not solve problems, it creates them. Thinking about the past or future creates a sensation that there is a lack of safety. All of this is happening in the mind, not in reality.
Where is this self that is connected to everything else? We’ve looking for it all along and not finding it but you keep bringing it back. Have you had a glimpse of it in the mean time? How is the self still happening? In what way? There is thinking with pronouns and nouns but does that mean there is a self? There are various sensations, but does that mean there is a self? To have an independent self it should exist besides the sensations, hearing, smelling, tasting and seeing. It's good to remember that we can only ever experience seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling and thinking. Anything not in the first five is thought. All that so far has been established for sure to be there are the senses and thinking. Please look and let me know how do you observe this self outside of thought content?!
The thing with labels is that some of them point to existing “stuff” – like “table” points to “physical objects” or sensations and colours. Some other labels are useful in communication – like “country” or “school”. And then third point to non-existent stuff – like “Santa” and “I” and “me” and “self” and “Spiderman”. Do you get the picture? There might be useful in communication but they point to nothing. The things, which the labels “I”, “me” and “self” have been believed to point to, already have other labels pointing to them – like various sensations, colours, etc. In a way they are redundant. They will still be used in communication but their emptiness is seen. They are emptier than empty.

There is aliveness there which basically is a complex label pointing to all the senses and thinking. More such labels are presence or am-ness, awareness, etc. but these are nothing more than labels pointing to the senses. Is there anything here that is not the senses? How would they be experienced without the senses?

The way I look at sensations is that they include anything that is sensed, such as touching a table or a feeling of “spaciousness” or “being”. These are still “physical” sensations. Even the “lack of location”, when you close your eyes, is a sensation. Without the label “being” or “everything or nothing”, do you notice that these are also sensations?
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

How can something that never existed die? Was it ever born in the first place? What is your original face before your "parents" were born? Have you ever experienced dying or being born personally? How do you know then what "death" is?

No birth no death is the first of the 8 negations, understood as a concept. I never existed nor have I a face. Only in thoughts and sensations. No I never experienced it either. I don't know what death is except as a story.

How are "others" expeirenced in DE?

Only as sensations and then thoughts, like everything else. Feels so alone putting it that way.

And is there a future?

If there is always now how can there be a future except in thoughts.

Is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?

In experience it is always now. There is a story of past and future but the belief in it is slipping.

Thinking about the past or future creates a sensation that there is a lack of safety. All of this is happening in the mind, not in reality.
Where is this self that is connected to everything else?

It is nowhere to be found. Only a story.

Have you had a glimpse of it in the mean time? How is the self still happening? In what way? There is thinking with pronouns and nouns but does that mean there is a self? There are various sensations, but does that mean there is a self?

I haven't glimpsed it yet. I keep looking. Maybe I will give up soon, Who knows?

And then third point to non-existent stuff – like “Santa” and “I” and “me” and “self” and “Spiderman”. Do you get the picture?

I'm starting to get it. It is not clear or why would i keep needing to look? I'm sorry I may be dense!

Without the label “being” or “everything or nothing”, do you notice that these are also sensations?

After the last post, I started to realize that sensations are part of whatever is happening at the moment, not separate from the sense of me as well, which is also happening. It is losing it's significance as something to cling to...
Thank You
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Only as sensations and then thoughts, like everything else. Feels so alone putting it that way.

What is there to be alone? The same way there is no others there is no “I” either. So could possibly be alone? Can thoughts be alone? Can thoughts feel? Can sensations be alone? Tastes, smells, sounds, colours? What is there to be alone? Focus/noticing? Does focus care about what is focusing on? And is it separate from what is being noticed? Or the “aloneness” is just in the content?

I haven't glimpsed it yet. I keep looking. Maybe I will give up soon, Who knows?

What is there to give up? Look! Don’t assume! What is doing to believing and giving up? Look for that believer! Can it be seen, smelled, felt, tasted, and/or heard? If not it’s a thought/not real.

After the last post, I started to realize that sensations are part of whatever is happening at the moment, not separate from the sense of me as well, which is also happening. It is losing it's significance as something to cling to...

Again… Can the sense of self be smelled, seen, heard, felt, and/or tasted? If not then it’s a thought. Does the sense of me exist in any other way than sensations, colours, sounds, smells, and tastes, that are wrongly labelled (have other labels already)? Is the identity with an aspect of experience, or identity as an aspect of experience? Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

What is there to be alone? The same way there is no others there is no “I” either. So could possibly be alone?

When you put it that way, true. Understood. It is a neurosis of the person to feel abandoned and alone, and this is probably overlapping with the story of a person seeking....something.

Can thoughts be alone? Can thoughts feel? Can sensations be alone?

None of it.

Tastes, smells, sounds, colours? What is there to be alone? Focus/noticing?

Right, nothing there just these thoughts and feelings holding on.

Does focus care about what is focusing on? And is it separate from what is being noticed?

In my experience it just goes wherever there seems to be the most happening.

Or the “aloneness” is just in the content?

Yeah, aloneness is just a dream.

What is there to give up? Look! Don’t assume!

I'm looking, looking, looking. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

What is doing to believing and giving up? Look for that believer! Can it be seen, smelled, felt, tasted, and/or heard? If not it’s a thought/not real.

Right, the believer is a thought, the self is a thought...None of it is real except in the story.

Can the sense of self be smelled, seen, heard, felt, and/or tasted? If not then it’s a thought.

Understood...but not experienced, except in brief glimpses in the story.

Does the sense of me exist in any other way than sensations, colours, sounds, smells, and tastes, that are wrongly labelled (have other labels already)? Is the identity with an aspect of experience, or identity as an aspect of experience?

Identity is as an aspect of experience. It is experience itself happening as this seeming person. But it disquises itself so well that it feels like the person is real. But how can it be when it comes and goes and changes moment by moment.

Is/was there a difference between identifying with and identifying as something?

in a relative sense identifying with prsupposes two things. Identifying as is one whole happening. will keep looking for now.
Thank You
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

Does focus care about what is focusing on? And is it separate from what is being noticed?

In my experience it just goes wherever there seems to be the most happening.

How does it go “there”? Is there stuff sitting around waiting to be noticed? How is this known then? There is knowing of something only when there is something. And there is something only if there is knowing of something. Otherwise, the unknown something is an assumption/thought – it assumed to exist even if it is not known/seen. So is there a pure noticing/knowing inherently existing then?

I'm looking, looking, looking. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

You know by know where the right and wrong places are – right places are the senses (sensory information) and the wrong place is thought content. So are you looking in thought content for answers?

Can the sense of self be smelled, seen, heard, felt, and/or tasted? If not then it’s a thought.

Understood...but not experienced, except in brief glimpses in the story.

Haha. So the sense of self is experienced but it’s understood that it cannot be experienced? So then I’m assuming it can be smelled, heard, felt, seen, and/or tasted? Please describe what does the sense of self smell, feel, look, sound, and taste like then? How is the sense of self experienced then

Identity is as an aspect of experience. It is experience itself happening as this seeming person. But it disquises itself so well that it feels like the person is real. But how can it be when it comes and goes and changes moment by moment.

Exactly!

Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

How does it go “there”? Is there stuff sitting around waiting to be noticed?

Right, there's no going anywhere since it's all taking place here and now. I just meant for example that when a sound is heard, attention seems to focus on it for a moment. It's all language metaphors in terms of understanding it.  In DE it is just noticing of sound happening.

How is this known then? There is knowing of something only when there is something. And there is something only if there is knowing of something. Otherwise, the unknown something is an assumption/thought – it assumed to exist even if it is not known/seen. So is there a pure noticing/knowing inherently existing then?

When you put it that way noticing only exists in the context of something being noticed, so all the same thing. No separate noticing/knowing of things. Just the flow of the everything. Maybe I could say that it is localized, but that is a story and an inference, presupposing that you, for example, are experiencing different noticings??

You know by know where the right and wrong places are – right places are the senses (sensory information) and the wrong place is thought content. So are you looking in thought content for answers?

Well, thoughts are what come up most often. I'm trying to just be with what I'm directly experiencing, but even writing this forces me to label, index,categorize the experience.

So the sense of self is experienced but it’s understood that it cannot be experienced? So then I’m assuming it can be smelled, heard, felt, seen, and/or tasted? Please describe what does the sense of self smell, feel, look, sound, and taste like then? How is the sense of self experienced then

Experienced only as thoughts. Can't be smelled, heard,felt or tasted, etc.
It's ineffable...just something localized attached to thoughts, feelings, sensations....

Thank You
Love
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter

When you put it that way noticing only exists in the context of something being noticed, so all the same thing. No separate noticing/knowing of things. Just the flow of the everything.

Very good observation!

Maybe I could say that it is localized, but that is a story and an inference, presupposing that you, for example, are experiencing different noticings??

How is it known that I also experience noticing? How are “others” experienced in DE? How is it known directly what others’ experience is? Your experience of me is: colours labelled “written reply” and thoughts (i.e. interpretation of that “reply”), right? Thus, my experience is an assumption. It is impossible for you to know if I have an experience or not. Is noticing personal and localised really or others' noticings are an assumption?

Experienced only as thoughts. Can't be smelled, heard,felt or tasted, etc.
It's ineffable ...just something localized attached to thoughts, feelings, sensations....

If it is ineffable, can't be smelled, heard, felt or tasted, etc., how is it seen then that is “just something localized attached to thoughts, feelings, sensations....”? Or it exists only in thought content (thoughts about thoughts)?
Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

How is it known that I also experience noticing? How are “others” experienced in DE? How is it known directly what others’ experience is? Your experience of me is: colours labelled “written reply” and thoughts (i.e. interpretation of that “reply”), right? Thus, my experience is an assumption. It is impossible for you to know if I have an experience or not. Is noticing personal and localised really or others' noticings are an assumption?

Yeah, others noticings are an assumption, but the belief that I am a self and there are other selves is one of the foundational assumptions of life. I am surrounded by people all day. Am I really supposed to think that they are just sensations happening withought any independent existence. I do see that they are all in the same flow, the oneness- or not dual ness...but in my experience I am bumping into high school students in the hallway, and we both react. That's as real as real can be to me. Yet, from my side it isn't really personal, I get it. It's all just happening and I have no control.

If it is ineffable, can't be smelled, heard, felt or tasted, etc., how is it seen then that is “just something localized attached to thoughts, feelings, sensations....”? Or it exists only in thought content (thoughts about thoughts)?

Yes, also only exists in thoughts...cannot be expressed, even calling it ineffable is a label, and it is that which cannot be labeled.
Still seems like mind/word games to me though. Even though nothing is supposed to happen, I still have a heaviness about me and feel like it is a struggle to go beyond just understanding concepts and just be.

Love,
Peter

[poppyseed]

Hi Peter
I’m picking up resistance here. Remember resistance is a tool for discovering problematic beliefs – beliefs that protect the precious “self”. Is that protection necessary? Is there a self to be protected?

Yeah, others noticings are an assumption, but the belief that I am a self and there are other selves is one of the foundational assumptions of life.

Exactly! Does that make it a special belief that cannot be challenged? If any beliefs are left unchallenged then the story doesn’t change

I am surrounded by people all day. Am I really supposed to think that they are just sensations happening without any independent existence.

Well that is what the sensory information says, otherwise it’s a belief, an assumption, plain fiction. Just because something has been repeated a million times does not make it true. All that we have in our disposal are the senses. Are these beliefs worth keeping? Would you be here if your precious beliefs were so amazing? Is resistance protecting “others” or still the “self” here?

Let’s explore “others” a bit more...
When you touch “another” are there two sensations “you” and “another” or one labelled “me touching another” (or “bumping into high school students in the hallway”)? Are others outside of sensing? Where is the border that marks where sensing ends and "other" begin?
Also, is there space where these others exist? What is the difference between “here” and “there” without thought content?

Can the “I” of “others” be directly experienced? Can you directly experience "others"?
Are others somehow outside of seeing? What is the difference between seeing an ‘stranger’, seeing an ’enemy’, and seeing a ‘friend’ in DE – they are all colour with different thought content, right? How is one colour different from another in DE if all there is to colour is seeing?

It’s not the same approach as the looking for the “I” when it comes to ”others” as you can’t really see that that they don’t have an “I” – it’s a deduction (thinking). How we approach it from DE is the same way we see there is no “apple” – that apple is a label. Why are objects different from ‘others’? Why were objects easier? What about animals? If we have to repeat the same example but with a “person”:
Taste labelled ‘person’ is known
Colour (visual information) labelled ‘person’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘person’ is known (when a person is touched)
Smell labelled ‘person’ is known
Thought about/of a ‘person’ is known
However, is a ‘person' actually known? (Or is it just a label?) Is there really an ‘person’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘person’? Can ‘a person’ be found in actual experience?

I do see that they are all in the same flow, the oneness- or not dual ness...

Is this the same flow that your self is also flowing together with the other selves? A oneness built of selves? Please look at what you are saying and notice the beliefs and assumptions there.There is a belief in separate selves, selves that are separate from the whole / life / existence, and each fragmented and isolated selves are living their lives in a world, which these assumed selves (like bubbles) are separate from.

That's as real as real can be to me.

Thoughts are drawing an imaginary line in the sand, right? What is that “me” that negotiates reality? Thoughts all the way. Remember, when you have two opposing views (i.e. view of reality) you have to check by looking, not by thinking how this is too absurd and it doesn’t fit with your precious old view of reality. This is plain confirmation bias in action - if a new idea does not fit with the core beliefs, it is discarded. To “reduce the resistance’, all thoughts need to painstakingly be examined one by one as they appear in order for thoughts to self-organise and form a new core of beliefs.

Yes, also only exists in thoughts...cannot be expressed, even calling it ineffable is a label, and it is that which cannot be labeled.

This sounds to me like a quote for “awareness” or “reality” – “cannot be expressed” , “even calling it ineffable is a label”, but let me remind you we are talking about the “sense of self” here. The “sense of self” is a plain label that points to nothing. It points to non-existent stuff. It cannot be found anywhere. It's fiction, plain imagination. This label has mistakenly been used to describe sensations and colours, etc, which already have labels – like “breathing”, “heartbeat”, etc. Is that clear???Can you see that?

Still seems like mind/word games to me though. Even though nothing is supposed to happen, I still have a heaviness about me and feel like it is a struggle to go beyond just understanding concepts and just be.

The “heaviness” is there because the story is not challenged. How is this “heaviness” experienced? Do you find it difficult to walk because you are much heavier? Or this heaviness exists only in thoughts that haven’t been checked?
Again, are you doing the being or not being? Do you need to do anything in order to be? Do you need to maintain being?
Being, peace are already here underneath all the stories. Instead of endlessly reaching for ideas, concepts and explanations, just let it all go, and see what is here now silently, without words. Notice the freshness, intimacy, immediateness, and rawness of THIS. Seeing is wordless, and immediate. The taste of chocolate is immediately and silently (wordlessly) known, since it is not conceptual. As soon as the label ‘taste of chocolate’ is added, the immediacy of experience is veiled by conceptualization.

Love
Rali

[Onlyanegg]

I’m picking up resistance here. Remember resistance is a tool for discovering problematic beliefs – beliefs that protect the precious “self”. Is that protection necessary? Is there a self to be protected?

In theory, no-self to protect, nothing that lasts or persists or matters. But resistance seems to be happening in the story and in the sense that it is an invlountary occurence, yes it's happening. Non-resistance sounds like bliss.

Yeah, others noticings are an assumption, but the belief that I am a self and there are other selves is one of the foundational assumptions of life.

Exactly! Does that make it a special belief that cannot be challenged? If any beliefs are left unchallenged then the story doesn’t change

The abstract concepts like past, present and future, birth, death, etc...are easier to examine than the ones that are constantly happening, like the presence of others. Conceptually they are sensations+thoughts all happening. Peopling....I can't even really see it as a belief or an assumption. Yeah, it's all one mind, nowhere and everywhere.

Are these beliefs worth keeping? Would you be here if your precious beliefs were so amazing? Is resistance protecting “others” or still the “self” here?

No beliefs are worth keeping at this point. They are all seen as anchors or limitations.

I will come back to the rest of the questions later, I don't want to wait too long to send something.
Thank You
Love
Peter