The “me” or the sustained identification with sensory experiences, ideas and narrative thought voice in the head that makes up the “me”... still holds on to the idea that there is a body container for all that stuff and so it must be “my” container. The earlier direct looking exercises have loosened the firmly held concept that experience requires a doer... as opposed to just being experience. Eg. There is seeing, but no seer to be found in the direct looking, there is sound but the assumed hearer of sound is also not to be found.
So identification, ideas and thought can hold on to experiences? Are these combining to form an entity?
Right. Is there an actual entity, or just this nothing that is made up of identification with ideas, thought, experience? Intellectually it is easy to see that that is going on, default setting maintains a “me “directing the show.
Or could it be that 'you' have a sense of being a person but nothing is found to hang the labels on, no person or such to be found, but 'you' feel like it should belong to something so just assign it to something (ideas, identification, thoughts)?
Yes... believe that is the underlying mechanism.
Does anything have to belong to anything, or could everything just be what it is?
Ownership is a mind illusion... again, see the truth of this... but default setting injects strong sense of ownership. It is just an ipad that this is being typed on, but strong sense of “my” ipad. It has perceived value, it is customized over time to “my” preferences. Am protective of it. Not fond of others picking it up or messing with “my” ipad.
The body just a body, not a 'my body', a thought just a thought and not somebodies thought, a feeling just a feeling and not my feeling, etc?
Again... see that it is the truth... the breaking down of the habitual default that clings to concepts of “i me mine”... this hasn’t happened yet.
Again, 'you' used to term "my" there. Is this word just referring to the sense of self? Is that sense of self an actual self? Can that sense of self do or own something, is it living life.
The sense of self is starting to be recognized as such... there is a lessening of belief in this as a “real”entity as opposed to a construct of thought. There is resistance to the concept of “no control” that feeds and keeps this illusory self alive. How can there be no controller screams the illusory self?
How about the name mesmer, does it belong to anything?
Mesmer is not my real name... it is made up. Given name is Martin. What’s in a name? It’s a label given at birth that enforces the idea of separate unique self.
If yes, what specifically does it point to?
Points to what the “me” thought is identified with.
Or could mesmer just be a word or label, not being more meaningfull (in a sense) then 'TRRWQ8Q'?
Yes. Exactly. No meaning. A label.
.... Oddly enough i had a Tante TRRWQ8Q... popular dutch name that. :)
Is mesmer an entity, or perhaps just a label? It's a little hard to not frame it in a way that this can be taken nihilistic, that's not my intention:-)
Yes. Seeing this truth. Mesmer is a handy tool for communication, just like the word “I”.
It would seem to be more accurate to say that the body is a participant in the experience as opposed to a container.
yes good. It's (part of the) experience right? Experientially is the experience we call body more important in any way than other experiences? I don't mean that the body shouldn't be kept safe and all that, but isn't all experience equal?
This is a powerful thing. What is separate from experience? Isn’t everything experience? What is separate from experience? The idea of a separate me is appearing in experience... but does it exist outside of it?
So the me that only exists as a thought is seeking to convince itself, or clearly see that it doesn’t exist?
okay. But 'me' is also just a label or thought right? Is it more significant as the thought/word 'AKSJDKASJ'? Can this label or thought seek, convince or see? How about there is just the exploring, the investigating, the seeing, thinking, seeing, etc?
The exploring, the investigating, the seeing, thinking, seeing, occuring within experience.
As a teenager there was the exploration of the ability to exercise control over thoughts.... thoughts arise, but i can then choose a different thought. The thought of a zebra arises... but i can choose instead to think of a giraffe. This has served me well in life... the seeming awareness of what is being thought and the ability of the “me” to direct it or change a negative thought into a more positive thought.
Yes, I know what you mean. However, what does 'I' refer to there, which can choose a different thought?
The seeming ability to exercise control completely feeds the notion of “I”.
This witnesser of thought seems to qualify. This witnesser also seems outside of the “me” thought... the impartial witness that doesn’t identify with thought.
Can you point to this witnesser?
Attention. This would be more accurate than witness that implies a separate entity. Can i point to attention? Attention is part of experience?
Attention can seemingly be directed, but if there is no director, who is directing attention? Attention can be directed to thought, or directed to what is occurring in the present moment... attention paid to a feeling, an object, a sensory experience. Attention seems to be able to focus in on smaller portions of the larger experience. The thought that arises, the taste of the beer in glass, the feeling in the body, the array of emotions, etc. but does not have a big “me” thought attached to it.
Floris... what is it that directs attention? There are two cups on the table, one red and one white. Attention can be directed at the red cup and then the white cup. In the direct experience of the red cup there is only seeing of the red cup. When attention is shifted to white cup... a decision is being made with the implication that there is a decider.
If there is no seer who is deciding where to look? Nothing? No decider? There is just looking at red cup or looking at white cup with the illusion of a “me” directing where this attention is placed?
The bigger implication being that life is simply a river of experience over which there is no need to try and exercise control as that is futile, because the controller does not exist. Life just happens as experience . The need for control over events and the judgement / labelling of experience fuels the illusory self.
The surrender of control ...is this what the realization of “no self” is about?
Within experience occurs the ability to make choices. Is this something illusory? Does this ability require a self?
There is a relationship between thought command and movement of finger. The thought “now” can corresponds with beginning of finger movement... the finger moves but thought can command it to stop and start.
Stop. Go. The movement obeys these thought commands.
Yes I understand. But does that mean that thought has actual power?
What is obeying thought?
...apologies for answering questions with questions. Need to keep looking .