Me vs. Reality

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
Florisness
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby Florisness » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:34 pm

Good day mesmer,

Self Identity is attached / made up of the combo of sensory experiences, ideas and narrative thought voice in the head. Have the sense that this is an intellectual position as opposed to a known and living truth.
This is good. And it's fine if it seems mostly intellectual yet.
There is a sense of boundary... the assumption that the sensations are contained or emanating from within the “colored space” or perceived container that i refer to as my body.
Ah, understood. So when you say 'my body', is there a self/seperate entity/person/mesmer to which the body belongs?
Yeah... the sense of boundary is pretty engrained. The interpretation is that the combination of senses has a source that is body and is emanating from that body.
I would say that there is some truth in saying that the body is a source for the experiences. Yet also, if you look for the sources of the sensory experiences, none is found right?
Not a firm boundary. More a diffuse sense of this energy/sensory/ experience emanating from the assumed source that i call “body” and it’s reach feels finite... like a lightbulb in darkness that is brightest at it’s centre and loses brightness as it emanates beyond it’s source.
Okay, understood.
The long held belief that the body is the solid container of experience.
Yes good thing to have observed. And does it seem true or?
Sensations combined with a narrator, interpeter voice speaking in the head.
Yes... head, hands, feet , chest... they all have location and attached thoughts about them.... with me ...”the looking head” ...and the seeming source of the narrative voice, being the command center.
So could it be that the sense or idea of being a person is only that, the sense and the idea of being one? Without there actually being such a thing? Does it seem true that this experience of being a person you might have, is just a constructed/build experience that happened over the years?
If you look for a thinker or owner of thoughts, what do you find? How do they happen, can you tell?
Can you find a command center? What is you move a finger and look how this happens, what do you find? Can you find some thing (a self/entity/person) that is doing it, controlling it?

User avatar
mesmer
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:04 am

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby mesmer » Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:03 am

Need a bit more time to investigate and respond. Thank you for your patience and your continued guidance Floris.

User avatar
mesmer
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:04 am

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby mesmer » Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:10 am

There is a sense of boundary... the assumption that the sensations are contained or emanating from within the “colored space” or perceived container that i refer to as my body.

Ah, understood. So when you say 'my body', is there a self/seperate entity/person/mesmer to which the body belongs?
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.

Yeah... the sense of boundary is pretty engrained. The interpretation is that the combination of senses has a source that is body and is emanating from that body.
I would say that there is some truth in saying that the body is a source for the experiences. Yet also, if you look for the sources of the sensory experiences, none is found right?
In the earlier direct looking exercises, i could find no doer in the sensory experience... finding the source of the sensory experience seems a different question. If there is just experience with no experiencer, what is the source of experience?

I don’t know. I have no idea.

Not a firm boundary. More a diffuse sense of this energy/sensory/ experience emanating from the assumed source that i call “body” and it’s reach feels finite... like a lightbulb in darkness that is brightest at it’s centre and loses brightness as it emanates beyond it’s source.
Okay, understood.
The long held belief that the body is the solid container of experience.
Yes good thing to have observed. And does it seem true or?
It would seem to be more accurate to say that the body is a participant in the experience as opposed to a container.

Sensations combined with a narrator, interpeter voice speaking in the head.
Yes... head, hands, feet , chest... they all have location and attached thoughts about them.... with me ...”the looking head” ...and the seeming source of the narrative voice, being the command center.
So could it be that the sense or idea of being a person is only that, the sense and the idea of being one? Without there actually being such a thing?
There is experience. This is true. The identifying with experience and calling it a me... is it true that this process could only occur in thought? Where else would this process of identification be occurring? No answer is coming up. If the me only exists as an idea or thought... or an identification with thought/ experience...then it is not real.

Yet the belief in the “me” still remains as the default setting .

So the me that only exists as a thought is seeking to convince itself, or clearly see that it doesn’t exist?

Does it seem true that this experience of being a person you might have, is just a constructed/build experience that happened over the years?
Yes. I see the truth in that. The default “me” setting however, has yet to crumble.

If you look for a thinker or owner of thoughts, what do you find? How do they happen, can you tell?


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.

So that has reinforced the idea that there is a “me” that exists separate or outside from thought, a witnesser of thought, that can then influence arising thoughts and the emotions that result from thoughts. This concept, of there being a witnesser of thoughts, has helped me greatly and offered tremendous relief, in times when thoughts became intrusive or compulsive.

What is the source of thought? Similar to the question... what is the source of experience? Don’t have an answer.
Can you find a command center?
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.

The default setting of “me” remains as the idea of the command center... the guy behind the curtain operating the all powerful OZ.
What if you move a finger and look how this happens, what do you find? Can you find some thing (a self/entity/person) that is doing it, controlling it?
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.

User avatar
Florisness
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby Florisness » Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:16 am

Okay good work. Also arriving at 'I don't know' is completely fine.

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? 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)?
Does anything have to belong to anything, or could everything just be what it is? 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, '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?

How about the name mesmer, does it belong to anything? If yes, what specifically does it point to? Or could mesmer just be a word or label, not being more meaningfull (in a sense) then 'TRRWQ8Q'? 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:-)
In the earlier direct looking exercises, i could find no doer in the sensory experience... finding the source of the sensory experience seems a different question. If there is just experience with no experiencer, what is the source of experience?
I don’t know. I have no idea.
A fine response, I'm going to leave it at that.
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?
There is experience. This is true. The identifying with experience and calling it a me... is it true that this process could only occur in thought? Where else would this process of identification be occurring? No answer is coming up. If the me only exists as an idea or thought... or an identification with thought/ experience...then it is not real.
good!
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?
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?
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?
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?

User avatar
mesmer
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:04 am

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby mesmer » Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:52 am

Friend Floris... need time to look and respond. Some challenging life circumstance has come up and i must deal with that. Will respond soon. Thanks Floris, waves of gratitude for your continued guidance.

User avatar
Florisness
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby Florisness » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:24 pm

Thank you mesmer. Of course, take your time, I'll see your message coming.

love

User avatar
mesmer
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:04 am

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby mesmer » Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:13 am

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 .

User avatar
Florisness
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby Florisness » Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:59 pm

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?
For the record, I also call thinking (ie ideas, fantasies, other thoughts) experience,You say, 'the idea of a separate me is appearing in experience', but isn't it itself experience? And then, how could experience exist outside of experience?
Yes. Seeing this truth. Mesmer is a handy tool for communication, just like the word “I”.
:-)
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.
Is entity also not just a label, not pointing to an actual thing, but useful for communication?
seeing what is going on is enough. Is that "me" actually directing the show? Isn't what your label me is pointing to there also experience? Is experience directing experience? If we compare our experience to a television screen on which a movie is playing, is the character on the screen directing anything? Is there even a character?
.... Oddly enough i had a Tante TRRWQ8Q... popular dutch name that. :)
ha, funny. You should hear the names we give to our uncles.. Oh wait, you don't know I'm dutch I think, you are talking about you? Ook een Nederlander? If so, feel free to switch to Dutch.
The exploring, the investigating, the seeing, thinking, seeing, occuring within experience.
yes, but you would also agree they ARE experience right?
The seeming ability to exercise control completely feeds the notion of “I”.

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?
Some good thinking here. No on this forum it's not about surrendering control, but just the often gradual not-finding what you assumed was there. So there is really not a big leap still to make, only to keep going!
Are you suggesting that if there is or isn't control determines if there is a separate self? To answer your question somewhat, I would guess there is free will, but that is speculative. But can you see that if there is free will, it 'belongs' to life (because can you find anything else?) or spirit/soul, and not to a separate entity, because there is no such entity to which it can belong.

User avatar
mesmer
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:04 am

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby mesmer » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:25 am

For the record, I also call thinking (ie ideas, fantasies, other thoughts) experience,You say, 'the idea of a separate me is appearing in experience', but isn't it itself experience? And then, how could experience exist outside of experience?
Yes. What i am saying is that the experience of believing in separate self is, of course, occurring within experience. No separate self can exist outside of experience. Nothing exists outside or separate from experience. This is making sense.

Is entity also not just a label, not pointing to an actual thing, but useful for communication?
Yes. Entity, Mesmer, Me... all labels that are not the actual thing. They of course imply that there is something like a separate me. But if this “me” is not separate from experience... then there can be no separate me. It can only exist as an idea... right?
Seeing that there is nothing separate from experience and having earlier direct experience of not finding a “doer” of experience is resonating.
seeing what is going on is enough. Is that "me" actually directing the show?
Need to look deeper at that... the notions of ”self determination” and the seeming ability to exercise control props up this director.

Isn't what your label me is pointing to there also experience?
The “me” must be part of experience.

Is experience directing experience?
Good question! Is that possible or necessary? I am not sure. Hard for my mind to grasp some of this.

If we compare our experience to a television screen on which a movie is playing, is the character on the screen directing anything?
Just playing a role.
Is there even a character?
In the imaginary sense.

.
Oddly enough i had a Tante TRRWQ8Q... popular dutch name that. :)


ha, funny. You should hear the names we give to our uncles.. Oh wait, you don't know I'm dutch I think, you are talking about you? Ook een Nederlander? If so, feel free to switch to Dutch.
Have lovely Dutch parents who moved to Canada 60 years ago. I understand spoken Dutch but cannot write it. Wonderful that you are “ook een Nederlander” .
The exploring, the investigating, the seeing, thinking, seeing, occuring within experience.
yes, but you would also agree they ARE experience right?
Yes.

Some good thinking here. No on this forum it's not about surrendering control, but just the often gradual not-finding what you assumed was there. So there is really not a big leap still to make, only to keep going!
Are you suggesting that if there is or isn't control determines if there is a separate self?
Well yes. If i remove the need for control, then there would be less reason to maintain a “self” that is in control. The sense of control being exercised is strong, demonstrated by the act of making choices, and gives evidence that there is a separate controller “me” . Perhaps “choice” and “control” are more concepts in the head that require a “doer” to exist...very thought driven, where the act of direct experience with the senses, sight, touch etc. are less thought driven and the “doer” vanishes into direct experience. This is speculative on my part.
To answer your question somewhat, I would guess there is free will, but that is speculative. But can you see that if there is free will, it 'belongs' to life (because can you find anything else?) or spirit/soul, and not to a separate entity, because there is no such entity to which it can belong.
I need to look at this... or this needs to sink in more... free will , or sense of control, existing, but not belonging to anything.

User avatar
mesmer
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:04 am

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby mesmer » Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:13 am

The process of dis-identification with thought would be a direct route to dismantling belief in the “me” ...is there truth to this?

User avatar
Florisness
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby Florisness » Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:50 pm

Yes. What i am saying is that the experience of believing in separate self is, of course, occurring within experience. No separate self can exist outside of experience. Nothing exists outside or separate from experience. This is making sense.
Okay!
Yes. Entity, Mesmer, Me... all labels that are not the actual thing. They of course imply that there is something like a separate me. But if this “me” is not separate from experience... then there can be no separate me. It can only exist as an idea... right?
Seeing that there is nothing separate from experience and having earlier direct experience of not finding a “doer” of experience is resonating.
Good. If we take all the senses plus thinking and call this all experience or experiencing, is there more for you then that? And if no separate self is found as part of the experience, then to use different words we could say that you don't experience a separate self, agreed? And if there is no separate self for you there, how could you possibly be one?
Need to look deeper at that... the notions of ”self determination” and the seeming ability to exercise control props up this director.
I would suggest, for if you drive a car, or perhaps do some cooking or the like, to observe how it is happening. Look for a doer of it. Would love to hear your thoughts on your findings.
Is experience directing experience?
Good question! Is that possible or necessary? I am not sure. Hard for my mind to grasp some of this.
Okay, if you have a sense that a part of your experience (perhaps certain thoughts or sensations) might be controlling, directing, pushing, etc. Try to look at it more literally, is this sensation (or thought, etc) literally controlling something? Or perhaps the thought (or sensation) is only 'thoughting', or 'being itself'?
Next time you see a dog, or a person, a bird or any 'entity' look if that experience you're having is literally doing/directing something. Is the experience of sight that we label dog really doing something, is the color (if you're seeing a dog, the experience 'dog 'is 'made of' color) barking? Or is just the sight experience we call dog there, and the barking (as sound) also just there? Is the color/seeing causing the sounds? Are the sensations that feel like me really doing or causing anything, or is it perhaps on the same level as other experiences?
Well yes. If i remove the need for control, then there would be less reason to maintain a “self” that is in control. The sense of control being exercised is strong, demonstrated by the act of making choices, and gives evidence that there is a separate controller “me” . Perhaps “choice” and “control” are more concepts in the head that require a “doer” to exist...very thought driven, where the act of direct experience with the senses, sight, touch etc. are less thought driven and the “doer” vanishes into direct experience. This is speculative on my part.
Okay yes that's true. Although you're talking about self now as the constructed experience that we sometimes call self. But this is not a real self, do you see? I'll try to illustrate. Imagine you're born without any self, everything is open and one. note: This might not be the same experience as someone who's awake, but let's put that aside. Now someone gives the idea to that being/soul/awareness that it is worthless and all that, so the awareness/soul/spirit/life contracts around the body, because it creates a trauma/tensions and stores that in the body. This can cause such contraction that it can start to feel like you're a body. Now how you used the word self is just this experience of tensions and thoughts, it's not a real self. What are your thoughts on this?
The process of dis-identification with thought would be a direct route to dismantling belief in the “me” ...is there truth to this?
Yes disidentification with thought, or with other words unclinging from thought IS the dismanting of 'the self', because the self is just the tension/clinging so unclinging is untensing/deselfing :-) How is that, does it resonate a bit?

User avatar
mesmer
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:04 am

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby mesmer » Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:57 am

Sorry. Difficult times on this end... still dealing with life challenges that have arisen. Know that your guidance has brought some peace into the situation and is so very helpful. Will respond when able. Thank you friend Floris.

User avatar
Florisness
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby Florisness » Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:14 pm

Sorry. Difficult times on this end... still dealing with life challenges that have arisen. Know that your guidance has brought some peace into the situation and is so very helpful. Will respond when able. Thank you friend Floris.
Dear mesmer/Martin, thank you for your nice message. Of course, take your time, I'll not run away :) Perhaps a nice thing to be reminded of is that difficult times are often or always a blessing in disguise, it can just take a while to see it.
Wishing you well,

User avatar
mesmer
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 1:04 am

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby mesmer » Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:40 am

Of course, take your time, I'll not run away :) Perhaps a nice thing to be reminded of is that difficult times are often or always a blessing in disguise, it can just take a while to see it.
Wishing you well,
Thank you for kind words Floris
Good. If we take all the senses plus thinking and call this all experience or experiencing, is there more for you then that? And if no separate self is found as part of the experience, then to use different words we could say that you don't experience a separate self, agreed? And if there is no separate self for you there, how could you possibly be one?
This makes clear sense. There is a softening of the grip of the notion of self. The idea of self is not a precious thing to me... but who is that “me” that remains to make that judgement? A lot of practiced conditioning that has always identified with the bundle of thought / experience. This does not easily or immediately drop away with the insight on how the sense of self has been constructed.
I would suggest, for if you drive a car, or perhaps do some cooking or the like, to observe how it is happening. Look for a doer of it. Would love to hear your thoughts on your findings.
Will continue with this practice... the earlier direct experience exercises continue to resonate.
Okay, if you have a sense that a part of your experience (perhaps certain thoughts or sensations) might be controlling, directing, pushing, etc. Try to look at it more literally, is this sensation (or thought, etc) literally controlling something? Or perhaps the thought (or sensation) is only 'thoughting', or 'being itself'?
Yes. Thought is in love with the idea or belief that it is exercising control.
Next time you see a dog, or a person, a bird or any 'entity' look if that experience you're having is literally doing/directing something. Is the experience of sight that we label dog really doing something, is the color (if you're seeing a dog, the experience 'dog 'is 'made of' color) barking? Or is just the sight experience we call dog there, and the barking (as sound) also just there? Is the color/seeing causing the sounds? Are the sensations that feel like me really doing or causing anything, or is it perhaps on the same level as other experiences?
This resonates. Would be a radical shift in perception to truthfully experience this directly and consistently.
If i remove the need for control, then there would be less reason to maintain a “self” that is in control. The sense of control being exercised is strong, demonstrated by the act of making choices, and gives evidence that there is a separate controller “me” . Perhaps “choice” and “control” are more concepts in the head that require a “doer” to exist...very thought driven, where the act of direct experience with the senses, sight, touch etc. are less thought driven and the “doer” vanishes into direct experience. This is speculative on my part.

Okay yes that's true. Although you're talking about self now as the constructed experience that we sometimes call self. But this is not a real self, do you see? I'll try to illustrate. Imagine you're born without any self, everything is open and one. note: This might not be the same experience as someone who's awake, but let's put that aside. Now someone gives the idea to that being/soul/awareness that it is worthless and all that, so the awareness/soul/spirit/life contracts around the body, because it creates a trauma/tensions and stores that in the body. This can cause such contraction that it can start to feel like you're a body. Now how you used the word self is just this experience of tensions and thoughts, it's not a real self. What are your thoughts on this?
This resonates... tension, thought, conditioning, clinging all contributing to illusion of self.
Yes disidentification with thought, or with other words unclinging from thought IS the dismanting of 'the self', because the self is just the tension/clinging so unclinging is untensing/deselfing :-) How is that, does it resonate a bit?
Yes....very much.
Untensing / deselfing is the process that needs to deepen here.

As always.... thank you friend Floris

User avatar
Florisness
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:51 pm

Re: Me vs. Reality

Postby Florisness » Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:57 pm

This makes clear sense. There is a softening of the grip of the notion of self. The idea of self is not a precious thing to me... but who is that “me” that remains to make that judgement? A lot of practiced conditioning that has always identified with the bundle of thought / experience. This does not easily or immediately drop away with the insight on how the sense of self has been constructed.
"who is that "me" that remains to make that judgement?", well, you tell me, what (or who) is it? Can you find a me making a judgement? Is there still an identity woven around the idea of a "me"?
This resonates. Would be a radical shift in perception to truthfully experience this directly and consistently.
Well next time you hear someone talking, when you see him/her or don't see him/her, check if you can find a cause for the sound/voice, or if there just seems to be the sound 'floating' there.
Untensing / deselfing is the process that needs to deepen here.
That surely sounds nice yes. But just to be clear, this forum just wants to bring people the recognition that there is no such thing as a self, this is not the same as the full dissolving of self/untensing/deselfing. What do you say, is there a self? Yes, no, maybe? Is there doubt left?

I'll just ask some questions here to see your response. Yes or no is sufficient if you feel confident. You could also state I don't know, which is equally fine. Of course, you probably have a sense of what you think should be the 'right' answer, but respond with what feels true for you.
- is there a martin/separate self/person?
- is what we call the body living life, is it conscious/experiencing?
- is there something inside the body (a self) that is living life/experiencing or controlling?
- Is there an in- and outside to your experience?
- is there a controlling center somewhere, for example in what we call the head?
- how does anything happen like the bodies action, or thoughts?


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest