Jump to content

Conversation with Phil on waking up


Recommended Posts

I've been messaging Phil trying to dig into a few things & he thought it might be useful to post the messages as a thread. I still have some way to understanding but am hoping to get clearer on this. I'll lay the questions/answers out on this first post:

 

Me:

Hi Phil, I’ve just finished setting up my life to do consciousness work & like to keep my practices simple. Do nothing meditation with self inquiry is my preferred path, with exercise & yoga. Your description of self enquiry here:   https://www.actualityofbeing.com/self-inquiry is the best I’ve seen and would suit my approach perfectly. When you say ‘Place your attention on the inner feeling of being "me”, I think I get that, there’s definitely that feeling around my chest/head area - a feeling of knowing that I am. Is that what you mean to rest my attention on and keep coming back to?

 

Phil:

Not the feeling of knowing… just feeling.

It might be more clarifying to point out that ‘place your attention’ is a half step. The full step would be seeing through “attention”, and might sound like allow attention to sink into the source of “attention”.

It might also be fruitful to explore sensation prior to the do nothing or self inquiry. This is essentially asking, ‘is there the presence of sensation in the bottoms of the feet?’

Then it is noticed directly, that there is.

Then inwardly explore, ‘is this presence of sensation present throughout the entire body?’

Then it is noticed directly that it is.

Then inwardly explore, attempting to find an ‘edge’ of sensation. Precisely where sensation begins and or ends.

Then, take sensation off altogether, just like you would a pair of shoes or a jacket. Just set sensation aside. 

 

Me:

Thanks Phil, very much appreciated 🙂

Lastly, although I prefer your method, some people suggest that self enquiry is continual questioning of the what the self is and gradually eliminating what it is not. Is this a different method to yours?

 

Phil:

That would be contemplating or contemplation.

In self inquiry every thought is let go / the ‘answer’ is not going to be of thoughts. 

In do nothing, even letting a thought go would be a doing.

Neti neti is a practice of labeling ‘not this’, ‘not that’. 

 

Me:

Perfect, thanks Phil. I want to keep things simple - am I right that self enquiry & do-nothing meditation is all that’s needed? 

 

Phil:

Needed for what?  🙂

 

Me:

For awakening, to go through the process that you’ve gone through.

 

Phil:

Is that known, or believed?

 

Me:

Believed 🙂. My experience is that that Phil, this forum & anything outside my direct experience is imaginary. But I have a desire for more awakening and to pursue truth at a deeper level. This is all imaginary too of course, but putting that aside for a moment & allowing for second order practicality, I want to ‘fully’ awaken before I die, whatever that is. Of course I don’t even know what that is at present, I only can know that I’m in a much more awakened state than I used to be & there’s room for more awakening still.  Allowing for the understanding that that’s also a mental projection, but one I have to rely on to some degree to peruse more awakening. 

 

Phil:

That’s still believing it (whatever could be outside direct experience) is, but covering up the belief with the belief it’s imaginary.  The first belief is my experience is (known). ‘Imagining away’ thought attachment doesn’t resolve thought attachment. 

Self inquire. Who has a desire? Desire is a thing you have? You’re a thing?

The thing you are is in a state?  Like, Ohio? What’s a “mental projection”? 

 

Me:

OK I feel I have some way to go. As I get quieter and more present, it certainly feels like now is all there is and that even though I *feel* I know there's stuff outside that experience, i.e the garden, local town etc. they are not pictured in my experience. It feels like I've was previously carrying a 'world' inside my head that has disappeard and I'm not living that way any more. From what you're saying, this is definitely not 'it' and I haven't seen the truth of it - am I right that there's a step further that means the outside world really *doesn't* exist in actual fact, i.e. 100% unreal? For example I feel like I can walk into town now if I wanted to and experience all the shops - but that's all fantasy and can never happen? So there really *is* no town? It's all in my imagination and has no reality to it at all?

 

So this is where we're at with the conversation. Apologies if I personally only answer to Phil as I'm hoping to take it further with him..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Floorcat said:

OK I feel I have some way to go. As I get quieter and more present, it certainly feels like now is all there is and that even though I *feel* I know there's stuff outside that experience, i.e the garden, local town etc. they are not pictured in my experience.

‘I feel I have’. Is there one I which is feeling a second I which has some way to go?

‘I feel I know’. Is there one I which is feeling a second I which knows there’s stuff outside of direct experience?

Is there ‘a knower’, which is felt, in direct experience? 

Are any of these I’s in any way in direct experience? 

 

51 minutes ago, Floorcat said:

It feels like I've was previously carrying a 'world' inside my head that has disappeard and I'm not living that way any more.

Who is not living that way anymore?

Who is surviving / living? 

Where is that who in direct experience; in perception, in sensation? Where is that self? 

 

51 minutes ago, Floorcat said:

From what you're saying, this is definitely not 'it' and I haven't seen the truth of it - am I right that there's a step further that means the outside world really *doesn't* exist in actual fact, i.e. 100% unreal? For example I feel like I can walk into town now if I wanted to and experience all the shops - but that's all fantasy and can never happen? So there really *is* no town? It's all in my imagination and has no reality to it at all?

Where is the idea ‘it’s all in my imagination’ coming from? Did it arise of investigating direct experience?

Seems like there is a cumbersome unnecessary desire or need to ‘fit that into’ direct experience. 

How does that fit in with direct experience, other than being (thoughts) beliefs?

 

If you’re imagining X, simply stop imagining X, and see of there is any difference. If there isn’t, contemplate if there was a believing of thoughts, rather than an imagining. Also consider it’s entirely possible that what’s being imagined, is that there isn’t the believing of thoughts. That might be an experience of denial and self deception. Also, imagine Y, and see if Y is then present in direct experience, other than the imagining of. 

 

If there’s a step further, who is taking steps, and in which direction further should or would said who go?

 

Is there an outside world beyond direct experience which may or may not exist… or is there the direct experience of thoughts of an inside and outside, and of existence and nonexistence, and of a self which might or might not be right? 

 

Has it been open-mindedly considered that perhaps not-direct experience is infinite knowing - for which there are not things, and therein, no ‘things’ to known or which could be known?

Are there ‘things’ inside direct experience, or perhaps an experience of thoughts (that there are things)?

Are ‘inside & outside’ experienced in perception or sensation?

 

It’s being said, considered really, that ‘it’s all in my imagination and has no reality to it’. 

Is what reality is known, such that it can earnestly be said there is that which has no reality to it?

If ‘it’s all in my imagination and has no reality to it’, you should rightfully in accordance be able to imagine ‘it’ has reality to it, and then it would. 

Or, perhaps, imagination is again, for some reason, being attempted to be included somehow in direct experience…?

The most clarifying question would imo be, what is that reason?

Is it believed the truth is going to be realized by imagining?

Whatever that would be, wouldn’t it be accurate to say, you’re just imaging that?

 

55 minutes ago, Floorcat said:

I only can know that I’m in a much more awakened state than I used to be

What’s being said is there are two selves, one which is present, observable and in a state, and another one which is in a past, observable and in a state. Then there is a comparison being made between these two selves in states, and an arriving at a conclusion the present observable self is in a more awakened state, than the past observable self. So again I would question, are these selves actually observed, are these states, or any state actually observed. What is this state referred to that one or both of these selves is in.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Phil said:

‘I feel I have’. Is there one I which is feeling a second I which has some way to go?

‘I feel I know’. Is there one I which is feeling a second I which knows there’s stuff outside of direct experience?

Is there ‘a knower’, which is felt, in direct experience? 

Are any of these I’s in any way in direct experience? 

Hmm. There's a apparent sensation of 'I', but it doesn't seem concrete in any way other than it feels separate, and often insecure and exposed. There doesn't seem to be an I watching this I other than the I youre talking about is apparent, I guess there's a pre-recognition that it exists, an unspoken awareness of all that's going on. But awareness of that doesn't make the feeling of me go away..

18 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Who is not living that way anymore?

Who is surviving / living? 

Where is that who in direct experience; in perception, in sensation? Where is that self? 

It doesn't seem to have a fixed place. It's sometimes in my head & sometimes lower down. But it doesn't seem to have anything about it to pin down as a quality except the feeling of me and all the emotions & conflicing feelings that go along with it.

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

Where is the idea ‘it’s all in my imagination’ coming from? Did it arise of investigating direct experience?

Seems like there is a cumbersome unnecessary desire or need to ‘fit that into’ direct experience. 

How does that fit in with direct experience, other than being (thoughts) beliefs?

The quieter my mind gets, it seems that, in the moment there's less & less aware of the what's not in direct experience. But of course the me is still there at the centre of it all

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

If you’re imagining X, simply stop imagining X, and see of there is any difference. If there isn’t, contemplate if there was a believing of thoughts, rather than an imagining. Also consider it’s entirely possible that what’s being imagined, is that there isn’t the believing of thoughts. That might be an experience of denial and self deception. Also, imagine Y, and see if Y is then present in direct experience, other than the imagining of. 

 

If there’s a step further, who is taking steps, and in which direction further should or would said who go?

I'm not sure I understand, I'll have a think and come back to this one.  All that's apparent is that when I started meditation there was much more confusion and a swirling of elements and after 6 months, most of this has gone & the moment is mostly filled with what's in my present experience. Bothe experiences are very different.

18 hours ago, Phil said:

Is there an outside world beyond direct experience which may or may not exist… or is there the direct experience of thoughts of an inside and outside, and of existence and nonexistence, and of a self which might or might not be right? 

The second:

There's the direct experience of thoughts of an inside and outside, and of existence and nonexistence, and of a self which might or might not be right? Does that mean anything I'm not even remotely thinking of doesn't in fact exist?

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

Has it been open-mindedly considered that perhaps not-direct experience is infinite knowing - for which there are not things, and therein, no ‘things’ to known or which could be known?

I get a faint idea of what you mean. Prior to the thinking things just are. I can be aware of that to some extent - but perhaps that becomes much more apparent after more meditation?

18 hours ago, Phil said:

Are there ‘things’ inside direct experience, or perhaps an experience of thoughts (that there are things)?

Are ‘inside & outside’ experienced in perception or sensation?

The body just feels like a vague mass of sensation that can be zoned in on according to body part - but still a field of sensation. There doesn't seem to be a hard line/barrier between this and the outside, except when I look down at my body I mentally create the barrier.

18 hours ago, Phil said:

It’s being said, considered really, that ‘it’s all in my imagination and has no reality to it’. 

Is what reality is known, such that it can earnestly be said there is that which has no reality to it?

If ‘it’s all in my imagination and has no reality to it’, you should rightfully in accordance be able to imagine ‘it’ has reality to it, and then it would. 

Or, perhaps, imagination is again, for some reason, being attempted to be included somehow in direct experience…?

The most clarifying question would imo be, what is that reason?

Is it believed the truth is going to be realized by imagining?

Whatever that would be, wouldn’t it be accurate to say, you’re just imaging that?

 

What’s being said is there are two selves, one which is present, observable and in a state, and another one which is in a past, observable and in a state. Then there is a comparison being made between these two selves in states, and an arriving at a conclusion the present observable self is in a more awakened state, than the past observable self. So again I would question, are these selves actually observed, are these states, or any state actually observed. What is this state referred to that one or both of these selves is in.

I don't think the first self that is present and in a state exists does it? Isn't there an unspoken awareness? So more and more meditation allows this to become more apparent?

 

Apologies for the formatting, I messed it up a bit!

18 hours ago, Phil said:

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Edited by Floorcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Floorcat said:

Hmm. There's an apparent sensation of 'I', but it doesn't seem concrete in any way other than it feels separate, and often insecure and exposed. There doesn't seem to be an I watching this I other than the I youre talking about is apparent, I guess there's a pre-recognition that it exists, an unspoken awareness of all that's going on. But awareness of that doesn't make the feeling of me go away..

What’s a “sensation of I”? 

Sensation, or a thought about sensation?

 

1 hour ago, Floorcat said:

It doesn't seem to have a fixed place. It's sometimes in my head & sometimes lower down. But it doesn't seem to have anything about it to pin down as a quality except the feeling of me and all the emotions & conflicing feelings that go along with it.

What’s “the feeling of me”, and  “conflicting feelings”?

Feeling, or thoughts about feeling?

 

Self Inquiry

 

1 hour ago, Floorcat said:

The quieter my mind gets, it seems that, in the moment there's less & less aware of the what's not in direct experience. But of course the me is still there at the centre of it all

Is there ever awareness of what is not in direct experience?

Isn’t there just, less thoughts?

 

2 hours ago, Floorcat said:

I'm not sure I understand, I'll have a think and come back to this one.  All that's apparent is that when I started meditation there was much more confusion and a swirling of elements and after 6 months, most of this has gone & the moment is mostly filled with what's in my present experience. Bothe experiences are very different.

There seems to be an agenda to fit imagination in. Doesn’t seem like it’s fitting. 

Is there that past experience and this present experience?

 

2 hours ago, Floorcat said:

The second:

There's the direct experience of thoughts of an inside and outside, and of existence and nonexistence, and of a self which might or might not be right? Does that mean anything I'm not even remotely thinking of doesn't in fact exist?

Where is the thinker in direct experience?

 

2 hours ago, Floorcat said:

I get a faint idea of what you mean. Prior to the thinking things just are. I can be aware of that to some extent - but perhaps that becomes much more apparent after more meditation?

That never becomes apparent, it’s the activity of thought, which settles meditatively. This is apparent. 

That things are prior to thinking, is a thought. An assumption. 

 

2 hours ago, Floorcat said:

I don't think the first self that is present and in a state exists does it? Isn't there an unspoken awareness? So more and more meditation allows this to become more apparent?

What’s apparent is already apparent, what’s illusory is already illusory, what’s real is already what’s real. 

States of consciousness is the activity of thought, which settles meditatively. 

Where is the thinker?

Where is the knower?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Phil said:

What’s a “sensation of I”? 

Sensation, or a thought about sensation?

What’s “the feeling of me”, and  “conflicting feelings”?

Feeling, or thoughts about feeling?

 

Self Inquiry

This isn what's always confused me: In your self inquiry instructions:

 

4. Place your attention on the inner feeling of being "me."
5. If a thought does arise, ask yourself to whom this thought is occurring, as this returns your attention to the feeling of being "me."

This practice of turning awareness back upon itself, prior to the ‘I’..

 

Doesn't that imply there's a feeling of 'me' that we're turning our attention to in the method?

But it also says that we're turning our attention back to awareness which is prior to the I..

So which is the 'me' in the technique?

 

Perhaps the I/me IS just a thought about me rather than a defined entity, I'm going to have to go into that more. But I'm confused which me to rest my attention on with self inquiry.

4 hours ago, Phil said:

Is there ever awareness of what is not in direct experience?

Isn’t there just, less thoughts?

You're right - but why is there a feeling of dropping a psychological 'world', a big relief and clarity? Maybe that's just my unusual interpretation.

4 hours ago, Phil said:

There seems to be an agenda to fit imagination in. Doesn’t seem like it’s fitting. 

Is there that past experience and this present experience?

It seems like it - doesn't one start with a busy monkey mind and eventually the mind gets peaceful? /that's been my experience.

4 hours ago, Phil said:

Where is the thinker in direct experience?

Apart from getting a vague feeling of a centre around the head area, there doesn't seem to be anything tangible there apart from the thoughts, which appear by themselves out of thin air - and also occur purposefully and deliberately , like when trying to solve a problem etc.

4 hours ago, Phil said:

That never becomes apparent, it’s the activity of thought, which settles meditatively. This is apparent. 

That things are prior to thinking, is a thought. An assumption. 

Got it.

4 hours ago, Phil said:

What’s apparent is already apparent, what’s illusory is already illusory, what’s real is already what’s real. 

States of consciousness is the activity of thought, which settles meditatively. 

Where is the thinker?

Where is the knower?

I can't pin one down, except a sense of knowing when there's no thoughts - is that sense of knowing it? It feels like me. Still coming from my head though. This relates to Ramana's and your instructions and frustrates me so much - what is this I that needs to be rested in? That state of 'knowing' without thought?

 

Edited by Floorcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Floorcat said:

So which is the 'me' in the technique?

What the words or thoughts ‘feeling’ & ‘awareness’ point to.

“Which” implies more than one me. Is there?

In implies ‘would or could be found in (some thing). 

 

Is the ‘me which is confused’ actually present, or are there thoughts about a me which is confused?

Is there any actual experience of time, or is there the thought of a self in time - a self which is always confused (by x, y or z)?

As this is noticed - that a ‘self in time’ is the activity of thought -  is there still “confusion” - now

Is there anything or anyone which is not, now? 

Is there a self which was in a past but is now present? 

Or do thoughts arise now, about there being a past, and a ‘self’ therein?

 

9 hours ago, Floorcat said:

Doesn't that imply there's a feeling of 'me' that we're turning our attention to in the method?

But it also says that we're turning our attention back to awareness which is prior to the I..

So which is the 'me' in the technique?

“Your attention”, “our attention”, “my attention” - simply even “attention” do / does imply a duality of self & attention. That implied duality is only implied by communication, language - thought.

 

Notice the ever so slight tension, of the believing of the thought self has attention - notice the notion or implication that there even is some thing called: “attention”. Some “experience” of a me and a thing or world upon which “my attention” is cast or is placed upon and withdrawn from. 

 

 

This is a deviation from the practice of self inquiry, kind of an aside, but… “attention” is typically ‘held’ to be ‘my attention’ - an implication of an outward orientation. While attracting - not as an action or doing, but of the inherent nature of being, is an inward orientation. An intrinsic / effortless drawing to, such as with gravity. See if the difference pointed to is felt, as whatever an opposite of tension might be. Perhaps relief, as the end of a big charade. 

 

While it could initially seem outrageous, maybe thought has made it seem as if there is a separate self, perhaps a body, a person, a soul, etc, which is moving through time, doing things, giving attention. A “self of thought”  which has attention which could be placed upon ten thousand things.

 

So to speak, to point, maybe there aren’t things, and all has been attracted all along, and there’s never been a self which thinks, does, moves, etc. What a relief it could be, to forgo a belief of any possibility of ever ‘attending to things’. What a joy it would be to be so unfettered of ‘things’. 

 

9 hours ago, Floorcat said:

Perhaps the I/me IS just a thought about me rather than a defined entity, I'm going to have to go into that more. But I'm confused which me to rest my attention on with self inquiry.

How many me’s are there? Thought seems to imply there are two; one looking and one looked for. One which has attention which could be cast upon or placed upon the other. A this which could ‘go into a that’ more. What is “that”? Isn’t ‘go into more’, also thoughts? Isn’t the ‘one’ which could or would ‘go into thoughts more’, also the activity of thought?

 

9 hours ago, Floorcat said:

You're right - but why is there a feeling of dropping a psychological 'world', a big relief and clarity?

Is ‘dropping a psychological world’ really a feeling?

 

9 hours ago, Floorcat said:

Maybe that's just my unusual interpretation.

 Yes, sounds like an interpretation of feeling, which would be the activity of thought.

Notice, that there is “interpretation” is not an experience of anyone interpreting, but is the thought that there is this “thing”; interpretation. 

When misunderstanding is dispelled - is there “understanding”?

For who?

When misinterpretation is dispelled - is there “interpretation”?

For who?

When knowing is dispelled - is there “not knowing”?

For who?

 

9 hours ago, Floorcat said:

Apart from getting a vague feeling of a centre around the head area, there doesn't seem to be anything tangible there apart from the thoughts, which appear by themselves out of thin air - and also occur purposefully and deliberately , like when trying to solve a problem etc.

Aren’t ‘purposefully’, ‘deliberately’, ‘out of thin air’ & ‘trying to solve a problem’ also thoughts appearing? 

Is “a center around the head area” feeling

If the aim so to speak of self inquiry is the feeling of me, perhaps a ‘vague feeling of a center around the head area’ is a sensation, and thoughts labelling sensation feeling. Offering this as a distinction as to sensation vs the feeling (of being me). 

 

9 hours ago, Floorcat said:

I can't pin one down, except a sense of knowing when there's no thoughts - is that sense of knowing it? It feels like me. Still coming from my head though. This relates to Ramana's and your instructions and frustrates me so much - what is this I that needs to be rested in? That state of 'knowing' without thought?

Does ‘sense’ of knowing refer to sensation of knowing? Or ‘sense’ as in the senses, perception, seeing or hearing… of knowing? Or is ‘sense of knowing’ a thought of / conceptualization of feeling?

And isn’t ‘feeling’ also a conceptualization? 

Isn’t ‘knowing there’s no thoughts’, a thought?

If there were knowing there’s no thoughts, even that would be known. 

Likewise, is there a ‘me which is frustrated’ in direct experience, or is there an emotion experienced, frustration?

’The I that needs to be rested in’ implies a second self, the ‘rester’, or, the ‘state chaser’. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it’s clear now. Anything that I point to, refer to or describe is just thought, even ‘awareness’ or ‘presence’.  All speculation is pointless other than to point out it’s just thought

 

So the only practical thing to be done is a lot of meditation, do-nothing sitting. No point speculating about it further, surely?
 

(If that sounds rude I don’t mean it to be, very much appreciate your input).

 

 

Edited by Floorcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way? I felt that since ‘I’ can’t fathom this at the moment as there’s nothing to fathom, I just need to allow what’s there to be more apparent by getting thoughts out of the way. Sounds like this isn’t the right idea 🙂
 

looks like it’s me trying to avoid the issue then. I’ll turn back to it - I just don’t know - is the sense  of knowing really just a thought? Yes on reflection I think it is. So what can be ‘other’ than the thoughts and feelings that occur. This is what I’m trying to get to but foils me every time. It’s like I’m trying to look for something that isn’t the thoughts or the feeling of me, but it’s elusive. Perhaps I shouldn’t even be looking for something ‘other’?

 

I read supposedly awakened people say there’s some background awareness/consciousness that contains everything, some expansive unknowable something without form or quality, but when I try & glimpse it, all I’m glimpsing are my own thoughts of it, which I think must be a hint, but always just turns out to be false. 

Your statement “Notice the ever so slight tension, of the believing of the thought self has attention - notice the notion or implication that there even is some thing called: “attention”. Some “experience” of a me and a thing or world upon which “my attention” is cast or is placed upon and withdrawn from. ” is very interesting. Yes there is a slight tension involved in looking - it looks like I’m splitting myself in two in an effort to see something, but only seeing more thoughts & images that I’m myself creating. What’s behind all this. You and others say what is thinking etc,  but I never find an answer or get an insight into  anything. 

 

Edited by Floorcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Floorcat said:

In what way?

 

On 1/24/2023 at 8:29 AM, Floorcat said:

Yes, it’s clear now. Anything that I point to, refer to or describe is just thought, even ‘awareness’ or ‘presence’.  All speculation is pointless other than to point out it’s just thought

Speculation is indeed pointless. But anything pointed to, referred to or described isn’t just a thought. A thought is a thought. Thoughts appear and are believed as labels of separate things. Beliefs of separate things implies a separate self. Subject object thoughts.

 

Self Inquiry wise, those thoughts, any thoughts, are not the ‘answer’.

Inspection wise, all thoughts & beliefs can be inspected and only the ‘answer’ can possibly remain.  

 

On 1/24/2023 at 8:29 AM, Floorcat said:

So the only practical thing to be done is a lot of meditation, do-nothing sitting. No point speculating about it further, surely?

Thoughts arise about an I that points, refers, describes, does, meditates, is speculating, etc. 

Self referential thoughts.

 

Inspection wise, inspect. Meditation wise, meditate. Self Inquiry wise, let all thoughts go as thoughts aren’t ‘the answer’. 

If it is ‘grasped’ just how sneaky thought is, you’ve been fooled yet again. 

 

On 1/24/2023 at 8:29 AM, Floorcat said:

(If that sounds rude I don’t mean it to be, very much appreciate your input).

It’s ok. Feel free to be. It really doesn’t matter. Expression matters. 

 

 

18 hours ago, Floorcat said:

In what way? I felt that since ‘I’ can’t fathom this at the moment as there’s nothing to fathom, I just need to allow what’s there to be more apparent by getting thoughts out of the way. Sounds like this isn’t the right idea 🙂
 

Sincerely imagine, viscerally, being on a game show right now with the opportunity to win ten million dollars by answer one simple question. Really, really, really picture this. Take five seconds out of your busy work and fantasize unabashedly. Feel how amazing it would feel to win that ten million dollars. Then imagine the host is now looking to you as she asks the ten million dollar question…  ‘who… are you talking about’?  

 

And as a follow up, for a bonus million… ‘how is what’s there going to be more apparent, if you’re here and never experience a there’?

 

Then imagine you indeed give the correct answer to both questions, and have just won eleven million dollars. Ticker tape & confetti is pouring from the rafters, gameshow lights are flashing & sirens are blaring, the crowd is going absolutely nuts as no one has ever won before, and you’re experiencing a full on blissful body buzz thrill-ride so full of excitement and anticipation for what’s to come that you couldn’t care less and wouldn’t even know who you were talking about in the first place.

 

Now contemplate, if you had to choose between the feeling and the money, which would you choose?

 

18 hours ago, Floorcat said:

looks like it’s me trying to avoid the issue then. I’ll turn back to it - I just don’t know - is the sense  of knowing really just a thought?

What’s ‘the issue’?

Who or what’s avoiding? 

 

18 hours ago, Floorcat said:

Yes on reflection I think it is. So what can be ‘other’ than the thoughts and feelings that occur. This is what I’m trying to get to but foils me every time. It’s like I’m trying to look for something that isn’t the thoughts or the feeling of me, but it’s elusive.

What are “these feelings”? 

Could you name ‘them’?

 

18 hours ago, Floorcat said:

Perhaps I shouldn’t even be looking for something ‘other’?

Well, it’s not ‘Other Inquiry’. 🙂 

 

18 hours ago, Floorcat said:

 

I read supposedly awakened people say there’s some background awareness/consciousness that contains everything, some expansive unknowable something without form or quality, but when I try & glimpse it, all I’m glimpsing are my own thoughts of it, which I think must be a hint, but always just turns out to be false. 

Yes, thoughts come & go, appear & disappear. If you look for the truth in a magic show, you’ll be fooled every time. 

Perception also comes & goes, appears & disappears. Simply close your eyes, and it’s gone, isn’t it so in direct experience? 

Do you believe the moon, or for that matter the back of your head is ‘there’ (wherever or whatever that might be) when you aren’t looking at it?

Why?

 

Are ‘you’ really even “looking”?

Where’s that ‘you’?

If so, stop. Stop ‘looking’. 

Any discernible difference?

Maybe you aren’t looking at all. 

 

Are ‘you’ ‘hearing’ too?

Stop it. 

Any difference?

 

If a tree falls in the woods…

 

18 hours ago, Floorcat said:

Your statement “Notice the ever so slight tension, of the believing of the thought self has attention - notice the notion or implication that there even is some thing called: “attention”. Some “experience” of a me and a thing or world upon which “my attention” is cast or is placed upon and withdrawn from. ” is very interesting. Yes there is a slight tension involved in looking - it looks like I’m splitting myself in two in an effort to see something, but only seeing more thoughts & images that I’m myself creating. What’s behind all this.

How is it known the tension arises of looking? What if looking, whatever that may actually be, is in essence a happening, being done for, but being done for - no one?

 

What would it be like to have the entire universe to yourself?

What would you ‘do’?

 

Perhaps the tension arises in response to the thought about claiming doership of looking, isn’t it so?

How does creatorship simply by being resonate? If at all of course.

 

Who’s splitting themself in two? 

Perhaps the ‘split’ is implied by ‘I’m’; by thoughts. (“self” referential thoughts). 

 

Where is this ‘splitter’?

What is this claim of ‘effort’, and ‘seeing’?

Who’s?

 

Exactly how are you efforting?

What are the literal steps. 

Now stop it. 

Any difference?

 

18 hours ago, Floorcat said:

You and others say what is thinking etc,  but I never find an answer or get an insight into  anything. 

Are answer & insights not, just more thoughts?

Who could have the insight that there is no separate self, no thinker?

 

One simple exercise is to type each thought that arises. Not to type something cohesive or comprehensive. Just literally receive, and whatever thought arises, type it. Then look at the thoughts and say, that is a thought… and that is a thought… and that is a thought. 

 

Bring back the gameshow vibe. Lights flashing sirens blaring, crowd going nuts, you just won eleven million dollars. You can keep the money, the feeling, or the insights. Which do you keep? Why?

 

Of which is the life, the dream in your heart, all that you want to create and experience… arising?

 

Bringing to mind what we’ll simply call your life & all experience to come ‘therein’….

Bring to mind what you really want, but kinda sorta think or believe you most likely can’t or won’t have or experience.

How does it feel to be wrong? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for the late reply.

 

I feel unready to understand your questions here - I investigate yet it confounds me, being the me.

 

I like your writing here:

 

"The way to ‘break the loop’ is to notice self referential thoughts. Thoughts about a self which isn’t you. Thoughts about a ‘second self’, which is always in the past or future… and never actually, present. Thoughts which are noticed by how the thoughts feel to you."

 

I'm a sticker for simplicity, I meditate in the simplest way etc. Can I not take these wonderfully simple instructions and apply on a daily basis?

 

Also I see in an actualized thread, you write:

 

"Simply put: Focus on perception & feeling, rather than thoughts. 

Basic Relaxation. 

Walking Meditation.

Eating Meditation. 

Gounding. 

Mindfulness of sound.

The emotional scale.

Don’t resist boredom and ‘stay in’ pessimism"

 

These are basically my own practices at the moment. I feel I need to raise my consciousness quite a bit before I can 'get' your line of questioning. It's not me copping out, I've really put effort in & I know you're saying truth as I hear the same from other teachers.

 

But your statement above    ("The way to ‘break the loop’ is to notice self referential thoughts. Thoughts about a self which isn’t you. Thoughts about a ‘second self’, which is always in the past or future… and never actually, present. Thoughts which are noticed by how the thoughts feel to you.")    rings true for me and is more pallatable than the questions. This seems to be what youre asking me to do with your 'who is the looker'.

 

So could these not be my distilled course of action now? Do the practices, get ever deeper & more present and keep catching myself referring to an imaginary second self & investigating that until something twigs?

Edited by Floorcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Floorcat said:

These are basically my own practices at the moment.

For ten million dollars… 

 

1 hour ago, Floorcat said:

I feel I need to raise my consciousness quite a bit before I can 'get' your line of questioning.

If you don’t find it, to raise it, feel free to ask any follow up questions. 

 

1 hour ago, Floorcat said:

It's not me copping out, I've really put effort in & I know you're saying truth as I hear the same from other teachers.

No one’s copping out or in. Thoughts about a second I which has consciousness are believed. All very innocent. 

“I need to raise my consciousness” isn’t feeling or a feeling or any thing which is actually felt at all. 

It’s a belief, obscuring feeling. The discord is felt, isn’t is so?

 

1 hour ago, Floorcat said:

 

But your statement above    ("The way to ‘break the loop’ is to notice self referential thoughts. Thoughts about a self which isn’t you. Thoughts about a ‘second self’, which is always in the past or future… and never actually, present. Thoughts which are noticed by how the thoughts feel to you.")    rings true for me and is more pallatable than the questions. This seems to be what youre asking me to do with your 'who is the looker'.

 

So could these not be my distilled course of action now?

For ten million dollars… 

 

1 hour ago, Floorcat said:

Do the practices, get ever deeper & more present and keep catching myself referring to an imaginary second self & investigating that until something twigs?

Where will you go to catch yourself?

In what direction will you head when you stand up?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Where will you go to catch yourself?

In what direction will you head when you stand up?

 

 

 Ahh, yes, ‘myself’ is the wrong way to put it.  Then in your words,  notice the self-referential  thoughts.

 

So my revised question is:
 

“So could these not be the distilled course of action now? Do the practices, get ever deeper & more present and keep noticing self referential thoughts referring to an imaginary second self?”

 

Edited by Floorcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Floorcat said:

Myself is the wrong way to put it I guess. Then in your words,  notice the self-referential  thoughts.

How many of you are there? 

 

8 hours ago, Floorcat said:

 

So my revised question is:

 

“So could these not be the distilled course of action now? Do the practices, get ever deeper & more present and keep noticing self referential thoughts referring to an imaginary second self?”

What is the best course of action to yourself? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Floorcat said:

@PhilOne sec - I've just found this:

 

 

Is this you asking questions other forum members about no-self & not understanding? I thought you were realised? Am I missing something? Are you not Nahm?


Its Phil taking role of decent „not realized” body-mind complex. I thought it was obvious 🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Forza21 said:


Its Phil taking role of decent „not realized” body-mind complex. I thought it was obvious 🙃

Can you explain? You mean he's taking on the role of a non-realised person to thrash though a process in that thread? Apoligies, Phil, if so.

Edited by Floorcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.