strangechord, come in, let's make some music
What brings you here my friend?
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

Nemo- Posts: 42
 - Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:09 am
 - Location: Australia
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Sorry for the delay, just noticed you pinged me! 
I am here to wake up from the thought of me. It feels like 
I've gotten about as far as one can go in understanding this 
on an intellectual level. The past five days or so has been 
about getting very focused and intentional about living it 
experientially.
What appears to be in the way is the persistent belief that I 
exist as a point of view/the one having a perspective. I get 
that the body isn't me, that doing isn't done by me, etc. But 
is "I" that which sees everything through this perspective? 
So there is stuck-ness on the I being the experiencer. 
Thank you for working with me, Nemo. I read your blog 
posts the other night and found them incredibly moving.

strangechord- Posts: 9
 - Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
 - Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Hello! Yes, I pinged you. Although plucked might be a better 
word, strangechord :)
Welcome here. And thanks for the blog feedback, I'm happy 
that it resonates.
So. You said - 
"is "I" that which sees everything through this perspective?"
Let's take a look. Is there someone or something inside 
looking out and through, or can you only find the 
perspective itself? Does seeing require a seer?
Say you're sitting in a small room at a computer (which you 
probably are right now). You can see the room, which is 
probably a couple meters in each direction, and all the stuff 
in the room. Maybe you can see a little way outside through 
the window. Now imagine you're standing at the top of a 
mountain. You can look out to the hills, valleys, trees, and 
out to sea. That perspective now encompasses many many 
miles instead of a few metres. So where is this point of 
reference, this centre of experience? Is it where the body is, 
or where the eyes are? Or is it somewhere between the 
closest point in seeing and the furthest point - somewhere 
between the body and the ocean? And what if you're driving 
in a car, and trees, rocks, buildings, phenomena are rushing 
past, popping in and out of experience?
Is this really one stuck perspective, or is it ever-moving and 
ever-changing, all-encompassing? Is there absolutely 
anything permanent and concrete about it? "Your" reference 
point isn't necessarily unique, or one separate from many, 
it's the only reference point. Any information given to you 
about other "reference points" or experiences is always 
second-hand. So while it may or may not be true, you can 
never know for sure because it's not verifiable through direct 
experience. This is the only knowable reality. Hence the only 
reality - the only thing you can honestly call "true".
So let's rewind. Let's take a look at direct experience and go 
back to that original question you asked.
"is "I" that which sees everything through this perspective?"
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

Nemo- Posts: 42
 - Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:09 am
 - Location: Australia
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Nemo wrote:
Hello! Yes, I pinged you. Although plucked might be a betterword, strangechord :)Welcome here. And thanks for the blog feedback, I'm happythat it resonates.So. You said - "is "I" that which sees everything through thisperspective?"Let's take a look. Is there someone or something insidelooking out and through, or can you only find the perspectiveitself? Does seeing require a seer?
No, I can see plainly that seeing doesn't require a seer. It's 
the thoughts that arise that I am the one seeing that are 
then believed that cause the distinction of seer. 
Nemo wrote:
Say you're sitting in a small room at a computer (which youprobably are right now). You can see the room, which isprobably a couple meters in each direction, and all the stuffin the room. Maybe you can see a little way outside throughthe window. Now imagine you're standing at the top of amountain. You can look out to the hills, valleys, trees, and outto sea. That perspective now encompasses many many milesinstead of a few metres. So where is this point of reference,this centre of experience? Is it where the body is, or wherethe eyes are? Or is it somewhere between the closest point inseeing and the furthest point - somewhere between the bodyand the ocean? And what if you're driving in a car, and trees,rocks, buildings, phenomena are rushing past, popping in andout of experience?
The point of reference is where the eyes are/where the body 
is. If driving in a car, the point of reference is the seeing of 
everything out the window popping in and out of view. 
Nemo wrote:
Is this really one stuck perspective, or is it ever-moving andever-changing, all-encompassing? Is there absolutelyanything permanent and concrete about it? "Your" referencepoint isn't necessarily unique, or one separate from many, it'sthe only reference point. Any information given to you aboutother "reference points" or experiences is always second-hand.So while it may or may not be true, you can never know forsure because it's not verifiable through direct experience. Thisis the only knowable reality. Hence the only reality - the onlything you can honestly call "true".
Not sure I understand the first few sentences. I feel like I'm 
getting something wrong or overlooking something! lol It 
does feel like there's one stuck perspective, from these 
eyes/this center, that is permanent and concrete, yet sees 
ever-moving and ever-changing phenomena outside of it.
I do get that the only thing verifiable is that which is directly 
experienced. I can't know how it is ever from someone else's 
perspective. In this sense, I understand that all there is is the 
reference point.Nemo wrote:
So let's rewind. Let's take a look at direct experience and goback to that original question you asked."is "I" that which sees everything through this perspective?"
In asking that again, what comes in response is that there is 
just this perspective. It doesn't matter whether I call it "I" or 
not. To call it "I" is an unnecessary label. To call it "I" is just 
to believe a thought that persistently wants to be believed. 
Let me ask you something, can there be a seeing-through 
the fallacy of "I" and still "I" thoughts can come up and beg 
to be believed (are really "sticky")? Because I think what's 
also in the way is a lot of beliefs and ideas about what 
liberation must be like and it limits openness to whatever 
shows up. I grew up in a meditation community where we 
kids learned all sorts of untrue notions about enlightenment 
from adults who were not awakened but were yearning for it. 
As an adult, I have spent years deconditioning most of those 
childhood notions, reading spiritual books and listening to 
talks (Adya, Tolle, Balsekar, etc), attending satsangs. A 
spiritual teacher I met a few weekends ago said that I was a 
"spiritual connoisseur" and that that was likely the last refuge. 
I feel intuitively that that's true because at this point I've 
accumulated so much knowledge and stuff in my head around 
awakening that it's likely in the way now. Anyway, felt 
compelled to give a little back story, whatever it's worth. :-)

strangechord- Posts: 9
 - Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
 - Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Hey there strangechord.
Do you play the guitar or piano?
Okay, so firstly, this point of reference stuff. 
Sorry that you didn't understand what I was getting at, some 
things can be seen clear enough but sometimes difficult to 
express! Also keep in mind that everything said here is not 
truth itself, only potential pointers to the truth. 
Let's try a different line of attack here.
Think of "experience", or "life" as like the ocean. A wave can 
appear in it (much like "strangechord", as an expression of life 
appearing in the void), but the wave can't really said to be a 
point of reference per se, it's always moving and changing and 
never consists of the same water particles. It contains the
ocean itself. And if it is separated from the rest of the ocean,
it can no longer be called either a wave or ocean. Does that
make sense?
ocean itself. And if it is separated from the rest of the ocean,
it can no longer be called either a wave or ocean. Does that
make sense?
You said -
I understand that all there is is the reference point.
If a point of reference is all that is, can it still be called a 
reference point? Is the ocean a point of reference in the ocean?
the point of reference is the seeing of everything out thewindow popping in and out of view.
You also said -
I can see plainly that seeing doesn't require a seer.
So, there is no seer, but there is seeing, which appears to start 
at the eyes and move outwards from there, yeah? 
But how can you be certain that this "seeing" doesn't actually 
start from the furthest point in the visual field and move in 
towards the eyes? Perhaps neither of these scenarios are true? 
Seeing requires both the eyes to see and the thing seen. Take 
the seen away and there is no sight. Take the sight away and 
there is nothing to see. So sight and what is seen are not really 
two separate things, but instead crucial for the existence of 
each other, but more importantly of this one thing known as 
seeing. Nonduality - "not two".
Here's another way to look at this point of reference thing. 
(I hope I'm not confusing you too much, but we're jamming, 
yeah? Point of reference actually confused me a whole lot and 
seemed to be my last piece of the puzzle too when I was 
examining self, and I still have a whole lot of fun exploring it. 
So please bear with me! It's an important thing to look at so I 
am actually quite exited to be discussing it, I'm really glad you 
brought it up. Also, I think the fact that you've been confused 
by it means you have been looking closely and honesty at this 
and are serious about it. A great sign.)
Okay, so anyway. Consider this.
What ever is verifiable in experience, can be said to be true. 
Anything that is not in direct, verifiable experience may or 
may not be true, but it can never really be more than just 
conjecture, hearsay. You can never know for sure if it's true or 
not. It's something that needs to be thrown out in scientific 
study, in courts of law, and also here, in examining reality. Not 
necessarily ignored, just discounted, ultimately. How could 
hearsay be accepted over direct knowing? Why would you take 
someone else's word for it if you could find out directly? 
I feel like I'm in ramble mode a bit. Please stay with me :)
People tell you what their experiences are like, stories about 
their lives, what things are like from "over there". However, 
they will only ever exist as stories. And stories are great, 
they're fun and interesting and exciting, and even real, a real 
part of experience, but only as stories in "your" experience. 
So maybe these stories are describing other real reference 
points, and maybe they're just part of a dream. And you'll 
probably never know for sure either, but either way it doesn't 
even matter. All that exists is the one reference point which 
contains stories about other reference points. Which bring us 
back to - 'If a point of reference is all that is, can it still be 
called a reference point?'
And when death comes, when this reference point ceases to 
exist, does the world and everything in it continue along? 
(One thing I also used to trip myself over a lot were 
paradoxes, but they make sense now, because ala 
Schrodinger's cat, it seems two opposite things can be true 
at the same time. (Except maybe when directly looked at!))
Yes, possibly life still goes on, maybe even probably. Also - 
No. In fact most likely not. Gone, nothing, nada. Experience 
melts away back into the void and the whole world with it. 
Existing stops, existence with it.
Whew! I'm really enjoying this here. And hoping that I'm not 
being too self-indulgent, and most importantly that you're 
getting something from this :)
I can see plainly that seeing doesn't require a seer. It's thethoughts that arise that I am the one seeing that are thenbelieved that cause the distinction of seer.
And -
In asking that again, what comes in response is that there isjust this perspective. It doesn't matter whether I call it "I" ornot. To call it "I" is an unnecessary label. To call it "I" is just tobelieve a thought that persistently wants to be believed.
Really nice stuff my friend. Beautiful. I think it was Alan Watts 
who spoke about how much of our language (particularly 
concerning personal pronouns) is unnecessary, or at least 
misleading and badly constructed, and that it's entirely 
conceivable for a new language to be developed to correct 
these linguistic problems. So, fingers crossed for that one! 
But until then, unfortunately, we still need this language to 
communicate, so using terms like I, me, my is fine, if there is 
an awareness of what they are really pointing to.
You said:
Let me ask you something, can there be a seeing-through 
the fallacy of "I" and still "I" thoughts can come up and beg to 
be believed (are really "sticky")?
Yes, of course. Seeing through "I" doesn't actually destroy it, 
right? It's seeing it never actually existed. So what ever was 
there beforehand can definitely continue to come up after. 
But once no-self is seen, it can never be unseen. Sometimes 
sense of self can still come up quite strongly. 
But sense of self isn't the same thing as belief in self.
I feel intuitively that that's true because at this point I've 
accumulated so much knowledge and stuff in my head around 
awakening that it's likely in the way now.
Yes, certainly, it can seem like the more you've learned, the 
more there is to unlearn. But it's not as big an obstacle as it 
seems. Knowledge isn't so bad and you don't need to be 
completely rid of it. You just need to be able to set it aside for 
long enough to do an honest enquiry. It's like hearsay. It 
doesn't have to be banished, just let go of, so real knowing 
can happen. See that knowledge isn't you or yours, that there's 
no need to identify with it, and detaching comes easy. And 
knowledge isn't something you can set your watch by either. 
Something can be true or known one moment, and not the 
next. Or, both true and not true at the same time, like 
Schrodinger's cat. 
I've said a lot of stuff about direct experience, and examining 
it to find out what's true. 
This is what it all boils down to - can a self, or any irrefutable 
evidence of a self, be found in any way shape or form?
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

Nemo- Posts: 42
 - Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:09 am
 - Location: Australia
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Nemo wrote:Hey there strangechord.
Do you play the guitar or piano?
No, neither. I sing, though. And I love music so much - pretty 
wide musical taste. Everything from old school goth to 
ambient to indie folk.
Nemo wrote:
Okay, so firstly, this point of reference stuff.Sorry that you didn't understand what I was getting at, somethings can be seen clear enough but sometimes difficult toexpress! Also keep in mind that everything said here is nottruth itself, only potential pointers to the truth.Let's try a different line of attack here.Think of "experience", or "life" as like the ocean. A wave canappear in it (much like "strangechord", as an expression of lifeappearing in the void), but the wave can't really said to be apoint of reference per se, it's always moving and changing andnever consists of the same water particles. It contains theocean itself. And if it is separated from the rest of the ocean,it can no longer be called either a wave or ocean. Does thatmake sense?
Yes, that makes sense. I've listened to Jeff Foster talk a lot 
about the wave/ocean analogy and it makes perfect sense. 
Nemo wrote:You said -
I understand that all there is is the reference point.
If a point of reference is all that is, can it still be called areference point? Is the ocean a point of reference in the ocean?
Touche! Yes, when this is "tried on" (all there is is reference 
point), it is seen that there is also no reference point. This 
body, these eyes see things differently and see different 
things, however, from another person's eyes. It is this 
different seeing that has always been called "I" or referred 
to as the "I"'s reference point. 
So, there is no seer, but there is seeing, which appears to startat the eyes and move outwards from there, yeah?But how can you be certain that this "seeing" doesn't actuallystart from the furthest point in the visual field and move intowards the eyes? Perhaps neither of these scenarios are true?Seeing requires both the eyes to see and the thing seen. Takethe seen away and there is no sight. Take the sight away andthere is nothing to see. So sight and what is seen are not reallytwo separate things, but instead crucial for the existence ofeach other, but more importantly of this one thing known asseeing. Nonduality - "not two".
Yes, that is clear, that both are crucial for the existence of 
each other, for seeing.
Nemo wrote:
Let me ask you something, can there be a seeing-through the
fallacy of "I" and still "I" thoughts can come up and beg to be
believed (are really "sticky")?
Yes, of course. Seeing through "I" doesn't actually destroy it,
right? It's seeing it never actually existed. So what ever was
there beforehand can definitely continue to come up after.But once no-self is seen, it can never be unseen. Sometimessense of self can still come up quite strongly.
This gives some freedom, that it's not about destroying the 
ego (just another word for sense of self), but seeing through it. 
Here's where I'm hung up, though. No-self has been seen, 
many times, but has not abided. The "me" comes up again at 
some point and is believed again to some extent. So isn't that 
the same as saying no-self is unseen again? I have a strong 
desire for ABIDING seeing, for permanent liberation from 
seeking. I am waiting for some "click" whereafter there is no 
seeking or uncertainty anymore. I keep having the thought, 
"Has there been awakening or not?" and am not 100% sure of 
the answer. But then I think, probably not, or there wouldn't 
still be all this seeking energy.
Nemo wrote:
I've said a lot of stuff about direct experience, and examiningit to find out what's true.This is what it all boils down to - can a self, or any irrefutableevidence of a self, be found in any way shape or form?
A self cannot be found. Only thoughts about a self, based in 
time, based in story. Those thoughts don't have nearly the 
hooking power they used to, not even close. But they're not 
gone completely. They don't need to go away completely 
because they only have hooking power when believed. 
They are not believed or taken to be true that often anymore. 
But if that is seen and understood - why no "click" still??
There is the intuitive feeling that the big block is some 
expectation of what awakening will be like. Also, that it's 
based in the future sometime. 
It's all very exhausting - this seeking, this yearning. You 
know, I don't feel any fear really (like most people do at the 
gate?), but there's an awful lot of frustration and desperation. 
When welcomed and met, these emotions melt away. But it 
keeps arising.

strangechord- Posts: 9
 - Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
 - Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Ok, so after I typed that to you, I did some inquiry writing on 
the computer. Here's what I wrote:
"What is this doubt?
This doubt is a fear of uncertainty. 
Question: Who is uncertain? Who has doubt?
Reveals: It’s just thoughts. 
Because I have images/ideas about what awakening looks/
feels like, I keep seeking just for that and discount 
everything that isn’t that. The mind thinks it knows what it’s 
after and will feel certain once it’s found. But who says the 
mind’s ideas about awakening are accurate? The mind is 
relying upon second hand knowledge from others and past 
direct experiences to inform itself what to look for. 
What if all of those ideas/images are relaxed? 
There’s the persistent thought whenever I do inquiry or 
presence meditation: “Is it about to click?” Almost as if the 
mind believes it can will awakening to occur, to POP. 
Everything is done with an “in order to” pop.
What if there is no POP, no click? Ever? What would that feel 
like?
There’s a fear of just bumbling along through the rest of life, 
being resigned to a blah life and feeling this yearning, this 
seeking all the while in the background. There’s a fear that the 
seeking would never stop and I would just be miserable and 
hopeless. It feels like hope for awakening holds everything 
together right now. That without the possibility of awakening, 
I would just want to die. There wouldn’t be any point to 
anything. There’s fear of living in this limbo the rest of my life. 
There’s so much fear. There’s fear of hopelessness. There’s 
not fear of annihilation of self, there’s fear of never seeing 
through the self. Of being stranded, hopeless, in limbo, in 
exile with this deep never-ending seeking."
After I wrote that, there were some tears and fear emotion. I 
closed my eyes and welcomed that and took a look. Suddenly, 
a voice out of nowhere said, "What do you know is true?" And 
there was a resting-in-awareness. Resting in that I am, I exist. 
That is the only thing known to be true. 
There was then a few minutes spent absorbed in that, with 
eyes closed. All the while, a lightness, almost spacey feeling in 
the body and head. I then wrote:
"The mind throws up doubt. Doubt is just mental noise. Every 
so often there’s a grasping – a wanting to hold onto what’s 
here. Then there is a relaxing of that and a recognition that 
what is always here can never be lost, just not seen.
There is looking: Is there an “I” who has woken up? There’s no 
I, or rather, I is just seen as a thought that can be believed or 
not. It is just not automatically believed. There’s only 
identification with “I” if it is preferred. 
Fear and doubt and grasping arise occasionally. There is still 
“getting lost in thoughts” that happens. There’s even a little 
judgment about that that arises. These are all such habits! 
Same old, same old! Laughing and crying with this at the same 
time. Same old habit, patterns, it really is just conditioning. 
They are automatic, these habits. Emily gets lost in thoughts 
and then judges herself for it. Habit. 
Fear that this will not be abiding arises. That too is habit. 
Wanting reassurance arises. Pet that thought on its head and 
love it. Recognize that that thought doesn’t need to be 
believed or taken seriously. There is just this."
Had a call with my husband (I am in my office at work during 
all this!) and there was listening to him with total love, 
acceptance and no strong opinions or desire to control. Very 
effortless. A coworker came into my office go over something 
work-related and there was a slight stunned-ness looking at 
him, a sense that I had never seen him before. Nothing major, 
just subtle.
So, every so often there is the wondering if this will be abiding. 
And then the recognition that that is just a habit thought. An 
echo of an echo of an echo thought, still reverberating around 
my head. Who knows what this is. Who knows what will be 
going on here tomorrow.

strangechord- Posts: 9
 - Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
 - Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Strangechord. 
Emily.
Gahhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Your story resonates so much here it's astounding.
You write with such clear, fresh honesty. I feel as though I am 
gulping lungfuls of pure cold oxygen.
No, neither. I sing, though. And I love music so much - pretty
wide musical taste. Everything from old school goth to ambientto indie folk.
Me too :) I sing a little and play piano/guitar. Have fun 
mucking around with electronic sounds too. And very wide 
musical taste. Music is my religion, for sure.
You seem to have responded to your own (brilliant) first post 
with your second one, which is wonderful, so we can go from 
there if you're good with that.
I love, love, love how you approach your inquiry.
Because I have images/ideas about what awakening looks/
feels like, I keep seeking just for that and discount everythingthat isn’t that. The mind thinks it knows what it’s after andwill feel certain once it’s found. But who says the mind’s ideasabout awakening are accurate? The mind is relying uponsecond hand knowledge from others and past directexperiences to inform itself what to look for.What if all of those ideas/images are relaxed?
Nothing to add to that. Simply perfect.
There’s the persistent thought whenever I do inquiry or
presence meditation: “Is it about to click?” Almost as if themind believes it can will awakening to occur, to POP.Everything is done with an “in order to” pop.
You know, there is no need to try and even stop the mind from 
waiting for a pop. Just watch it with a playful curiosity, allow it 
to play itself out and dissolve. Which is exactly what you seem 
to be doing. Such a joy to watch!
Just as a side note in this - waiting for something to happen in 
the future, and projecting in a future, will always remain in the 
future. There is no waiting required for what is happening 
right now - which is where "it" is already happening. 
Future (and past) exist only as thoughts in this moment.
What if there is no POP, no click? Ever? What would that feel
like?
This made me grin like a goofy idiot. Aaaaahhhhh!!! :D
There’s a fear of just bumbling along through the rest of life,
being resigned to a blah life and feeling this yearning, thisseeking all the while in the background. There’s a fear that theseeking would never stop and I would just be miserable andhopeless. It feels like hope for awakening holds everythingtogether right now. That without the possibility of awakening,I would just want to die. There wouldn’t be any point toanything. There’s fear of living in this limbo the rest of my life.There’s so much fear. There’s fear of hopelessness. There’snot fear of annihilation of self, there’s fear of never seeingthrough the self. Of being stranded, hopeless, in limbo, inexile with this deep never-ending seeking."After I wrote that, there were some tears and fear emotion.
This made me tear up too!! I feel you. I am so with you in this, 
every step of the way.
There is looking: Is there an “I” who has woken up? There’s no
I, or rather, I is just seen as a thought that can be believed ornot. It is just not automatically believed. There’s onlyidentification with “I” if it is preferred.
I know this analogy has been flogged to death but it's a good 
one. You stopped believing in Santa as a kid, right? Can you 
really, honestly, choose to believe in him again? Or just 
entertain thoughts, fantasies, "what ifs"?
Why did you stop believing in Santa in the first place? Because 
you realised your parents had been putting presents under the 
tree the whole time. It was all a big charade. Maybe there is 
some bearded guy actually living in the North Pole wearing a 
red suit, who knows? It's possible. Even so, he still couldn't be 
the Santa you once believed in, the one who climbed down 
your chimney each year. That Santa didn't just disappear one 
day, ready to return when you choose to believe again. He 
never existed.
However - certain things were attributed to this Santa fallacy. 
Presents, half-eaten cookie, empty glass of milk. The joy of 
being a kid waking up on christmas morning. The nostalgia 
and reliving of that joy. But these things didn't disappear 
along with the Santa belief, these things were always real. 
They existed without Santa the whole time. It's just been a 
case of misidentification. 
It's the same with self.
I said this before but I think it's quite an important distinction.
Sense of self isn't the same thing as belief in self.
Fear and doubt and grasping arise occasionally. There is still
“getting lost in thoughts” that happens. There’s even a littlejudgment about that that arises. These are all such habits!Same old, same old! Laughing and crying with this at the sametime. Same old habit, patterns, it really is just conditioning.They are automatic, these habits. Emily gets lost in thoughtsand then judges herself for it. Habit.
Crap, I've been laughing and crying along with you! Thank you 
so much for sharing all this Emily. Really.
I don't get very emotional over this stuff too often. I think I 
usually have a somewhat methodical, scientific feel to my 
approach a lot of the time. Thanks for reminding me of the 
humanity... tenderness... fragility.
Habits are patterns that have built up over a life time, as you 
said. Quite often there are a lot built up around belief in self. 
Seeing no-self doesn't make them disappear, but they don't 
have to be there forever. Self is like their fuel, and when the 
source is gone they are able to just run their course and fade 
away without the continuous reinforcing there to maintain 
them. Burning away karma. Don't force it, just observe, be 
open, and allow things to unfold as they should.
Fear that this will not be abiding arises. That too is habit.
Yeah, things are going to happen the way they are meant to no 
matter what your expectations. Trust. You're not in control, 
life is steering this ship. And whatever happens, it will always 
be the right and real and true thing. 
It cannot be otherwise.
Wanting reassurance arises. Pet that thought on its headand love it. Recognize that that thought doesn’t need tobe believed or taken seriously. There is just this.
*heart melts*
Awesome! Why do you think this happened?
A coworker came into my office go over something work-related and there was a slight stunned-ness looking at him,a sense that I had never seen him before. Nothing major,just subtle.
Awesome! Why do you think this happened?
So, every so often there is the wondering if this will be abiding.And then the recognition that that is just a habit thought. Anecho of an echo of an echo thought, still reverberating aroundmy head. Who knows what this is. Who knows what will begoing on here tomorrow.
Yep. Yep. Yep. Thought. Wondering if it will be abiding, 
or thinking it is not abiding, just thought. 
Reality - truth - what is real, can never not be abiding. 
No matter what.
You mentioned you have seen no-self several times.
Would you be willing to try and put these aside and do 
it fresh, as if for the first time?
Let's go back to this statement:
The mind is relying upon second hand knowledge fromothers and past direct experiences to inform itself what tolook for.
Instead of only doing internal inquiry with the mind, 
strip it right back and see how no-self might apply, 
make sense, or not make sense in simple every-day 
reality. Instead of just mind, use/look at body, senses, 
environment, observation, honesty. How does self or 
no-self relate?
Look in every place that self could possibly hide. 
Illuminate every corner. Take as much time as is 
needed to explore this. 
Then come back and lay down some free-flow :)
Describe as much as you can about I/me/self. 
What, where, why, how, who. 
Really looking forward to it.
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

Nemo- Posts: 42
 - Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:09 am
 - Location: Australia
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Thank you so much for working with me, Nemo. I am so glad 
to hear there's resonance! So much delight reading your reply...
It's funny... There has been an attachment around a story of 
needing to be special my whole life, of wanting to be more 
memorable, more interesting, more deep than other people. 
Your replies to my last post stirred that story and thoughts 
arose around "see, look how special I am". They were caught 
immediately - recognized as old, habitual story thoughts and 
kinda made me chuckle. There is a tendency of mind here to 
have "spiritual superiority" thoughts and want to believe them 
and make it part of identity. Vigilance is absolutely important 
here. Not judgment for those thoughts (which would just be 
further personalization it seems), but vigilance that they 
don't hook into belief. To be vigilant is to be awake.
After I wrote that last post to you and after an amazing 
lunchtime in the outdoors and around people, I spent the 
afternoon at the office feeling very tired and like there was 
a "coming down", a fading of the certainty and exhilaration 
I felt earlier. Still, though, the aperture, so to speak, stayed 
somewhat more open than usual. I didn't have as much of a 
disappointed, frustrated, hopeless feeling as I have in the 
past that "oh, this wasn't abiding!". Instead, there was a gentle 
recognition that nothing was lost, that any obscuration was all 
in the mind. There was the knowing that thoughts of 
separation and frustration did not have to be believed.
There's still the lingering question, how is there certainty that 
the gate has been crossed? I heard Adya once say that the sure 
sign that awakening has occurred is that seeking has ceased - 
there is no more seeker to be found. I can't tell if seeking has 
ceased... I think I'm too tired tonight and kind of worn out. 
It's about 9pm here right now.
I love your question at the end of your post about self/no-self 
in daily life. I will definitely answer it in the morning. Thank you 
again, you are wonderful. There is so much gratitude here that 
you understand what I have written and the particular inquiries 
here.

strangechord- Posts: 9
 - Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
 - Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
 
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
Hi, Nemo! What an internal roller coaster today! Huge 
awakening this morning just like yesterday morning and 
then a "coming down" and de-intensifying in the afternoon 
with huge tiredness and some dizziness present. Is this 
common? It feels like a definite process is going on here 
this past week. The states go up and down, but there is an 
underlying assuredness that all is well and there is nothing 
that can be lost, even after blissful states have passed. It's 
starting to seem that rather than one certain click, there is a 
two steps forward, one step back kinda feel to all this. Does 
that all make sense?
Wanted to share something I wrote this morning (after I wrote 
this, I had to take a bathroom break because the urge to laugh 
and cry simultaneously over how hilarious and wonderful it all 
is was overwhelming!):
"If the 'I' identity is only found in thoughts and thoughts just 
appear spontaneously, there really is no 'I' at all outside being 
a thought about ownership that is believed. What is owned, 
willed and claimed is simply a spontaneous appearance.
THIS is bliss. We are here to enjoy. All there is is this. Laughing 
– it’s hilarious that there was ever believed to be any control! 
It is so wonderful that there is no control – 'I' have no control 
over anything!
There’s no fear of not abiding, because there’s just this. This 
is always here. The fear of not abiding is just believing 
thoughts about the I having any control over anything."
Anyway, I want to answer your question from before:
Nemo wrote:
Instead of only doing internal inquiry with the mind, strip itright back and see how no-self might apply, make sense, ornot make sense in simple every-day reality. Instead of justmind, use/look at body, senses, environment, observation,honesty. How does self or no-self relate?Look in every place that self could possibly hide. Illuminateevery corner. Take as much time as is needed to explore this.Then come back and lay down some free-flow :)Describe as much as you can about I/me/self.What, where, why, how, who.
With no-self, there's no urge to try and control anything. 
Everything just kinda flows. There is a deep peace and 
assuredness that everything that occurs and is experienced 
is apt and fine. There is the recognition that any attempt to 
control or get bent out of shape about anything is pointless 
and just adds instant suffering. Life is going to unfold as it 
unfolds whether the overlay of control is added or not. And 
life is far more enjoyable and effortless without it.
There was a bit of an internal struggle all afternoon that I 
should still feel all sorts of bliss and delight if this was indeed 
IT. But let's take a look at that... An hour or so ago, there was 
a familiar irritability/anger at having to do some work task 
that previously hadn't been bothering me all day, and in fact 
at times, had totally delighted me because there was so much 
delight with everything. I saw that both the anger and the 
delight were just states and that states come and go 
spontaneously, just like thoughts, and that there is no control 
over their coming and going. Freedom. Relief. When that 
strange little anger arose earlier, I acknowledged it and 
though there was the thought that this irrational anger was 
odd, I welcomed it anyway. It barely lasted any time at all - 
a few minutes at most.
This tiredness and a bit of dizziness/spaciness in the head 
and eyes keeps coming every afternoon. This body probably 
just needs more sleep this week!
There's no longer such an intense need for certainty as there 
was even yesterday. So much seeking energy has gone. Is 
there still seeking? It's not so much seeking, but a feeling 
that this burgeoning awakening is fragile and needs to be 
tended... the best analogy I can think of is that the fire has 
been started and now needs to be stoked and tended so that 
the blaze can burn ever brighter and hotter. Hmm, now that 
I write that, I see that that's assuming the fire could go out if 
not tended to, which implies that this seeing can be lost 
again. *sigh* I don't know. Feeling really tired.
It was interesting being at work today while all of this was 
going on. There are huge, productive bursts of getting stuff 
done with no stories running in commentary. No old stories 
of self-pity over the boringness of the work, no stories of 
resentment toward coworkers, no stories of feeling the need 
to irritatedly check in and control my husband from afar as 
he takes care of our toddler at home. Just clean doing of the 
work and it was delightful! The body/mind knew how to do 
the work that had to get done and just did it.
Bits of experience over lunch at a restaurant of loving every 
person I saw. Just heart melting love. Seeing them as no-self, 
as having no control over anything and just loving them in 
their humanness. Feeling really at ease with people - little 
bits of self-conscious will pop up here and there, but there 
is much more confidence in interacting with others. People 
that normally kinda intimidated me (like my boss), there's 
been ease and friendliness and almost no fear. There's so 
much more patience than before with my husband. With the 
recognition that he is not my long-running stories about him, 
there is just love and patience.
There's still a pining for an all-is-one, world breaking down in 
a crazy, ecstatic way kind of experience that will bring finality, 
certainty, etc. But isn't it probably perfect that that is not 
what's occurring? It allows me to see that that kind of 
experience is what the mind wants.
I'll leave it at that for now - that was just a riff. Looking 
forward to YOUR response!

strangechord- Posts: 9
 - Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
 - Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
 
 
 | Share | 
