Hi there

I've been continuing with my actualism practise for the past 2 months and so here are my points and questions :-

1. How do you get convinced that 'I' am 'my feelings' ? meaning , what if instead 'I' was only feeding on 'my feelings' ?
In a PCE , you see that the self and the feelings both are in abeyance. Technically , this does not
imply that they are the same. For example , if there is light then there is shadow. If there is no light , then there is no shadow.
This does not mean that light = shadow.

2. Why is the second part ( 'my feelings' are 'me' ) required when in the first part ( 'I' am 'my feelings' ) we are saying the same thing ?

3. When asking HAIETMOBA , if I am seeing , the answer turns out to be eyes instead of the flesh and blood body , although the eyes need the rest of the body. Eyes here is the specific answer while body is the general answer. Is it fine if the answer is general or specific or am I missing something important here ?

Regards
Shashank

Hmmm good questions. I'll give these a go since no one has answered.

1) For practical purposes it should be enough to see that in a PCE the only thing present is the flesh and blood body sans any identity or feelings. Thus you can understand that "I" (feeling of being or presence) was "my" feelings. The way I understand it you cannot have feelings without any being or presence (which also is a feeling). Feelings vanish due to the the cessation of being or presence (the same Presence that people living in an ASC identify with ["I am That"]). And you're right in that "I" feed off "my" feelings, this is the way that "I" survive. Have you ever noticed fear feeding off itself?

2) Idk about this one lol. Maybe the first part is referring to the thinker and the second part to the feeler. Or it could be stating it a second time for emphasis that they are both one and the same thing.

3) In my experience, there's almost always a brief moment of immediacy (attention is exclusively on the senses) initially when I ask HAIETMOBA. During this brief period of immediacy, there's actually no answer (from an "inside" or a "me" commenting on "my" experience). There's only the eyes seeing, the ears hearing, the tongue tasting, etc. As I've both read and been told, this initial immediacy is a PCE or apperceptiveness. After this period of immediacy ends a feeling may occur as "I" arise and get pulled "inward". If this occurs in your experience as well then what you're aiming for is that initial moment of immediacy and to keep prolonging it. So if there's an answer (be it a feeling such as "I am seeing" or any sense of "I") at all then it means that "I" am still strutting the scene and clinging on.

Keep in mind I'm not actually free or anything. So this response will be based on how I've understood these things so far on the path. If there're any misunderstandings that I've incurred from my experience, please feel free to correct or comment.

Read this exchange, especially the stuff tarin says about master-slave relationship.

Yeah , I think you've nailed it. For all practical purposes , we can assume that I am my feelings. Another example btw is that when the heart stops , the brain stops and vice-versa , but this doesn't mean heart = brain . I just raised this question since I thought there is something I'm missing somewhere. The PCE experience is enough to make me pursue this practise whether I am my feelings or I is feeding on my feelings.



Just yesterday I found a FAQ section( the link to which eludes me at this time) exclusively devoted to "What is the answer to HAIETMOBA?" and there I found that the "How" of this question means "in what manner" or "in what way" I am experiencing and participating in this moment of being alive which in other words means to recognize what affective feeling is preventing me from experiencing the perfection of a PCE. Recalling and comparing the affective experience to a PCE helps to understand the silliness of any such affective experience.

Thanks for that link , however it starts with an assumption master = slave. That said , I don't think a cooperation between I and my feelings is required to progress or is it ? I am finding that the memory of a PCE is the best guiding light to go all the way. However these conclusions may change as I am still practicing.

Given that 'i' = master and 'my feelings' = slave and 'i' am 'my feeling' and 'my feelings' are 'me', then definitely the master = slave, only in that you are both - they're just different ways that you manifest, but it's all you, dude, there's nobody else in your head besides you!


You tell me... what is sincerity if not the cooperation between 'I' and 'my feelings'?


Can you get into a PCE when either 'you' or 'your feelings' are not cooperating?

Well I was trying to say that they actually are in fact the same thing (without any assumptions). In your analogy, the heart and the brain are both separate organs (they can be separated) in actuality although their functions and survival may be interdependent on each other. Tarin explains it quite well in the link provided above with his "master-slave relationship" . The separation of "I" from "my" feelings is also illusory (it being a feeling as well). "My" feelings are affective in nature, and "I" (presence) am also affective in nature, they are both feelings. You cannot separate out "I" from "my" feelings. I like Richard's analogy of the vortex and the whirlpool in explaining this [link]. You cannot separate out the water of the whirlpool from the vortex (which is caused by the swirling of the water). Thus, "I am my feelings and my feelings are me".



This is the page you're probably referring to [link]. Yup when there's an affective feeling, there's an answer arising from "inside" (such as "I am experiencing fear"). However, when you're in a PCE the "answer" is the living of actuality (the eyes seeing itself would be the answer). One is the doing of what is happening. Pure Intent (born out of the PCE) will allow one to see the silliness of any affective experience not conducive to being happy and harmless (or non-felicitous experiences). I suggest reading this article word by word, sentence by sentence and put it into practice: [link]

My account had some problems so sorry for the late reply.
Thank you for your answers. I will keep them in mind but I am not yet convinced about what you both say.
If I simply believe it , then I'll be insincere.
Anyhow , don't bother - I'll let more practice tell me and then get back here.

ya just investigate this stuff for yourself

Let us know what you find!

I also thought I would add a little to the discussion, though I'm not actually free either, and so take it with a grain of salt. This is just from my own experience.


I looked up "convinced" on google and this was definition two: "Firm in one's belief, esp. with regard to a particular cause or issue." In actualism practice, the point is not to become "firm in one's belief", and in that sense, to "get convinced" is particularly useless.

Rather, what may be useful is to investigate and uncover the facts or the actuality of the situation. So, how to discover that "I" am "my feelings"? By way of investigating, I've found it useful to explore "what am I?" What is this "I" that causes so much mischief? It seems fairly obvious that "I" am the cause of so much of the human troubles in my life and others, so it's worth inquiring to find out what "I" am. Upon investigation, I've found that it's possible to have the experiential understanding of what this statement means: "I" am "my feelings."


Well, why bother with "what if.." speculation. "I" am right here to be investigated, so there's no need to speculate. One can simply look for oneself.


I see it like another path to the same discovery. One can inquire "what am "I"?... and discover... "Oh... "I" am a feeling being... "I" am defined by "my feelings"... oh... "I" am "my feelings." Oh.... "I" am affect.... oh, that's what "I" am...

Or, one can inquire... "what are "my feelings"?... what is affect? What are these emotions?... what are these instinctual passions? oh.... this is "me"...

Basically, if you can find in your own experience any of the following: "I" or "me" or identity, sense of self, the soul, etc... or if you can find: affect, emotion, feelings, instinctual passions, the attention wave, etc... then you can start your inquiry from that point... and from that point you can discover that it's all the same thing.

This point is made most clear when feelings stop and start, because one can notice the distinct stopping and starting of "me" that correlates with those feelings. Thus, I think the PCE can be useful, but in my experience, I don't think it's necessary for this investigation, as you can also take a simple feeling such as fear or desire and notice that "I" am the fear, and then when the fear stops "I" stop... though usually another feeling replaces that fear to maintain the sense of self as being seamless.

I'm not sure if that's helpful, but those are some of my thoughts from my practice so far.

Ok , then dictionary-wise using the word convinced is not correct. I rephrase it to :- How do you know for sure that "I" am "my feelings".



I have been in a PCE a few times and I have seen that both my feelings and my identity are in abeyance , but I cannot reach a point where I can see that "I" = "my feelings" in a mathematical sense and blindly believing it would be insincerity on my part. When you say I am my feelings , it means you are saying it in a strict mathematical sense and equating two quantities ( A = B ). When you say I am fear , this means I = fear in a mathematical sense.
I can very well also say that I is feeding on fear , but they are both seperate ( A not equal to B , but A depends on B and B depends on A ).

Having said that I recently reached a point in my practise where I realized how rotten to the core is this "I" and it has decided
to altruistically self-immolate itself. Tarin's advice to be best friend with oneself is helping a lot here.

Anyhow , thanks for the answers Daniel. It always helps to hear.

ah i get what you mean. i have a bit of trouble with it..

basically you can't say "I am fear" as in I = fear and fear = me, since there is other stuff that you experience besides fear, like desire, aggression, etc. so you aren't any one particular emotion in totality.

you're saying there is a thing, X, which "I" am. X leads to the feelings. (and feelings lead to the social identity.) this implies the existence of a self as a particular thing, and i think that's incorrect. however, to become AF you don't get rid of your emotions, you get rid of your identity, which then causes your emotions to disappear... so i don't know, someone will have to chime in. but i think the gist is, the self that AF talks about is just the conglomeration of all the beliefs, instincts, and emotions - it's just the swirling vortex of all of that with nothing in the center. there isn't any solid self masterminding it or causing it all - it's just that conglomeration. so while you are not only your fear, you are your fear as well as your beliefs and hate and aggression etc, together w/ your social identity... 'tis a big hint that both your feelings and your identity are in abeyance in a PCE.

with an actual freedom from the human condition, one stops intuiting oneself to be an identity (or not to be an identity) once and for all (one simply stops intuiting (one's) existence) ... and thus do (one's) feelings no longer come into existence (dependent, as they are, entirely on that intuited existence).

tarin

Feelings are dependent on more than just an intuition of an identity though aren't they? What about their electro-chemical causes in the brain? Do you have any ideas about how the reduction and elimination of the intuited identity affects the brain's operation?

A=C and B=C therefor A=B / "I am a feeling" and "<fear> is a feeling" therefor "I am fear and fear is me". Similar to a river that branches of into smaller streams but still share the same water-source.

so would it be correct to say that 'i' am the intuition of 'my' existence, which intuition causes 'my' feelings (which feelings cause 'my' social identity)? to use Shashank's terms: the intuition of 'my' existence is the light that casts the shadow ('my' feelings), and since the light is in abeyance so are the shadows.

is the intuition of 'my' existence also just one of 'my' feelings, not really different or special from the rest? so it's a feedback loop: self-intuition (for short) causes feelings which reinforce self-intuition (buying into feelings and fear makes your sense of self stronger), etc. but 'tis all it is: a sense of self and nothing more substantial than that.

the intuition of (being) an identity is itself a feeling.



'their electro-chemical causes in the brain' do not operate, sans identity.



no.

Paul , this is logically incorrect. What you are talking about is an "is a type of" relationship while I'm talking about "is equal to"
relationship. For example , an apple is a fruit and an orange is a fruit , so apple = orange ? ;)

Thanks Beoman. I need to dig deeper into this vortex analogy.

Thanks Shashank for the thread and Thanks Tarin, Beoman, Nad A and Daniel,

This discussion is useful for me.

Thanks
Sanjay

Ok, what do you recognize as "I"? Do you feel it as something different from "my" feelings? If so what is that feeling? Do you see that the presence of fear (or any other feeling) is presence itself (e.g."I am afraid")? And do you see that the feeling of presence (or any other feeling you recognize as "I") is presence itself?

Ok here is my shot at it :-

Fear is one of my feelings
I is one of my feelings as opposed to I am my feelings

( I also realize that "I am afraid" is also one of the feelings , but this does not lead me anywhere )

At the moment I am afraid :-

"I am afraid" expands to "I is in a state of fear." with "I" and "fear" as separate feelings.
The content of the feeling "I" is not the same as the content of the feeling "fear" so I cannot conclude that I am fear.

damn..I seem to be missing some point here !

If you were unable to classify/conceptualize feeling into chunks of "I" or "fear" how would you then differentiate the two?