RE: Direct Pointing in Action

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 11 Years ago at 7/7/11 8:00 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/7/11 8:00 PM

RE: Direct Pointing in Action

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
I sat down and did some inquiry. A structure soon appeared. Going from gross to subtle, I would repeat a question until I understood why. This is how far I've gotten:

I am not what is seen.
I am not the one who sees.

I am not thoughts.
I am not the one who thinks.

I am not actions.
I am not the one who acts.


The answer to these questions were:

The eyes see and the brain - with its functions - processes this, without a need for a self.

The brain produces thoughts through biological alghorithms that use information from the senses, without a need for a self.

The brain formulates actions through biological alghorithms that use information from the senses, and manifests these actions through the body, without a need for a self
.

While it seems plausible that there can be an observer, this seems so utterly useless that at least intellectually it is a no-go.

There is a pull towards the notion "I am my actions", in a very "karmic" way i.e. "I am the motions created by this body in this world".

There is also a feeling of unresolvedness with the apparent fact that thinking is both a sense and a product of senses. Sort of like a "mirror-facing-a-mirror, chicken-or-egg" thing. At one point in the sequence of events of cognition there has to be a lack of thinking, while still allowing for full cognition of the other senses.

As I don't think I have "awakened", I would be grateful if anyone could point me on. emoticon
thumbnail
Florian, modified 11 Years ago at 7/11/11 4:21 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/11/11 4:21 AM

RE: Direct Pointing in Action

Posts: 1028 Join Date: 4/28/09 Recent Posts
Hi Stian,

Sorry, your thread seems to have been buried too quickly.

Anyone up for this? Thassa? Elena? Ilona? Someone else?

Cheers,
Florian
Viv Westbrook, modified 11 Years ago at 7/11/11 10:04 AM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/11/11 10:04 AM

RE: Direct Pointing in Action

Posts: 5 Join Date: 7/1/11 Recent Posts
Hey Stian

You said: "While it seems plausible that there can be an observer, this seems so utterly useless that at least intellectually it is a no-go.

There is a pull towards the notion "I am my actions", in a very "karmic" way i.e. "I am the motions created by this body in this world".

There is also a feeling of unresolvedness with the apparent fact that thinking is both a sense and a product of senses. Sort of like a "mirror-facing-a-mirror, chicken-or-egg" thing. At one point in the sequence of events of cognition there has to be a lack of thinking, while still allowing for full cognition of the other senses."

You seem to be getting tangled up. You stated previous to the above statement that "The eyes see and the brain - with its functions - processes this, without a need for a self.".

This is spot on.

There is no need for an agent to do any thing.

If you think it's plausible that there is an observer, can you identify that observer?

If you can, then can that be what you are?

In other words, is there an observer, or is there just observing?

Are you the actions and the motions of the body? Or are there just motions and actions.

You seem to have hit the nail on the head when you said that the brain functions and processes without the need for a self and then you went off on conceptual tangents about karma and notions.

Look. At what is actually happening. Drop concepts and theories and notions and just look at direct experience.

Then tell me what you see.

BTW - I am a friend of Ilona, Elena and Thassa - and since they are a little busy at the moment, they asked if I could respond to you.

Viv
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 11 Years ago at 7/11/11 5:41 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/11/11 5:41 PM

RE: Direct Pointing in Action

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
Awesome!

Let me try to clear up some things first.

Viv Westbrook:

There is no need for an agent to do any thing.

If you think it's plausible that there is an observer, can you identify that observer?

If you can, then can that be what you are?


I do not find it plausible that there is an observer, but I do find it plausible that there can be an observer. In other words: while it is true that "there is no need for an agent", this needlessness does not necessitate non-existance. The only way of knowing this existence to be or not, is to look for something which is clamed in these circles not to exist: the self.

After reading your post I reflected a bit, and this is what I came up with:

My"self":

I am that which happens within my own reality.

Because that is so many things, all eventually passing away and stopping to exist, it is unlikely that the self is unchanging or seperate.

I see now how the "self" is a perspective applied to all these things, these sensations, not something which is observing anything.

The self is a seasoning added to the ingredients (sensations) of the dish of experience.

But this process of adding the self, even though I try, I do not know how to stop.


I do not remember what brought me to think "I am that which happens within my own reality", but there is a clue in it as to how I am relating to a self.

Viv Westbrook:

In other words, is there an observer, or is there just observing?

Are you the actions and the motions of the body?  Or are there just motions and actions.  


As to that clue that I mentioned, it appeares here as well. I do understand that the reality I experience is made of only tiny pieces of stuff (sensations), all arising and passing away. But the process of adding the self into the mix I cannot do much with as of now. To illustrate: while I understand that there is "just observing", I will think of it like this: "I am only the observing". Or, while I understand that there is "just motions and actions", I will think of it like this: "I am only motions and actions". And while reality/experience is just a field of sensations, I will think of it like this: "I am that which happens within my own reality".

As you see, the process of adding self/I am to everything still persist.

Viv Westbrook:

BTW - I am a friend of Ilona, Elena and Thassa - and since they are a little busy at the moment, they asked if I could respond to you.

Viv


Nice to meet you, Viv emoticon
Viv Westbrook, modified 11 Years ago at 7/13/11 5:48 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/13/11 5:48 PM

RE: Direct Pointing in Action

Posts: 5 Join Date: 7/1/11 Recent Posts
Hey Stian

Sorry for not coming back sooner, been a bit tied up.

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:


I do not find it plausible that there is an observer, but I do find it plausible that there can be an observer. In other words: while it is true that "there is no need for an agent", this needlessness does not necessitate non-existance. The only way of knowing this existence to be or not, is to look for something which is clamed in these circles not to exist: the self.

After reading your post I reflected a bit, and this is what I came up with:

I am that which happens within my own reality.

Because that is so many things, all eventually passing away and stopping to exist, it is unlikely that the self is unchanging or seperate.

I see now how the "self" is a perspective applied to all these things, these sensations, not something which is observing anything.

The self is a seasoning added to the ingredients (sensations) of the dish of experience.

But this process of adding the self, even though I try, I do not know how to stop.


There seem to be a lot of 'yous' around. ;-)

But I see what you're saying... Do you mean that the idea of self is something that happens after the event?

The reason you can't stop it, is because you're not doing it. It's a process of life, if you like.

A thought says that whatever happens is done by you. But can you find the thing that the thought is naming?

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:

I do not remember what brought me to think "I am that which happens within my own reality", but there is a clue in it as to how I am relating to a self.

As to that clue that I mentioned, it appeares here as well. I do understand that the reality I experience is made of only tiny pieces of stuff (sensations), all arising and passing away. But the process of adding the self into the mix I cannot do much with as of now. To illustrate: while I understand that there is "just observing", I will think of it like this: "I am only the observing". Or, while I understand that there is "just motions and actions", I will think of it like this: "I am only motions and actions". And while reality/experience is just a field of sensations, I will think of it like this: "I am that which happens within my own reality".

As you see, the process of adding self/I am to everything still persist.


How does it persist, Stian? What happens? Is there a self that creates it? Is there an I? Please look and tell me what you find. What is the I that is the observing, the motions and actions and is that which happens without its own reality.

Find out what that is and please let me know what it is exactly. Because if there is an I that is all these things then it will be as easy to identify as the observing, motions and actions that it is.

I look forward to hearing.

viv
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, modified 11 Years ago at 7/15/11 6:31 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/15/11 12:33 PM

RE: Direct Pointing in Action

Posts: 296 Join Date: 9/5/10 Recent Posts
Viv Westbrook:

What is the I that is the observing (...)


It is empty. There is only observing.

I will try to dwell a bit in this.

Edit:

So I got a glimpse of the fact that the thing that parades as "I" is empty.

I tried to "see it" again, but I couldn't really grasp it. I noticed that my mind-state was agitated/excited and this brought up thoughts of something Kenneth said in a talk he has (journalistic self-enquiry): that there is no such thing as a mind-state, only body-states. And I noticed that I would formulate the situation as "I am agitated". So now there is an "I" that is having a body-state. But I clearly just saw through "I", so I asked "who is it that has this body-state". I refined the question and asked "who owns this body".

Repeating this question a couple of times, something finally came back: "I do". Recognizing this as the Witness that Kenneth talks about, I went on to get absorbed in this "I"-feeling.


It seems that there is a "me" and an "I".

The "me" is the "I-thought", which is the empty illusion of an experiencer, seemingly perpertuated by force of habit.

Then there is the "I". It is the transpersonal self, the Witness, and dwelling in the feeling of "I" is very calm and serene.


Coming back from the feeling of "I" feels quite jarring. Particularly, it happened that thoughts such as "I is different from me" arose while dwelling in the Witness, and this thinking of the "me" abruptly ended the mild absorbtion in the feeling of "I".

At some point there was some conflicting thoughts regarding Ramana Maharshi teachings. I find the "me" that I speak of perfectly alignes with Sri Maharshis "I-thought". But what is the "I"/Witness? According to my interpretation of Kenneths opinion, the Witness is some intermediate between Maharshis "I-thought" and Maharshis "Self" or primodial awareness. Maharshi doesn't mention any intermediate like this, as far as I can remember. Anyone care to chime in on this?

me - I - Self? Phew...
Viv Westbrook, modified 11 Years ago at 7/16/11 7:17 PM
Created 11 Years ago at 7/16/11 7:17 PM

RE: Direct Pointing in Action

Posts: 5 Join Date: 7/1/11 Recent Posts
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:

So I got a glimpse of the fact that the thing that parades as "I" is empty.


A glimpse is seeing. And once you've seen this, Stian.... you won't ever forget. Now, it's always there, it always was, actually. Even if it feels like:

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:

I tried to "see it" again, but I couldn't really grasp it.


That's because it's not something that you have to 'try' to see. It's always there. It's just this ordinary, obvious seeing.


Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:

.......
Repeating this question a couple of times, something finally came back: "I do". Recognizing this as the Witness that Kenneth talks about, I went on to get absorbed in this "I"-feeling.


There is no you to get absorbed. There is just an 'I-feeling'. It's just a feeling. There is a feeling. There is no you doing it, producing it, feeling it. Because then there would have to be a you and a feeling. And that would mean that the you would have to be outside the feeling. But there can only ever be reality. There can't be something outside reality that 'know's' or 'feels' reality, because then it would bre outside reality. But, how can anything exist outside of reality? It can't.

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:

Coming back from the feeling of "I" feels quite jarring. Particularly, it happened that thoughts such as "I is different from me" arose while dwelling in the Witness, and this thinking of the "me" abruptly ended the mild absorbtion in the feeling of "I".

At some point there was some conflicting thoughts regarding Ramana Maharshi teachings. I find the "me" that I speak of perfectly alignes with Sri Maharshis "I-thought". But what is the "I"/Witness? According to my interpretation of Kenneths opinion, the Witness is some intermediate between Maharshis "I-thought" and Maharshis "Self" or primodial awareness. Maharshi doesn't mention any intermediate like this, as far as I can remember. Anyone care to chime in on this?

me - I - Self? Phew...


Yeah. Phew. Lot of concepts there, Stian. Witness. Intermediary. Self. Primordial Awareness.

The reason that Maharshi didn't mention an intermediate, is because there is none.

Look. There is life living as this. There can't be anything other than this. I don't mean this in a mystical/spiritual sense. This is purely, utterly and realistically obvious and logical.

There is only this. That can't be denied.

And there is no you that 'does' this.

There is no you. Look. See that everywhere you look right now and whatever is looked at it doesn't need you to be looked at and there is nothing needed to see.