Riddle

Why can't you see this?

 

Because of a tiny, habitual assumption that goes undetected.

  The assumption is that there is a 'you' who sets out to do the inquiry.


 

It's Not Just That There's No You...

In recent discussions, the notion of 'best direct pointers' has come up often. While accuracy of language and phrasing is entirely subjective and without a final truth to be landed upon, the question has led to an examination and refinement in the phrasing I use.  Let's take a look.  

 

Which pointer do you find more helpful in opening your mind up to a line of inquiry...

1.  There is no you.
2.  There is no tangible you.

I've used both, though feel that the first is more direct and effective.  But the second one is, for lack of a better word, more 'accurate'.

The problem with number 1 is that it can lead to a nihilistic view.  With number 2, the individual can try to work the concept of 'tangible' instead of working the concept of 'you'.  This has led to a pointing style in which I start off with "There is no you." and work into looking at how that phrase can be true when we compare tangible objects to the idea or concept of a self.  So we're looking at what is known to the five senses, and comparing that to what's ungraspable.

But that's only a first step, and with some, once the no(t) self insight comes,  I do further work on the nature of time and space, and then examine objects themselves.  This broader inquiry loosens the conceptual framework of that steadfast "I".

If I had to say which types of pointers reconcile the two statements made above, what's most true is this:

The YOU doesn't exist in the way it's assumed to.  There's no 'historical you', 'present you', or 'future you'.  There's no actual entity which lives through time and space, only thoughts which appear to pop up in time.  And thoughts appear just one at a time.

Ok, think about that.

Thoughts appear just one at a time.

This means that each time the 'I' or 'self' is referenced, it comes up, and then disappears along with the thought.

There is no entity moving from thought to thought.

But existing only within a single fleeting thought is not how humans see the self, even though that's actually the only way it can be said to Be.

Test this.  Thoroughly.


photo credit:  CommanderDex on Deviantart

Love Letter to a You

I must like the idea of writing a letter to a seeker because here's another....

Dear You,

You don't exist.

Never have. 

Not in the way you THINK you do.

Listen to the surroundings.  

Can sound help but be heard?

Look at the sights.  

Can sights help but be seen?

Feel. Reach out and touch something.  

Can sensation help but be felt?

This is so very obvious to the You, isn't it.  "I see that!", you tell me in our exchanges.  "But I still FEEL a me!"

You're frustrated.

The very fact that you're frustrated demonstrates the obvious.  There is no you in control, just life happening. Frustration happening.  Did a You choose to be frustrated?

So look again.  Do it now.

Can you see that words on a screen led to that looking?  Was there a you that the words had to wrestle with or did it just naturally flow from the reading?  The assumption is that the sentence reads, "YOU should look."    "You should now listen."  "You should now feel."

That's not what was asked.  And there's a reason why the directive does not need a noun or pronoun.

There is no "I" doing the looking, the seeing.

photo credit:  darksideofthesun on deviantart

Dear Seeker, It's Never Easy to Write This....

I'm not sure how many ways I can tell you this, and so most times I just have to repeat myself.  You don't listen.  Thoughts crowd out the very ability to listen to direction.  And!  You often become frustrated with this direction and walk away from our inquiry thinking that the pointer can't be of much use.  You assume that the person giving it is just wrong about what it is you need to hear in order to see this.  But the truth is,

You're wrong.

There's a reason why this particular pointer is the most effective I've come across.  It's direct.  Blunt.  It leaves no room for discussion, and my role is to end the discussion entirely. 

I don't want a dialogue with you! 

Don't be offended by that.

While a dialogue may help you to UNDERSTAND what's being said, that understanding isn't what's going to get this done.  I'll tell you what will and I'll give it my best shot, knowing that it's worked for hundreds of people already, maybe thousands.  Here it is, so listen up.

Just Look.

That's it.  It's the best and most thorough pointer you're going to find if you could just stop long enough to do what's directed. 

Now, you have to ask yourself this... how is it that this pointer can be it.  The one.  Everything.  The KEY?  Go ahead and ask that question.  Test it out.  Tear it up.  How is that IT?

And when you hit a brick wall, just maybe you'll do what's being asked which is to notice that a speck of dust is more real than the self.  A droplet of dew is more real than the self has ever been or can ever be. 

How is that true?  In what way is that true?

When the answer comes, just stop and take that in.  Then scan that brain for all of the teachings which say that this is simple.  Childlike.  Humble.  Think of all the accounts of those who've 'gotten it' and said that they couldn't believe how simple it is.  And the look of wonder?  It's not because they're suddenly seeing pixie dust or rainbows.  It's because they stopped to follow the directive, and then they saw the truth of REALITY AS IT IS.

Now....

Just.
Look.
Look at the picture in this post.
What is seen?
What is absent?

Look at anything.
Anywhere.
Any time.
What is seen?
What is not?



photo credit:  soft drop by JimmyJaszczurka

 

In nearly two years of working with individuals on seeing through the illusion of a separate self, I've noticed that the biggest obstacle to seeing that the self is created and dies with thought is in slowing the process of inquiry. Out of habit, the train of thinking keeps rolling and doesn't slow down long enough to inquire into whether or not the content of any single thought exists as actual ...reality. I generally suggest a two-fold inquiry. First, I ask the person to look at a single thought to determine whether the content is real. As in Real Life Actual. And often, immediately upon discovering that it's not, the finding is entirely dismissed. Instead, commentary and thought spin about why or how thoughts appear, and what they might mean, begins in earnest. The cycle of overthinking begins and the simplest of inquiries is entirely swallowed by analysis.

To counter this, I try to simplify the inquiry further, slowing the person down long enough to look at how one single thought works. My favorite way is to ask a question about a delicious dessert. Well, because I just happen to love dessert.

So... as an example, let's talk chocolate layer cake, specifically from Gregg's Restaurant in Rhode Island, because that's just the best I've ever had. Especially with a glass of milk. 

 

There's nothing like that first bite, the first introduction of that fudgy frosting and moist, fluffy cake. It literally melts in your mouth. I'm not sure what kind of chocolate they use, or why the cake is my favorite but the combination gets me every time.

But I can't eat the thought of a chocolate cake. No matter how much detail I go into in describing it, it's just one empty thought after another. My craving for the cake remains and can never, ever be satisfied by thought.

It's like this with all thought. They're empty of actual content, empty of reality, except in the imagination. Though thought can function as a terrific tool to assist you in imagining your route to work, or in gathering ingredients for a recipe, it's limited. And in and of itself, utterly powerless to manipulate physical reality. No matter how much thinking goes on, reality remains unaltered unless the thought is followed by an action. The thought doesn't cause the action. Not directly. Action MAY follow the event of a thought and another thought links the two separate events. But the two never touch in actuality.

In any inquiry on the nature of thought, this is an important, basic, and largely overlooked fact. The implications are enormous. All of the anxious thoughts about what might happen or might BE happening is pure fiction and imagination. That this is true is very literal. Even the thoughts that tell you how to avoid a dreaded upcoming condition is fiction until action results.

The next time anxious thoughts about what is, will, or might be happening begin racing (and there's no stopping them, so don't try), try pointing to that content anywhere in your current reality. Separate the thought from the physical reality and see how no matter how many thoughts appear, nothing ever changes. The anxious thoughts will disappear on their own, replaced by other thoughts. Until they do, notice each one and check your surroundings. Has anything actually been altered?

 

photo credit:  deep in thought, by slatkatajna

Don't Just Dream About Waking Up

It's good to get some free stuff every once in a while, especially when it's a book or two on waking up.   After all, you've probably paid for quite a few already.


While bookstores or online stores are full of intriguing titles, these freebies linked down below take a different tack.  What they aren't about, is THEORY. 

Live Lucidly.

The first, from Liberation Unleashed, contains actual accounts of guides working one on one, in conjunction with an individual, to point them to their OWN awakening.

The second book, from TruthStrike,  is a collection of best blog posts written by those who've successfully been doing the guiding for a long while.  It's a great read and can be digested in sections.  Yes, my posts are in there too.

Anyway, oth books are compilations.  There's no one voice, one guru, one Truth.  And that's the point.  Find your own!

For now, enjoy.  And.... I mentioned that they're free, right?  Yes, all resources at TruthStrike and Liberation Unleashed are free, just like 'you'.


photo by M0THart on deviantart

 

Examining the nature of Time and Phenomena?  Here is an excellent post by StepVhen over at his blog, BurningTrue.  If you're feeling stuck at all, I'd highly recommend clicking that link and reading through.

 

Time & Phenomena

by Stephen Stark

Short conversation I had with a student recently. Her questions are in bold:

Is there no such thing as an independent phenomenon? A thing that exists as exactly what it is, as itself,  regardless of any other factors?

  Is there anything safe from the ravages of time?

What about time itself in that case?

  Do you think time exists as a phenomenon? I'm talking here in terms of our personal and social conceptions of time rather than the scientific concept of time which closer resembles the view I'm about to put forward: We speak about it in metaphorical terms as though it were a medium we travel through, or that travels to us. That's a heuristic, a shortcut of thought we make, a leap of faith, that allows us to make use of the concept of time for our everyday lives. Our concept of time allows us to make use the fact that every phenomenon is in a state of flux and change so that we may structure our experience. The ever-changing and fluctuating nature of phenomena is so reliable that we literally set our watches to it . Phenomena are in a constant state of flux. We conceptualise the existence of discrete "states of change" in a linear manner (at times mistakenly projecting causality from one state to the next). We imagine phenomena to exist within time and imagine it as either traveling through time, or time as flowing around/over it. As this happens the phenomenon morphs and changes "as it passes through/with the passing of time". We imagine the phenomenon to be unchanged at a basic essential level however.

Viewing our world in this way makes it seem more concrete as phenomenon remain unchanged overtime at a basic level. Your old toys are still your old toys years later, they're just a bit "time-worn". Your old friends are still your old friends, they've just "changed over time" maybe even "grown up a little".

This isn't the case. Time "itself" does not exist. The concept of time is a useful way of structuring our reality, it allows us to make plans and co-ordinate our activities with others. It also lends a false sense of stability to phenomena. The concept of time does not exist independently from human cognition. In fact when considered the way we have considered it here, the concept of time stands as further proof of the non existence of independent and stable phenomena. This calls the validity of phenomena, the validity of our theories of stability and independence into question also.


So you think there is no such thing as "phenomena"?

Well anyone can see for themselves that there is no such thing as a stable phenomenon; if a phenomenon isn't stable then can it still be considered a phenomenon? We think of and treat phenomena as though they are stable entities when they are not. Phenomena do not exist. Processes exist. What we think of as a "phenomena" is a thin slice of a process taken at a certain point in it's fluctuation. Phenomena are cognitive constructs. Static snapshots of ongoing process. They do not exist  independently of human cognition because nothing is actually static.