solid key to clarity and emotional balance

[Hicquodiam]

About six months ago, I stumbled onto something very, very cool.

It was a forum called the Arena, and more specifically it was what they were screaming about on that site: something about "liberation."

The whole concept was pretty confusing, mainly because I wasn't considering what they were saying, but eventually I got it and I'm glad I did.

Basically, you've got a general idea of the way knowledge works, yeah? As a rough sketch: The brain recognizes patterns in experience (names, places, faces, language) and uses those patterns to construct a map of reality.

It's not a perfect map though; in some places where there aren't recognized patterns, your mind will use assumed patterns or unverified beliefs to fill in those gaps, which leads to an inaccurate map of reality, which leads to confusing stuff happening in your life.

The "self" happens to be one of those inaccurate patterns: if you look and check there's nothing behind experience, experiencing it. There's no you before thoughts generating them.

I know it sounds weird, but it's accurate. Look at how accurate, how credible this is, look directly at your experience of life, now, and see how it's really not your experience of life: it's just the experience of life.

No you thinking, just thinking; no you breathing, just breathing, etc.

This false belief in the "me" leads to selfishness, which, because the self is a fiction, is a major source of wasted energy. Seeking approval, seeking social status, fame for the sake of being cool, all of this gets in the way of actually making real gains in the world.

Seeing the self as a fiction makes it much easier to condition your attention from focusing on the false to the real, giving you a more accurate mental map of reality and a much easier life.

Are you skeptical? Good - meld that into curiosity, find out if this is really, really true, get inside it from an open mind.

Do you already agree with this on the level of belief? Then amp up your skepticism, discard that beleif and see this on the level of pattern recognition.

The link in my signature is for a new site/forum which is dedicated to helping people see this, free, no catch.

If you're legitimately curious, I'll reply to the posts in this thread as quickly as I can.

There is no you, the self is a fiction. Look at the reality of this, and report back.

[Hicquodiam]

And the thing about this is it's not an experience... it's a recognition, no different than recognizing the pattern of a constellation, or recognizing that the letters b-e-d refer to the real squishy thing you sleep on.

You do have to recognize the reality of no-self in experience, but the recognition is key, not the experience of no-self. See, since "there is no you" is true, you're already experiencing it (or more accurately, the experience of life is already one where there isn't a you; there's no experiencer of experience).

Just look and see if this is already true.

Seeing that the self is a fiction provides emotional balance becuse it severs the link between perceived threats to the self-image and the organism receiving danger signals.

Sorry, that's a bit confusing... it basically gives your mind unshakable proof that the highs and lows of the self image don't mean anything, because the image is just a fiction, and nothing that happens to it has consequences in reality.

It also makes it EXTREMLY simple to distinguish between false thoughts and accurate thoughts. This makes life problems much easier to deal with, because your mental map of reality becomes clear as hell, making solutions obvious.

[Hicquodiam]

bump

[The Cloud]

I think the reason you haven't been getting a response isn't because of what you said, it's because of how you said it. It sounds like you're selling something, but the kind of people who want what you're selling don't want to buy it, even if it's free.

[Hicquodiam]

Maybe. What do you think Cloud - about this whole no-self thing?

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by Hicquodiam

Maybe. What do you think Cloud - about this whole no-self thing?

It's an idea I encountered and accepted quite some time ago.

[Hicquodiam]

Cool that you looked into it man.

Remember though, this is not, NOT about accepting anything. Recognition is a completely different mental function than acceptance.

Hell, you can see this, then deny it for the rest of your life, and still have the benefits.

So... on what basis do you accept this? Is the reality of no-self clear, as clear as these words? Or are you just accepting it because the concept seems credible?

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by Hicquodiam

So... on what basis do you accept this? Is the reality of no-self clear, as clear as these words? Or are you just accepting it because the concept seems credible?

I accepted it because I had no other choice but to do so. I had an epiphany, and there it was. To recognize it was to accept it as true. It's not about benefits or detriments, it's just the way things are, although I suppose overall it's beneficial to admit that reality is what it is.

I disagree that it's beneficial without acceptance, though, because it's only beneficial to know such a thing in a context which supports it. If all your behaviors are based on beliefs that contradict this truth as you know it, you'll largely end up self-destructing with the recognition of your hypocrisy.

Frankly, most popular beliefs and behaviors fall under this heading, so recognizing and even accepting this truth will likely have no immediate benefit whatsoever, and furthermore will likely seem a detriment as it puts you out of step with most everyone around you. It's of no use to anyone who hasn't properly integrated it. If it were just a matter of it being beneficial, I doubt anyone would willingly recognize it at all, since it interferes with so many other "beneficial" behaviors.

It's just the way things are, though, regardless of benefit. I think anyone trying to recognize it for reasons of benefit will find it inaccessible, and anyone who tries to use it in that manner will find it uncooperative. It's not a recognition which rewards contradictions, and to presume to use it is to contradict it.

[Hicquodiam]

Cool. Yeah. You do have to be interested in what's true, and what's true alone to see this.

People have recognized this only to go on unaccepting it - Buddhists who see no-self, only to re-identify with "everything", for example. But I mean, no matter how much they deny it, they can't "unsee" it.

Interesting that you've seen this - I'm a bit skeptical and curious. If you don't mind, I've got some questions:

Where did you first encounter these ideas?

What triggered your exact moment of recognizing this?

How has life been different since noticing this?

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by Hicquodiam

Where did you first encounter these ideas?

I had decided to try out meditation, so I would listen to a compilation of Alan Watts speaking on the subject while sitting quietly. When he talked about the non-existence of self, it made no sense to me at the time, so I completely ignored it. I only remembered after my realization that I'd heard something like that before. It's hard to say whether hearing about it actually influenced me or not, since there were other factors in my life that definitely played a strong role in my understanding.

Originally Posted by Hicquodiam

What triggered your exact moment of recognizing this?

I was writing in my journal, and at some point the following came out:

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Why do I feel obligated to be myself? Why do I feel the need to be me? I am not me if I am needing to be me, I don't need to be me, only somebody else needs to be me, and that's not me. So I am not going to try and be me anymore, I am going to try and be you, to be you and the person that I am, the person that is, just is, is nothing and is nothing else, is just is. I am not is, is just is the way it is, and I am not. There is no me or you, there is just is. Just is, just the existence, just is. Is just is, it isn't anything that isn't and isn't put to definition, it just is. What is? Is, nothing else is but is. What understanding is there I am missing? I am not missing it, because the I that is missing it isn't.

This was all very stream-of-conscious, and it actually confounded me that I was writing such things.

After that, I took a walk, and then went to sit somewhere and think. Suddenly it just occurred to me that my existence as a thing was unreal. I was an action, not a thing. A verb instead of a noun. Since all separations between myself and others were arbitrary, I couldn't possibly be a singular existence, so I couldn't possibly be an existence at all, just the act of existing. I laughed a lot over the next half-hour or so, such that I couldn't help it.

Originally Posted by Hicquodiam

How has life been different since noticing this?

It's hard to say. This was back in 2007, but if I remember correctly, things go worse before they got better. The idea of non-existence just didn't fit with the rest of the ways I was living. Frankly, I think it occurred to me at an incredibly premature time. I doubt my brain was physically capable of accepting the totality of it, even if I made no efforts to deny it. There was too big a contradiction between that and my life previous. It certainly didn't help me get along with anyone else.

So if you ask me what changed, I'd have to say that perhaps it lead to other realizations that did lead to actual changes. It's not like it's something that can be logically applied, even once learned. I couldn't say this, therefore, that, because it didn't mesh at all with my previous way of experiencing the world.

It could be that it was an all-or-nothing deal, and I ended up with nothing changing. I certainly didn't reach enlightenment. It could be that I wasn't ready, physically, since I have come to believe that physical receptiveness to such experiences in the brain is a strong factor in whether an idea changes your way of being.

So it could also be that the epiphany itself was of no importance, and the increase in receptiveness in my brain that was key. I've improved since then, but I can't say where that realization fits with that improvement. I'd like to think that I gained something on that day, but the truth is I'm not sure.

[masteredfate]

Why is the letter S on your site a dollar sign ($)?

Why is it called a "trigger"?

Why, if it is free, are you not just posting it here?

Why is there a lightning bolt activation symbol on your site?

If it' s just you, why is there a team of people?

Just using my awareness to see clearly.

[Hicquodiam]

Heya Cloud, thanks for posting that - I'll reply to yours tomorrow.

Now, masteredfate,

Originally Posted by masteredfate

Why is the letter S on your site a dollar sign ($)?

It's supposed to be a strike. Like, a straight lightening bolt - but, hah, leads to a silly connotation, probably should change it.

Why is it called a "trigger"?

Because it's one permanent recognition which opens up the possibility of living a much more honest and meaningful human life.

"Trigger" is the most accurate description for it that I've heard - seeing no-self just takes one quick look, and then it's over with.

Why, if it is free, are you not just posting it here?

I did - the first post is enough, but if you need any clarification, I'll keep replying to your posts until it clicks.

There is no you, look.

Why is there a lightning bolt activation symbol on your site?

Don't know what you mean by "activaiton", but the bolt was chosen for the "Strike" part of Truth Strike.

Strike because it's instant. Truth because it's based on directly recognizing a truth about reality.

If it' s just you, why is there a team of people?

When did I ever say it's just me? Yeah, we've got a team.

Used to be a lot more, most of them disappeared for reasons I don't understand - laziness, probably.

Does it matter?

Just using my awareness to see clearly.

No, you completely avoided engaging with the content of my post in order to make crude jabs at what you think is a conspiracy, because it flatters you to be skeptical - at least, that's what it looks like from here.

Look man, that's not really a bad thing - at least you replied, threw this stuff on the table. Now that we've got it cleared, direct your curiosity towards this no-self stuff.

...from an open mind of course. No lazy jabs - start with the possibility that it MIGHT be true, at least be honest and open-minded enough to admit that, and then from that angle, use your curiosity to find out if it actually is true.

Sound reasonable?

[Hicquodiam]

Alright Cloud,

Suddenly it just occurred to me that my existence as a thing was unreal. I was an action, not a thing. A verb instead of a noun. Since all separations between myself and others were arbitrary, I couldn't possibly be a singular existence, so I couldn't possibly be an existence at all, just the act of existing.

This is still a logical argument, see? Your premises are (correct me if I've got this wrong)

1. My (or any existence) is not a stable thing, it's an ongoing flow of actions.

2. Separations between me and others is arbitrary; those lines can be drawn anywhere (I remember Alan Watts clarifies this to an insane degree)

And from those you draw this conclusion:

*I can't be a singular existence, therefore I am the act of existing."

No no. First of all, if you assume a self in the premise and have it in the conclusion, you still assume it exists.

Secondly, you're identifying the body as "me". Yes, of course the body exists, or is the act of existence, or whatever you want to call it. That's not what anyone refers to when they use "I" though.

"I" refers to the owner of the body, the experiencer of the body, the thing that controls it's actions, the core of life.

THAT doesn't exist, nor is it the act of existing. It's nowhere, nothing, because life operates on its own, and experience isn't experienced.

This is not a conclusion from a logical argument - but a premise from a direct empirical evidence. The recognition I'm talking about is the direct recognition of this, just like recognizing that this sentence ends with a period.

So if you ask me what changed, I'd have to say that perhaps it lead to other realizations that did lead to actual changes. It's not like it's something that can be logically applied, even once learned.

Exactly. Recognition is something completely different.

It could be that it was an all-or-nothing deal, and I ended up with nothing changing.

Hah nah you'll notice major changes if you recognize this.

I certainly didn't reach enlightenment. It could be that I wasn't ready, physically, since I have come to believe that physical receptiveness to such experiences in the brain is a strong factor in whether an idea changes your way of being.

Way of being?

No, no, I've seen people of all ages and backgrounds get this. If you can recognize a friend's face, or a constellation in the sky, then you're capable of recognizing no-self.

So it could also be that the epiphany itself was of no importance, and the increase in receptiveness in my brain that was key. I've improved since then, but I can't say where that realization fits with that improvement. I'd like to think that I gained something on that day, but the truth is I'm not sure.

Revisit it from the scientific method. Direct evidence is what you're looking for.

Go get 'em tiger!

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by Hicquodiam

This is still a logical argument, see? Your premises are (correct me if I've got this wrong)

1. My (or any existence) is not a stable thing, it's an ongoing flow of actions.

2. Separations between me and others is arbitrary; those lines can be drawn anywhere (I remember Alan Watts clarifies this to an insane degree)

And from those you draw this conclusion:

*I can't be a singular existence, therefore I am the act of existing."

No no. First of all, if you assume a self in the premise and have it in the conclusion, you still assume it exists.

Secondly, you're identifying the body as "me". Yes, of course the body exists, or is the act of existence, or whatever you want to call it. That's not what anyone refers to when they use "I" though.

"I" refers to the owner of the body, the experiencer of the body, the thing that controls it's actions, the core of life.

THAT doesn't exist, nor is it the act of existing. It's nowhere, nothing, because life operates on its own, and experience isn't experienced.

This is not a conclusion from a logical argument - but a premise from a direct empirical evidence. The recognition I'm talking about is the direct recognition of this, just like recognizing that this sentence ends with a period.

Of course you're right, but it's unfair of you to point it out. There's no way I could have stated it without using personal pronouns, unless I used a non-english language that doesn't use nouns at all. Notice that you made the same mistake, simply by referring to "it," when there is no it to refer to.

Originally Posted by Hicquodiam

Exactly. Recognition is something completely different.



Hah nah you'll notice major changes if you recognize this.



Way of being?

No, no, I've seen people of all ages and backgrounds get this. If you can recognize a friend's face, or a constellation in the sky, then you're capable of recognizing no-self.



Revisit it from the scientific method. Direct evidence is what you're looking for.

I'm not sure what you're implying that I can do, but in my experience, I'm never ready until I am. Many times I have revisited understandings from the past, only to discover that my rational understanding was too superior to my actual capabilities, and that I was incapable of properly applying that understanding at the time I had it.

It's not a matter of will or decision, it's a matter of what can and cannot be done. True, it's useless to say it cannot be done when it can, but it's equally useless to say it can be done when it isn't. Knowing that I can do something that I can't choose to do is no better than not being able to do it at all, until I can do it by choice.

Originally Posted by Hicquodiam

Go get 'em tiger!

Who am I supposed to go get, if the concept of 'em is invalid?

[Hicquodiam]

Of course you're right, but it's unfair of you to point it out. There's no way I could have stated it without using personal pronouns, unless I used a non-english language that doesn't use nouns at all. Notice that you made the same mistake, simply by referring to "it," when there is no it to refer to.

No dude. Of course personal pronouns are fine for everyday language, instructions, etc. Language is set up to use them, not using them is going to sound weird.

BUT, if you're trying to define what "I" is (or isn't), that's probably a good place not to use it.

You said "I am the act of existing." Where does the "I" fit into the act of existing? What about the act of existing yields mental identification with it?

I'm not sure what you're implying that I can do, but in my experience, I'm never ready until I am.

I'm saying that you only understand this on a rational level.

Pretend you're six years old. If you were terrified, terrified that a monster is under your bed, and your mom told you there isn't, then yes, you might be able to convince yourself on a rational level that there isn't a monster - I mean, your Mom's a pretty high source of authority and reliable knowledge.

BUT, does that ever really work? You might feel a bit calmer, but you still won't know. The only way to be sure is to look under the bed.

Look, yes, it's true that there is no self because there are no divisions in reality. But it's also true that there's no self because life happens automatically on it's own, without a self.

Knowing the first one is like the monster under your bed - it won't trigger a permanent recognition of no-you, just a recognition of the interaction between the premise and conclusion.

Seeing the direct evidence of the second one, by looking at reality through the perspective that it is true, and then seeing how accurate that perspective is - that's much much more solid.

Many times I have revisited understandings from the past, only to discover that my rational understanding was too superior to my actual capabilities, and that I was incapable of properly applying that understanding at the time I had it.

Don't worry about the past. If it's true that there is no you, then it is true right here right now, and you'll always be able to recognize it in an instant. Do that.

It's not a matter of will or decision, it's a matter of what can and cannot be done. True, it's useless to say it cannot be done when it can, but it's equally useless to say it can be done when it isn't. Knowing that I can do something that I can't choose to do is no better than not being able to do it at all, until I can do it by choice.

You can do this.

Who am I supposed to go get, if the concept of 'em is invalid?

It's not you getting anything - just the mind recognizing something.