Write Something That Is True... Spiritual Autolysis Challenge

[Philip]

No, wait...

2) Could something both be and not be ?

2.1) Could 2) both be true and false ?

2.2) Could 2) neither be true nor false ?

3) Could something neither be nor not be ?

3.1) Could 3) both be true and false ?

3.2) Could 3) neither be true nor false ?

I think I just found an infinite source of not-knowing right there.

Mind = Imploded

[Leo Gura]

@Philip Haha! Awesome!

Try gnawing on this chestnut: is the distinction between true/false true? Or false? Is falseness true, or is falseness false?

[Emerald]

Questions: What is existence? What is non-existence?

Write something true regarding these questions...

'Things in existence exist. Things that are not in existence don't exist.' or 'Things in existence are. Things not in existence are not.'

My definition of existence- Everything that is.

Are there things in existence or is there just existence? Not sure

Can there be any thing that is a 'not' thing? - Maybe empty space

Is empty space a thing or the absence of a thing? - Seemingly the absence of a thing. But I've never experienced this. Even emptiness from my experience contains air. So, empty space is a concept that I have in my mind, and not a thing that I'm experiencing in the now.

Does my concept of empty space mean empty space doesn't exist?  No. But it means that I don't know

Am I experiencing anything right now that doesn't exist? Not sure

What is existence? When something is there

Where is there? In reality

Where is reality? In my subjective experience right now

Where is my experience? No particular place. Places exist only within the content of my experience. My experience isn't located anywhere, because anywhere is a concept within my subjective experience.

So, is place a 'not' thing? I'm not sure.

How do I perceive of place visually? Visually I experience a flat screen of shapes imbued with colors that I interpret based on my previous experiences in the world.

How do I perceive of place tactually? I feel sensations that seem to have length, width, and depth which seem to correspond to the sights that I see because of a lifetime of experiencing them in tandem with one another. Either way, I don't know if my sensations have any special relativity to one another. I could perhaps convince myself that some sensations are bigger, smaller, more left, more right than the others. I could also focus on my sensations to the point where they feel like a universe in themselves.

Do I perceive of place any other way? No. Only as a thought story

Does place have to have an up, down, left, and right? No. Directions are a concept to make space more understandable to the human mind.

Can existence happen in a "place" if none of these directions exist? Maybe.

Could I narrow down the location of 'my' experiences to a particular point? No.

Does this mean that place doesn't exist? Maybe.

Rewriting what's true:

Non-existence is. Existence has no particular place.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Emerald Wilkins

[Emerald]

If there are no "things" inside of reality and there is no place for reality, does reality exist? Maybe not.

Are my perceptions themselves (not the content of perception) objects? No. Objects are content of the perception and not the perception itself.

[jjer94]

Quote

Objects are content of the perception and not the perception itself.

Further... What is the substance of an object? Do objects even exist?

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

Further... What is the substance of an object? Do objects even exist?

So, visually the substance of the object appears to be light. But light itself is just content within the perception. It's another assumption based upon what I "know" about how color is perceived. Tactually, an 'object' is just a sensation. But the sensation related to my experience of the object has nothing to do with my visual experience of the object nor any other sensory perception of the object.

What I have is a flat plane of shapes imbued with colors, perceived by no one that is seemingly floating in nothingness. It could just be a screen with seemingly corresponding sensations that are also floating in nothingness.

[jjer94]

Quote

perceived by no one that is seemingly floating in nothingness

No one may be perceiving it, but there's an awareness that perception is happening. What is aware? Is it the 'nothingness'?

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

No one may be perceiving it, but there's an awareness that perception is happening. What is aware? Is it the 'nothingness'?

Is it the empty space around "my perceptions" that is aware? Like if I were to focus just outside of my perceptual awareness... into the emptiness that "I" am not aware of.

[jjer94]

5 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

Is it the empty space around "my perceptions" that is aware?

What else could it be?  That emptiness around your perceptions is the "I Am." Notice how if you stop believing yourself to be a body and instead the "I Am" that encompasses the body and everything else, it feels as though everything - even sounds and sights - are inside you. And it's all very much alive. Do you see? Sights and sounds were never external to you - that was just an artificial distinction. All sense perceptions are manifestations of your true nature. Can you see from this that on one hand you are everything?

Quote

Like if I were to focus just outside of my perceptual awareness... into the emptiness that "I" am not aware of.

"Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion: that is all. Stop attributing names and shapes to the essentially nameless and formless, realize that every mode of perception is subjective, that what is seen or heard, touched or smelt, felt or thought, expected or imagined, is in the mind and not in reality, and you will experience peace and freedom from fear. Even the sense of ‘I am’ is composed of the pure light and the sense of being. The ‘I’ is there even without the ‘am’. So is the pure light there whether you say ‘I’ or not. Become aware of that pure light and you will never lose it. The beingness in being, the awareness in consciousness, the interest in every experience — that is not describable, yet perfectly accessible, for there is nothing else." --Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Emerald]

35 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

What else could it be?  That emptiness around your perceptions is the "I Am." Notice how if you stop believing yourself to be a body and instead the "I Am" that encompasses the body and everything else, it feels as though everything - even sounds and sights - are inside you. And it's all very much alive. Do you see? Sights and sounds were never external to you - that was just an artificial distinction. All sense perceptions are manifestations of your true nature. Can you see from this that on one hand you are everything?

"Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion: that is all. Stop attributing names and shapes to the essentially nameless and formless, realize that every mode of perception is subjective, that what is seen or heard, touched or smelt, felt or thought, expected or imagined, is in the mind and not in reality, and you will experience peace and freedom from fear. Even the sense of ‘I am’ is composed of the pure light and the sense of being. The ‘I’ is there even without the ‘am’. So is the pure light there whether you say ‘I’ or not. Become aware of that pure light and you will never lose it. The beingness in being, the awareness in consciousness, the interest in every experience — that is not describable, yet perfectly accessible, for there is nothing else." --Nisargadatta Maharaj

I feel like my conceptual understanding of this is getting in the way of my experience. But it reminds me a lot of the process used to draw and paint realistically. Instead of depicting my concept of an object, I paint the shapes and colors in my direct visual awareness. So, it is applying this skill to all of reality in the present moment to detach from all beliefs and assumptions. But I sometimes experiment with flipping my experience to the "I Am" perspective but it doesn't really feel like a breakthrough. Any thoughts or advice?

[jjer94]

23 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

I feel like my conceptual understanding of this is getting in the way of my experience.

You are most definitely the queen of doing that  Just because you have an excellent map doesn't mean you're an excellent driver. All words and concepts are untrue. I suggest that you pay less attention to semantics/wordplay/saying the 'right' things and more to what words are pointing at in direct experience.

23 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

So, it is applying this skill to all of reality in the present moment to detach from all beliefs and assumptions.

Not necessarily; this sort of inquiry is more for self-realization, or awakenings. There are other techniques for detachment, i.e. self-negation, that I'm sure you already are using (meditation, contemplation, etc.). Self-realization is the easy part; sloughing off bits of yourself little by little is the hard part.

23 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

But I sometimes experiment with flipping my experience to the "I Am" perspective but it doesn't really feel like a breakthrough.

Do you at least see that you are everything? That is a huge breakthrough.

Close your eyes for a second. Forget about the ideas of "inside" and "outside." Go into a room with some noise. Where are those sounds coming from? Where are they going? Do you see that you are not limited to the body? That you're not 'inside the skull'? That there is simply perception in this limitless blanket of empty "I Am"?

Now play around with the ideas of "inside" and "outside". Touch, smell, taste, and thinking are just as much "inside" as seeing and hearing, are they not?

P.S. Don't worry around trying to constantly flip back to the "I Am." It will become your natural state once you do enough self-negation.

Edited March 29, 2016 by jjer94

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

You are most definitely the queen of doing that  Just because you have an excellent map doesn't mean you're an excellent driver. All words and concepts are untrue. I suggest that you pay less attention to semantics/wordplay/saying the 'right' things and more to what words are pointing at in direct experience.

That's very true. I tend to get caught up in the map a lot. I think it's because I'm afraid on some level of just being. I've always been cerebral and somewhat disassociated with other aspect of reality because I was always scared of my vulnerability to death, loss, and strong unpleasant emotions, so I tend to habitually wall myself off in my head seeking solace with concepts and thoughts. With the only exceptions to this being some moments in my childhood and my two enlightenment experiences that I go on about. It was the only time that I didn't have to seek anything at all. It was all there already and perfect. There was nothing to seek and nothing to fear.

19 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

Not necessarily; this sort of inquiry is more for self-realization, or awakenings. There are other techniques for detachment, i.e. self-negation, that I'm sure you already are using (meditation, contemplation, etc.). Self-realization is the easy part; sloughing off bits of yourself little by little is the hard part.

So, this tool is good for awakenings but not the actual detachment/deconstruction part. This just made me realize that these things are different from one another. I had been assuming that these go together as one cohesive thing. But this makes sense. There are some very mundane things that are keeping me tied to the concept I have spun for myself. Attachment to being good, admirable, competent, attractive, intelligent, etc. in the eyes of others and myself. I'm aware of it intellectually and in an abstract way I can see it is very silly, but there is still an emotional attachment there and a feeling of needing to be something to someone else to be significant or worthy of love.

 

35 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

Do you at least see that you are everything? That is a huge breakthrough.

Close your eyes for a second. Forget about the ideas of "inside" and "outside." Go into a room with some noise. Where are those sounds coming from? Where are they going? Do you see that you are not limited to the body? That you're not 'inside the skull'? That there is simply perception in this limitless blanket of empty "I Am"?

Now play around with the ideas of "inside" and "outside". Touch, smell, taste, and thinking are just as much "inside" as seeing and hearing, are they not?

P.S. Don't worry around trying to constantly flip back to the "I Am." It will become your natural state once you do enough self-negation.

I do see that. Since a few weeks ago when you gave me that article, I was able to see that I could also see myself as the container for all of existence and the contents of that container as well. But the emotion about it isn't very strong and I still get caught up in resistance, fear, and small minded concerns. During my second enlightenment experience, I felt like I was thinking my thoughts outside of my head. I can now look right in my experience and see that my thoughts aren't anywhere inside the head or body.

But would I continue along this same line of questioning/observation to further the self-negation or are there any other self-negation techniques that you would recommend more?

[NoOne]

Shit happens.

 

Truth or fiction?  Literally and figuratively.

[jjer94]

8 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

But would I continue along this same line of questioning/observation to further the self-negation or are there any other self-negation techniques that you would recommend more?

Ralston actually talks a bit about this in his book Pursuing Consciousness. He calls self-realization as "having enlightenment experiences" and self-negation as "transformation". Basically, he says that enlightenment experiences can help speed the process of transformation, but they are not a substitute for transformation. I agree for the most part. You may realize Truth in a flash, but your entire self-structure full of neuroses and hidden beliefs will likely still be intact afterwards. His bottom-line contemplation is an excellent tool for chipping away at that self-structure (that one's in The Book of Not Knowing). Also, writing/journaling can be used to uncover your psychological hang-ups. Even during meditation you can sometimes become aware of self-agendas. I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one technique out there that fits your preferences!

 

[jjer94]

22 minutes ago, NoOne said:

Shit happens.

 

Truth or fiction?  Literally and figuratively.

???  ???

[99th_monkey]

The Book of Not Know is all about breaking down assumptions and beliefs.I found it very helpful. But it lacks in the area that every book lacks. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by 99th_monkey

[NoOne]

3 minutes ago, jjer94 said:

???  ???

A statement to analyze in response to OP

[Telepresent]

I find autolysis to be the most radical discipline I have ever tried.  But there are caveats to that.

'Write the truth' can be a little misleading, if you approach it from a detached standpoint.  There is value in asking questions about perception, what you see, feel, how it all IS, etc.  But a large part of autolysis is about peeling away falseness, and you can't see falseness by asking detached questions about the universe, the 'outside world', how you see, hear, touch...

You have to get more personal. 

'Expose un-truth' is much closer to the mark, in my opinion.  You're never, ever, going to write something true.  The idea that truth cannot be stated is not just a spiritual cliche - it's remarkably obvious when you peel off even the most basic veneer of self-concept.  I would already struggle to try to describe the [very basic] updated understanding of *what is* that I currently have (and I wouldn't want to try because it will only get turned into another mind-construct by everyone who reads this, because that's the ONLY WAY I can communicate it).

So, back to the point: the temptation with 'write the truth' is to try to write something about existence, or the universe: the Ultimate Truth of Being.  About sights, sounds, colours, textures; about depth, and width, and time, and past and future.  These are all valuable, but as far as my experience goes, they need to be juxtaposed with the deepest deconstruction of EVERYTHING that you call 'you' - and EVERYTHING you call 'other'.  Expose un-truth becomes a process of deep, dark introspection.  As deeply personal as it is possible to get.  And I promise you you won't want to publish it here.

You have concerns about Jed McKenna's nihilistic way of writing: from my limited experience, he's both telling the truth, and big fat fibs.  It is uncomfortable, and hard, and unpleasant, and upsetting at times.  But it is also incredibly beautiful, and that's something he goes to great length in his books to not discuss - presumably because he doesn't want to encourage people to IMAGINE a state of beauty to be obtained.  But the point is that there are moments that you come face-to-face with a question: are you willing to look behind the curtain of this very, very, very central, important, comforting notion of 'me' that you have?  To the point that you can't actually picture what it's like behind that curtain.  And it can be hard - really, really freaking hard - to answer in the affirmitive.  But... well, I have zero regrets so far!

Edited May 28, 2016 by Telepresent
Clarification

[Andre]

@99th_monkey

On 3/29/2016 at 6:22 AM, 99th_monkey said:

The Book of Not Know is all about breaking down assumptions and beliefs.I found it very helpful. But it lacks in the area that every book lacks. 

What does every book lack according to you?

[Leo Gura]

@Telepresent Nice!

After you digest all the personal inner demons, eventually though, you'll have to come to the matter of what is Absolutely True. As in, what is the only constant? So the way I take his question of What is true? is as, What is constant? What is the only thing that doesn't fluctuate in the flux of phenomena? That should be the unspeakable, ultimate source of it all.

But it's also not necessary to digest all the inner demons I think. You can straight away just ask, What is constant in my experience?