Back to answer questions

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:55 am

Hello :)

I have started an investigation here with Ingen about a two years ago, that lasted for months.
It was wonderful for see through many beliefs, and life became lighter. It was such a great blessing, as just before that I was trying to end the spiritual path with Dolano, and ended with big trauma and depression and a strong belief that "Something is wrong with me, and I will never get it".
Lots of love and gratitude for Ingen being there for me, such an authentic guide <3

At some point , Ingen thought that I've seen basicly, but I always had a problem with the concept of gating, with where the threshold is put (too low in my opinion). I couldn't say that "I have seen through" until this character truly loses its significance in everyday life.
Since then, for more than a year I've been investigating the "self" as well as other beliefs, and clarity grew significantly.
There is no doubt that "self" is a thought construct. There is no doubt that thoughts just happen, that there is no choice, no doer, no experiencer, no ghost in the machine. There is also no doubt that some subtle form of shift has happend, and viewpoint of life is not like before.
But even though I don't really think that the person is real, I don't feel that the process of seeing through the self is complete. The core of it is simple, but it has so many branches and connected to other beliefs like time, space, others etc.

The main reason why I'm here is because I want to be in an advanced LU group, like the "Unleashed forum". I asked to join and was told that answering questions in this forum is a requirement.
I think that at this point, after two years of daily investigations, I can benefit from unleashed forum. I want to deepen the process with some sticking points I recognize, and being around people who are in the same place in their investigation. I'm involved in other wonderful groups as well, but it's important for me to keep in touch with LU, and stay focused on "no person" until it is utterly clear.
So if there are any questions, I'm ready to answer...

Thanks
L.D

User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:28 am

Strange...I was sure that it was two years ago, and see by the date up here that only one year and two months have passed. Sorry, I'm quite bad in remembering events in time :)

User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:48 pm

A little more -
During the time, I couldn't decide if I have seen through the self or not, I also felt pain and stress about this framework of gating/colors/tests (there is appereciation and gratitude to LU, I just don't feel comfortable with this aspect).
So I kept investigating on my own, reading threads in various places, and working with guide from another group (the "I" was questioned, and it was very helpful, but it was not the main focus).
I used to check frequently if I see. Sometimes it seemed that I've seen clearly, some temporary shift happend, but later it seemed that what has been seen was forgotten. I'm not sure what are the symptoms of gating. I can answer the questions right, I understand the illusion pretty well, I know how to look directly, life is lighter than before ...but when life happens, it's not life "lifing", it's all about "me", it seems that it happens to a "me" (even after seeing many times that it's not the case), it seems that something is not satisfied, that something is engaged in maintaining self image, and it also seems that thoughts are automatically believed, even ones that were already invesitaged and seen as false. Only when I look deeply again, it is seen again, but it doesn't seem like a permanent irreversible seeing. I also looked at two threads here, with the guides named "nower" and "xain" and recognized some degree of clarity that is lacking here. There is nothing I wish more than seeing "no self" clearly and permanently, and seeing thoughts for what they are.

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Xain » Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:21 am

Hi Sat Seeker

I am willing guide you if you wish.
I will write more tomorrow when I have time.

Very best wishes to you
Xain ♥

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Xain » Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:39 pm

Hi L.D.

Ok, let's have a look at some things.
My initial questions might be going over old ground, or possibly seem 'pedantic' but please stick with me until we have ironed them out.
The main reason why I'm here is because I want to be in an advanced LU group, like the "Unleashed forum". I asked to join and was told that answering questions in this forum is a requirement.
I understand.
During the time, I couldn't decide if I have seen through the self or not
This is a very honest admission. It is to your credit.
I suppose the final point (if there ever can be one that is described that way) would be when there is total clarity and that it is 100% certain that the illusion has been seen through.
I also felt pain and stress about this framework of gating/colors/tests (there is appreciation and gratitude to LU, I just don't feel comfortable with this aspect).
Again, I get 100% where you are coming from.
I suppose the main point to it is that the Forum is populated by those that are certain to have passed 'through the gate' so to speak. I wouldn't get too hung up on it though. Life has many grading systems that do all sorts of things. Ultimately, they are as they are. It's all academic really.

From your excellent description, there is definitely some attachment there. Let's explore some of these right now.
May I suggest that you examine if the 'I' that you refer to is something real, or whether it is simply a thought.
Please really look into everything I mention here.
I used to check frequently if I see
Could you go into some depth and describe exactly what you mean by this?
You appear to be saying that there was an 'I' that could check to see if that 'I' saw that there was no 'I'?
Is this right?
Or is this simply a thought about the past and nothing more than that?

Do an experiment right now. Check to 'see if you see'.
Now, describe the 'I' that is doing it as it appears to you right now.
There is no doubt that thoughts just happen, that there is no choice, no doer, no experiencer, no ghost in the machine.
Here, there seems to be a conflict. You appear to be saying that there is a real 'I' that does things in your description.
I know how to look directly
What 'I' knows what to do?
What 'I' does the looking?

Perhaps try it right now - Look directly.
Now describe the 'I' that is 'looking directly' - Is there one to be found?
Or is there just 'looking', and the 'I' is added later as a thought about what happened?
...but when life happens, it's not life "lifing", it's all about "me", it seems that it happens to a "me"
Ok, what factors could make it different to what it is? What would have to change?
and it also seems that thoughts are automatically believed, even ones that were already investigated and seen as false
Ok - Again, could you give me some factors that would change this?
but it doesn't seem like a permanent irreversible seeing.
This appears to be an expectation.
The 'permanent irreversible change' you speak of, what would this apply to?

Xain ♥

User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:35 pm

Hi Xain :)

While you wrote, I was writing a long post, but it doesn't seem necessary to post it now.

Much thanks for your generous offer...I love your posts, and your sharp questions here.

I will read it thoroughly and answer.

<3

User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:46 pm

Hi Xain,

Replying:
L.D-I used to check frequently if I see
Could you go into some depth and describe exactly what you mean by this?
What I mean by that - For example, thought arising "Do I see through the self?", then some question thought like "Do I believe this body is me?" or "Am I clear that there has never been a self?". Then thought answers "It seems that something is not clear", with some expressed sensations. Then a thought conclusion "I don't see it".
You appear to be saying that there was an 'I' that could check to see if that 'I' saw that there was no 'I'?
Is this right? Or is this simply a thought about the past and nothing more than that?
Yes, it is sure a thought about the past. About "no more than that", in DE there is no evidence that it ever happend, though I noticed a thought saying that "it is not 100% clear that it truly never happend".
Do an experiment right now. Check to 'see if you see'.
Now, describe the 'I' that is doing it as it appears to you right now.
There is no "I" really doing it...there is thought "I will try to check now", then questioning (thought) if there is still a belief in a person and later an answer. All this process is just known, knowing already is, no "I" initiates the knowing of the process (nor the decision to check - thoughts about checking just happen...).
Here, there seems to be a conflict. You appear to be saying that there is a real 'I' that does things in your description.
Sorry, this sentence was not accurate or honest enough. There is no full clarity, and beliefs can arise even though invesitaged and seen in DE as false.
L.D-I know how to look directly
What 'I' knows what to do?
What 'I' does the looking?
There is an intention thought "Let's look at DE now", then some sensations and thought about "focusing", and a thought "I will not let thought in", and then knowing of the experience without much thoughts arising, then some questions and answers appear (the content of the inquiry).
So a stream of thoughts appear, initiating, and conducting this inquiry. But there is no "I" that chose those arisings. So there is no such "I" that knows what to do.
The looking also "I" can't do, looking is always the case, nothing can cause it or stop it.
Perhaps try it right now - Look directly.
Now describe the 'I' that is 'looking directly' - Is there one to be found?
Or is there just 'looking', and the 'I' is added later as a thought about what happened?
There is no "I" that 'looks directly', just looking. Yes, the "I" is added later but sometimes before or during (if there is a thought "I am looking now", or "I am planning to look').
L.D...but when life happens, it's not life "lifing", it's all about "me", it seems that it happens to a "me"
Ok, what factors could make it different to what it is? What would have to change?
There is a belief that if "no self" is seen truly, thoughts like "it happens to me", or "I am affected" etc., will drop, or will not be taken as true.
L.D and it also seems that thoughts are automatically believed, even ones that were already investigated and seen as false
Ok - Again, could you give me some factors that would change this?
Clarity about "no self" will probably change it...but if "no self" is already the case, no one can be affected by those beliefs anyway, so why to expect a change?
This is the place where I get short circuit :)
L.D - but it doesn't seem like a permanent irreversible seeing.
This appears to be an expectation.
The 'permanent irreversible change' you speak of, what would this apply to?
The first thought was "I have no idea and don't know how to reply". Then it was "it would apply to me, the person". Then in DE noticed that this is just a thought saying that, and a thought doesn't need 'permanent irreversible change'. So currently I don't find something it would apply to...

Thanks for your time and wonderful questions <3
L.D

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Xain » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:21 am

Hi again L.D.

Thanks for your reply.
What I mean by that - For example, thought arising "Do I see through the self?", then some question thought like "Do I believe this body is me?" or "Am I clear that there has never been a self?". Then thought answers "It seems that something is not clear", with some expressed sensations. Then a thought conclusion "I don't see it".
Good. So would it be OK to sum this up and say that all this is thought?
The 'I' that could see through 'I' is just a thought? There is no real 'I' that could do this?

Is there an 'I' who has these thoughts?
Is there an 'I' who can stop these thoughts from appearing?
Yes, it is sure a thought about the past. About "no more than that", in DE there is no evidence that it ever happened, though I noticed a thought saying that "it is not 100% clear that it truly never happened".
Good, so again would it be OK to sum this up and say that all this is thought.
Is there even an 'I' that is unclear that it never truly happened?
Sorry, this sentence was not accurate or honest enough. There is no full clarity, and beliefs can arise even though investigated and seen in DE as false.
Again, your honest approach is very much appreciated.
What 'I' could have 'full clarity'?
A real one, or just another thought?
There is an intention thought "Let's look at DE now", then some sensations and thought about "focusing", and a thought "I will not let thought in", and then knowing of the experience without much thoughts arising, then some questions and answers appear (the content of the inquiry).
So a stream of thoughts appear, initiating, and conducting this inquiry. But there is no "I" that chose those arisings. So there is no such "I" that knows what to do.
The looking also "I" can't do, looking is always the case, nothing can cause it or stop it.
Excellent. So once more, would it be OK to sum this up and say that all this is thought.
There is a belief that if "no self" is seen truly, thoughts like "it happens to me", or "I am affected" etc., will drop, or will not be taken as true.
What 'I' has this belief, and what 'I' could drop the belief?
Or is this more thoughts?
Clarity about "no self" will probably change it...but if "no self" is already the case, no one can be affected by those beliefs anyway, so why to expect a change?
This is the place where I get short circuit :)
What 'I' has clarity about 'no self'? What 'I' could have a change?
Or is this ALL THOUGHTS?
The first thought was "I have no idea and don't know how to reply". Then it was "it would apply to me, the person". Then in DE noticed that this is just a thought saying that, and a thought doesn't need 'permanent irreversible change'. So currently I don't find something it would apply to...
Beautiful. So is it TOTALLY CLEAR that there is no 'I' that could possibly have any form of permanent alteration, as there is no separate 'I' to be found?

Is there a real 'I' here now of any kind? Or is it all just thoughts?

Lots and lots and lots of thoughts and analysis.
Rest for a moment without thought.
What is 'I'? What has a problem and is 'short circuited'?

Xain ♥

User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:31 am

Hi Xain,
L.Dv-What I mean by that - For example, thought arising "Do I see through the self?", then some question thought like "Do I believe this body is me?" or "Am I clear that there has never been a self?". Then thought answers "It seems that something is not clear", with some expressed sensations. Then a thought conclusion "I don't see it".

Good. So would it be OK to sum this up and say that all this is thought?
Yes, checking and answering is only thoughts.
The 'I' that could see through 'I' is just a thought? There is no real 'I' that could do this?
There was a thought “I could/couldn't see through I”, and “I” was a part of this thought and not an actual thing that can see anything. There is just seeing of this thought. Checking and answering just happened by themselves, without an “I” doing it.
Is there an 'I' who has these thoughts?
There is no such “I” who has thoughts, thoughts appear from nowhere and disappear telling their content of an “I”.
Is there an 'I' who can stop these thoughts from appearing?
No, a thought can arise “I will stop the thoughts from now on”, but it too appears on its own.
And anyway, if there is a thought of stopping, and then somehow less thoughts are noticed, it does not prove that the thought is the cause, or that “I” miraculously did it.
L.D - Yes, it is sure a thought about the past. About "no more than that", in DE there is no evidence that it ever happened, though I noticed a thought saying that "it is not 100% clear that it truly never happened".

Good, so again would it be OK to sum this up and say that all this is thought.
Yes, it is all thoughts
Is there even an 'I' that is unclear that it never truly happened?
No, the “I” in the thought is empty word, and beyond the thought I don't find something that can be unclear about it. The thought itself is seen with clarity.
L.D Sorry, this sentence was not accurate or honest enough. There is no full clarity, and beliefs can arise even though investigated and seen in DE as false.

Again, your honest approach is very much appreciated.
What 'I' could have 'full clarity'?
A real one, or just another thought?
The “I” in the thought “I don't have a full clarity” is an empty word, it cannot be clear/unclear or have clarity. Beyond the thought there is no “I” that can have a clarity, the notion of clarity is from the realm of thoughts and ideas.

L.D There is an intention thought "Let's look at DE now", then some sensations and thought about "focusing", and a thought "I will not let thought in", and then knowing of the experience without much thoughts arising, then some questions and answers appear (the content of the inquiry).
So a stream of thoughts appear, initiating, and conducting this inquiry. But there is no "I" that chose those arisings. So there is no such "I" that knows what to do.
The looking also "I" can't do, looking is always the case, nothing can cause it or stop it.

Excellent. So once more, would it be OK to sum this up and say that all this is thought.
Yes, only thoughts (and sensations). There is no really such a thing “looking at DE”, DE seems to always be the case, with thoughts running in it call it “looking in DE” or “caught in the story”, based on the frequency and content of thoughts.
L.D - There is a belief that if "no self" is seen truly, thoughts like "it happens to me", or "I am affected" etc., will drop, or will not be taken as true.

What 'I' has this belief, and what 'I' could drop the belief?
Belief is just a thought claiming that something is true or false. Thoughts just pop and belong to nobody, so there is no “I” that can have a belief.
Dropping the belief means controlling thought appearance, or thoughts content, but there is nothing that can control thoughts. If it drops, it drops on its own.
If a thought appears “I will drop it now”, and right after the belief is no longer taken as true (it happens sometimes...), the decision happens on it's own, and only thought says that the dropping is caused by a thought.

O
r is this more thoughts?
Yes, a “me” that is having or dropping a belief, are thoughts.
L.D Clarity about "no self" will probably change it...but if "no self" is already the case, no one can be affected by those beliefs anyway, so why to expect a change?
This is the place where I get short circuit :)

What 'I' has clarity about 'no self'? What 'I' could have a change?
Or is this ALL THOUGHTS?
I have just noticed that clarity requires something which sees, so it is meaningless indeed without an”I”.
The “I” within the thought, which is a word, is not aware and cannot have clarity.
That which is aware sees clearly what it is aware of. So there is no “I” that can have clarity about “no self”.

About change – the “I” in the thought cannot have a change (or have anything).
However, a change in experience is possible, and it will be experienced differently than before the change.
There is some confusion here whether one experience can be better than other for that which knows the experience (which can be called “I” or not...).

L.D - The first thought was "I have no idea and don't know how to reply". Then it was "it would apply to me, the person". Then in DE noticed that this is just a thought saying that, and a thought doesn't need 'permanent irreversible change'. So currently I don't find something it would apply to...

Beautiful. So is it TOTALLY CLEAR that there is no 'I' that could possibly have any form of permanent alteration, as there is no separate 'I' to be found?
There are two “I”'s that I notice, one as a word in a thought, and other is that which is aware of the experience.
It is clear that “I” that appears in the thought cannot have a permanent alteration. As in the previous paragraph, it is not totally clear about that which knows the experience. A change is possible (for example – an experience without a belief in “I”), but it's not clear who needs a change, and who can benefit from a change.
Is there a real 'I' here now of any kind? Or is it all just thoughts?
Hmm...the real “I” that which is aware, non personal.
In this awareness some thoughts running like “it is not clear enough yet”, “there is still a little feeling of personal self”.
Lots and lots and lots of thoughts and analysis.
Rest for a moment without thought.
What is 'I'? What has a problem and is 'short circuited'?
"I” is what is here, knowing/known experience.
When I asked what has a problem, sensations of resistence appeared and a thought “I have a problem”.
These are only thoughts and sensations. Nothing is short circuited...

Much thanks <3
L.D

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Xain » Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:44 am

Great replies, L.D.

It seems there is great clarity in understanding that all 'I' ever is, is just a thought.
About change – the “I” in the thought cannot have a change (or have anything).
However, a change in experience is possible, and it will be experienced differently than before the change.
There is some confusion here whether one experience can be better than other for that which knows the experience (which can be called “I” or not...).
It appears that this is some-sort of expectation. That perhaps life will be experienced differently 'after'.
Is there an 'I' experiencing right now that could have that experience differently?

If there has never been an 'I' other than in thought, then no 'I' has ever been experiencing and there is nothing that could change. (Other than simply the realisation of that).
There are two “I”'s that I notice, one as a word in a thought, and other is that which is aware of the experience.
It is clear that “I” that appears in the thought cannot have a permanent alteration. As in the previous paragraph, it is not totally clear about that which knows the experience.
That is fine.

Would you agree that awareness/experience is not a 'thing'. It is a thought that is applied to the totality of experience.

'That which knows the experience' is here. That should be 100% clear (this sentence is being seen).
Could it be that that which knows the experience is also the experience?
That the experienced and the experiencer are the same?
Can anything be found other than experience (which is not a 'thing' as such)?
Is there a separate 'I' here? Has there ever been?

'Stuff' that appears in awareness does appear to change, but can awareness itself change?
A change is possible (for example – an experience without a belief in “I”)
Would you agree that a change can only apply to a 'thing'. Some 'thing' gets changed.
What 'thing' can you find that needs to change?
What 'thing' can you find that has a belief in 'I' which needs to be removed.
Can experience itself holds beliefs when beliefs ARE experienced?
But it's not clear who needs a change, and who can benefit from a change.
Could this be because nothing can be found that needs changing?
Could it be that the only thing that could 'change' would be to realise this?

Xain ♥

User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:48 am

Hi Xain,

I need some more time for the investigation, so I will answer for some of the questions in the meanwhile -
It appears that this is some-sort of expectation. That perhaps life will be experienced differently 'after'.
Yes, I notice expectations quite often. Engaging in Advaita Vedanta for long time, there were lots of descriptions of liberation in the texts, and images about how it would be. There is an expectation to experience something special.
Is there an 'I' experiencing right now that could have that experience differently?
I will replace “I” with L.D, the character/person, since "I" implies that which is aware, and it can cause confusion.
There is knowing, but L.D is not that which knows. L.D is a story of connection between sensations, images, and thoughts creating an idea of one character. Each of these elements are known, so there is nothing in L.D that can be knowing.
Additionally, nothing could have the experience. Experience does not have an experience, it just is, nor does L.D which is a story inside experience.
Would you agree that awareness/experience is not a 'thing'. It is a thought that is applied to the totality of experience.
Yes, the word “thing” implies an autonomic unit, which is a division between known and knowing, while awareness/experience is indivisible.
That which knows the experience' is here. That should be 100% clear (this sentence is being seen).
Yes
Could it be that that which knows the experience is also the experience?
That the experienced and the experiencer are the same?
Yes, the known is the knowing, and the knowing is the known.
It seems to be two ways to describe one inseperable thing. Sometimes, I notice trying to grasp it through concepts (which are already a division), in order to get the flavour of it. Then it becomes frustrating to see non-separation through separated concepts.

To be continued...:)

<3

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Xain » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:08 am

There is an expectation to experience something special.
What would experience it?

If nothing can be found that 'experiences', then this expectation is utterly futile is it not?
Like waiting for a bus that never comes . . .

If there has never been a separate 'I' and there never will be a separate 'I', then what can possibly change?
Is this not simply how it has always been and how it always will be?
Why is any form of change to be expected?
Surely the only thing that could happen . . . is to realise this?
Is there an 'I' experiencing right now that could have that experience differently?

I will replace “I” with L.D, the character/person, since "I" implies that which is aware, and it can cause confusion.
This may actually cause more confusion.
'That which is aware' - This is implying that there is a 'thing' here which is aware.
Can you find anything here right now that is aware?
Don't use logic or analysis - Just look.

Xain ♥

User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:02 pm

Hi Xain,

I'm very sorry for the delay...I've been struggling with the questions.
L.D -There is an expectation to experience something special.
What would experience it?
If nothing can be found that 'experiences', then this expectation is utterly futile is it not?
Like waiting for a bus that never comes . . .
When I look, I can't find a separate "thing" that experiences/knows.
But somehow experience is still undeniably known / self aware. There are always attempts to grasp the whole, and since it is not clear what it is, it is not clear that it doesnt not have preferences for certain experiences. Ideas about "good" and "bad" experiences are present. Unfortunately, I can't answer that expectation is utterly futile, I don't see that clearly.
If there has never been a separate 'I' and there never will be a separate 'I', then what can possibly change?
Is this not simply how it has always been and how it always will be?
Why is any form of change to be expected?
Surely the only thing that could happen . . . is to realise this?
Experience can change. There is a memory of "better" experiences.
Sorry, I don't see currently that nothing can ever be affected by experience.
L.D-I will replace “I” with L.D, the character/person, since "I" implies that which is aware, and it can cause confusion.
This may actually cause more confusion.
'That which is aware' - This is implying that there is a 'thing' here which is aware.
Can you find anything here right now that is aware?
Don't use logic or analysis - Just look.
I don't find something which is aware

L.D ♥

User avatar
Xain
Posts: 3509
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Xain » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:51 am

When I look, I can't find a separate "thing" that experiences/knows.
Ok, good.
Unfortunately, I can't answer that expectation is utterly futile, I don't see that clearly.
I think it is important for you to determine exactly what this thing that would change is, and how it would change.
If you cannot find anything that can change, then why is it OK to expect a change?
'There is nothing to change, but a change is expected.' Is this not futile?

Is it totally 100% clear that there is no separate 'I', 'me' here right now?
There is a memory of "better" experiences.
Better experiences, experienced by what?
What 'I' can be found right now that can have 'better experiences'?
Sorry, I don't see currently that nothing can ever be affected by experience.
Ok. What 'I'/'me' can be affected by experience?
Describe that one to me as it appears to you right now.
What 'I' could have 'full clarity'?
A real one, or just another thought?


The “I” in the thought “I don't have a full clarity” is an empty word, it cannot be clear/unclear or have clarity. Beyond the thought there is no “I” that can have a clarity, the notion of clarity is from the realm of thoughts and ideas.
I agree - But it seems you are not 100% in agreement with your answer here.

All that can be pointed to is the utter futility of expectation.
If there has never been a separate 'I' and there never will be a separate 'I', then there is nothing to change.
Is this not clear?

Xain ♥

User avatar
Sat Seeker
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Back to answer questions

Postby Sat Seeker » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:10 am

Hi Xain,

I'm sorry for the delay. I tried everyday to reply and felt that the answers do not flow.
My main concern is a situation of answering after a moment of clear seeing, but later old beliefs come back, and what has been seen is not trusted enough and it seem as looking needed again.

Replying your questions:
I think it is important for you to determine exactly what this thing that would change is, and how it would change.
There are high expectations, of different kinds. One expectation see through the matrix of thoughts. How it would change - some thoughts will no longer be believed such as - "There is a personal me somewhere", "I am stuck in illusions and don't get it", "This is not enough, there are better experiences", "I need to be happy", "life is boring and unpleasant", "life happens to me" and so on (including beliefs that are not in the scope of LU). The expectation is for true clarity, without doubts and confusion, without the need to remind the truth or check again and again in DE. (Just like as I'm sure there is no unicorn in the room and don't need to check it).
Other kind of expectations are less mature, but still appear. It's images and ideas about what enlightenment is, specially the "eternal bliss" promise. Much of it borrowed from Vedanta teachings and poetry. The expectation is that as a result of truth/untruth realization there will be significant shift that will create a sense of liberation, wonder of the divinity, joy (and erase the sense of lack and suffering). There is an attraction to spiritual experiences (used to have many of them during meditations, satsangs etc.), and expectation to have more of those and to have them fixed. There is a belief that those spiritual experiences are better than the flatness that is usually experienced when thoughts are active.
If you cannot find anything that can change, then why is it OK to expect a change?
I find change in appearances, and in the content of thoughts...maybe you can explain further?
The sticky point is more about what needs change or benefits from it.
Is it totally 100% clear that there is no separate 'I', 'me' here right now?
It's not so clear, unfortunately...it seems that there is an assumption of an "I", a habit to think that there is someone behind experience, seeing experience from where the head is supposed to be. I notice that certain body sensations, like in the face area, and breathing, trigger the label "I" (or an "experiencer"), and this sense of self, and intimacy, is quite convincing. Though sometimes it is clear that there is nothing there.
There is a memory of "better" experiences.
Better experiences, experienced by what?
Not experienced by something, experience just "is"
What 'I' can be found right now that can have 'better experiences'?
I don't find an "I" that can have "better experiences". I don't find anything that can own an experience.
Ok. What 'I'/'me' can be affected by experience?
Resistence shows up when I look at this question, expressed as unpleasant sensation. Then there is a thought that resistence is affecting something, and that its existence proves an affection. I asked then "What does resistence affect?", I don't find such a thing, yet, there is no clarity about this question.
Describe that one to me as it appears to you right now.
It appears as "I don't want this sensation". I notice that when there are thoughts saying "I want" or "I don't want", the "I" seems more real.
What 'I' could have 'full clarity'?
A real one, or just another thought?
L.D - The “I” in the thought “I don't have a full clarity” is an empty word, it cannot be clear/unclear or have clarity. Beyond the thought there is no “I” that can have a clarity, the notion of clarity is from the realm of thoughts and ideas.
I agree - But it seems you are not 100% in agreement with your answer here.
Yes, this frustrating phenomenon of seeing, and then forgetting or not trusting it...
I see in DE that there is no "I" that can have clarity, and immediately after a thought says "but I can't accept it, because then I will be half baked". This is a thought too...
All that can be pointed to is the utter futility of expectation.
If there has never been a separate 'I' and there never will be a separate 'I', then there is nothing to change.
Is this not clear?
I see that "I" cannot change, but I meant that experience can change, and there is a thought that "I want to benefit from a change as an experiencer". It became clearer during this thread that there is no experiencer, though it's very subtle and sometimes confusing.

L.D ♥


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests