Joseph koudelka, can you be my guide?

[Fabíola]

Hi. I'm here because this 'thing' of no self is kinda koan to me. That means, I want to discover what is it that negates something which exists only as a conceptual form to name the living being one is. read some posts and threads in this forum and I am astonished when you ask to see where the self is, if it is inside the skin, in an arm, a foot, and so. Because, even if that question interests me a lot, I never saw no one, not even myself, saying - I have a self - instead, one says - that is myself. What I mean is that it seems that the self is illusive, it always escape objectification.
I feel - and I could say - there is a feeling, of things being perceived from here, from that point in space, but even this is not present when thought is not present. Without thought there are only the senses functioning, I can call that awareness, it doesn't matter, it is a name. It can also be named life. Well, so many questions, you see? :)
I would like to see those things with your help, is it ok for you?

[Josephkoudelka]

Yes, Fabiola. We can explore this together.

Can you tell me more about yourself. How long you have been interested in knowing about the nature of self? What have you studied in that regard? What resonates for you in any particular teaching you have studied?

Joseph ♥

[Fabíola]

That question is familiar since I have read Alan Watts and is classic 'Zen Buddhism'. But remember when a child to found that all source of conflicts, violence and war lyes in the existence of separated individuals, each one of them having different interests and goals, different views of facts. The approach then was through religion, Christian religion. A fascination for Francis of Assisi, 'il poverello', self dispossessed of everything he had before, addressing every living beings as brothers. It seemed that such a person could have overcome that source of violence. Then it began to be clear that there was kind a glorification of suffering in the catholic church, it simply doesn't reveal as a solution.
Some years later a new interest in politics began, and Marxism-Leninism, showing how the economic structure underlies every social relations, and stressing the rights to equality, seems capable to put an end to violence between people. Soon it was fully understood that violence of any kind is still violence, and that beyond economic structures there is still the individual.
Following this it also was clear that not only people can easily make war between them, they also have conflicts inside themselves, the search on the Psychological realm then began.
Meanwhile it came the opportunity ti practise Aikido, the martial art. The Master, Georges Stobbaerts, used to speak about mysterious and appealing things as the flow if life, the choiceless awareness, the effortless practice. He teach his students to seat in the appropriate position, letting the thoughts appear and disappear as if they were clouds. Without suppress them, without being attached, just watching. Later, when I found writings from Deshimaru, I knew that Stobbaerts was the first to bring him to Europe.
Studying Psychology for several years, being in a psychotherapeutic process myself, and applying it to others professionally, I first thought that this is the key to the ending of violence and suffer. The therapist had to guide the patient through the shadows and tricks of his unconscious mind in order to bring light where there was darkness and set him free from his own mind. Some years later, I began to realize that no one set no one free, and that people naturally observe life flowing, with almost no necessity of intervention more than pointing, when they are aware of the stories created by the mind.
That time Buddhism appeared again, and it was a discovery (or a rediscovery). Reading Zen masters, some sutras, speaking with friends, discovering writings, Soto Zen meditation, Krishnamurti teachings, Shunriu Suzuki, Alan Watts again, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille... As you ask what resonates, I can tell that Soto Zen, with its almost absence of words, it's way of showing and not rationalizing is what resonates the more. But anguish is there, suffer passes by often :)
It seems that words are just words, that this feeling of being, of awareness, that aggregate which is theliving being named Fabiola, can be named as a self, as an I, or as a cloud, it doesn't matter, they're just names. There is no idea of permanence, just perceptions and consciousness together in a. living organism. What is that? I really don't know, and - forgive me the expression - don't give a shit. If I have the feeling of being? Yes, it is there, in the sense I mentioned it before, as alocalization in space, but only when thought is present, and not always. What us the no self? Amother concept? An idea, when thought us invited to elicit its experience and desire starts happening?...
Hoping to have unanswered your kind questions,
Fabíola

[Josephkoudelka]

What is the no self? Another concept? An idea, when thought is invited to elicit its experience and desire starts happening?...

Every word is a concept. Some concepts deconstruct other concepts. Liberation is freedom from all concepts.

We can begin this journey together. Please acknowledge that you have reviewed and understand the following -

http://www.liberationunleashed.com/

http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/

http://youtu.be/wyNwhK2Ur1c

Guidelines for guiding process:

1. You agree to post at least once a day.

2. In general, the guide will ask the questions for you to respond to

3. Responses require your utmost honesty

4. Responses are best from direct experience (felt senses and observed thoughts). Long-
winded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress.

5. Put aside all other teachings, philosophies and such for the remainder of this investigation.
Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily and
essential meditation practice, it is fine to continue that.

6. Please learn to use the quote function; instructions are located in the link below -

http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... ?f=4&t=660


Joseph ♥

[Fabíola]

Every word is a concept. Some concepts deconstruct other concepts. Liberation is freedom from all concepts.

Concepts can deconstruct concepts but that stays still in the realm of conceptual thought. From what I have seen, the feeling of being is not present when no conceptual thinking is present.

We can begin this journey together. Please acknowledge that you have reviewed and understand the following -

http://www.liberationunleashed.com/

http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/

http://youtu.be/wyNwhK2Ur1c

Yes, I have read and understood all that material.

1. You agree to post at least once

No problem.

n general, the guide will ask the questions for you to respond to

That's ok. If something arises to ask you, can I do it also?

Responses require your utmost honesty

Sure.

Responses are best from direct experience (felt senses and observed thoughts). Long-
winded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress.

Yes. let's do it.

Put aside all other teachings, philosophies and such for the remainder of this investigation.

Ok. Maybe sometimes memory will bring them in. :)

Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is.

When reading that sentence, such effort is something that makes appear and strengthens an 'I' feeling (the one deciding to put an effort, desiring).

I would like to add some remarks:

• I never believed in a permanent self (something as a soul), a permanent identity. What I can't deny from direct experience is the presence of perceptions, feelings, consciousness, thoughts. The feeling of all these ever changing phenomena is somehow silently present as a whole. Not as a concept, but as a spacial sensation of things being perceived here. Maybe some sensation given by the brain. conscious experience, not wanting to theorise. :)

• The idea of being in control is not, and it seems never was, there. There always are motives, underlying conditions, circumstances. Besides, everything is dynamic, everything is in process, including ourselves.

[Josephkoudelka]

Ok. We will continue until it is done.

Concepts can deconstruct concepts but that stays still in the realm of conceptual thought. From what I have seen, the feeling of being is not present when no conceptual thinking is present.

Please describe "when no conceptual thinking is present." I want to be clear that we mean the same thing when this is pointed to.

If something arises to ask you, can I do it also?

Generally the guide asks questions. This to keep the exploration focused. Minds questions are endless, and most of the time lead away from what is present now. directly. beyond all thought. Also I am unable to debate. That being said, I usually do answer questions when it seems to be beneficial.

Maybe sometimes memory will bring them in. :)

Yes. We have no control over what arises anyway. Specifically we ask to refrain from looking up anything, especially on the forum, that might answer a question the guide has asked. During this time we want to answer directly from our present experience as best we can.

When reading that sentence, such effort is something that makes appear and strengthens an 'I' feeling (the one deciding to put an effort, desiring).

This points directly to a subtle fact of your present experience that is being missed. I think that when you begin to see this, everything will fall into place for you.

When the "I" feeling is strong, isn't the knowing of it immediately present? When the "I" feeling is dropped, isn't the knowing of it also immediately present? This unceasing knowing is the fundamental point. Has there ever been a time that was not known?

The feeling of all these ever changing phenomena is somehow silently present as a whole. Not as a concept, but as a spacial sensation of things being perceived here.

Can you find any location ever between the changing phenomena and the simultaneous knowing of it? Look now.

[Fabíola]

Please describe "when no conceptual thinking is present." I want to be clear that we mean the same thing when this is pointed to.

It means language, as symbols symbolizing 'things' (phenomena), labeling these things and feeding thought based on these symbols. Saying it another way, thought based on concepts about concepts, about concepts... As long as that process goes on, thought progressively detached itself from reality, constructing its own world. (Of course, language, inescapably is, by its essence, already detached from reality). Abstraction can easily be a good land for phantoms to grow. Summarizing, conceptual thought is thought based on labels.

I usually do answer questions when it seems to be beneficial.

Ok, I will ask them when they come to mind seeming to be beneficial :)

Yes. We have no control over what arises anyway. Specifically we ask to refrain from looking up anything, especially on the forum, that might answer a question the guide has asked. During this time we want to answer directly from our present experience as best we can.

Here I find a problem with you saying we have no control but asking me to refrain myself. Who is that 'me' that can have control on refrain or not to refrain myself? I don't want to conduct our search to a theoretical discussion, but I want to be sure of what you are asking me to do, and this seems to be a contradiction. Even though I can tell you that there is no desire to answer from what others had see or maybe thought. Seeing must come from here, otherwise it will be a fake.

This points directly to a subtle fact of your present experience that is being missed. I think that when you begin to see this, everything will fall into place for you.

When the "I" feeling is strong, isn't the knowing of it immediately present? When the "I" feeling is dropped, isn't the knowing of it also immediately present? This unceasing knowing is the fundamental point. Has there ever been a time that was not known?

When the 'I' feeling is strong, this knowing doesn't seem to be immediately present. It seems to be present only when there is also a reflexive consciousness observing itself and then noticing that presence. Otherwise what seems is that there are not any knowing of its absence.

The absence can be noticed only if there is also the idea of a presence to compare and see the difference, as much as a presence can be noticed only if there is also the idea of an absence from which to compare. In both cases it seems that there is an idea mixing itself with the natural flowing of life happening. Can I know that I do not exist? (Of course, it is not expected to obtain an answer to that question coming from you :)
Otherwise, if you are simply speaking of the fact of the existence of awareness, yes, awareness exists, but is not the some thing as knowing. In some way it can be said that awareness undergoes living, and knowing is conscious awareness.

Can you find any location ever between the changing phenomena and the simultaneous knowing of it? Look now.

Only when intentional looking is directed to that.

[Josephkoudelka]

It means language, as symbols symbolizing 'things' (phenomena), labeling these things and feeding thought based on these symbols. Saying it another way, thought based on concepts about concepts, about concepts... As long as that process goes on, thought progressively detached itself from reality, constructing its own world. (Of course, language, inescapably is, by its essence, already detached from reality). Abstraction can easily be a good land for phantoms to grow. Summarizing, conceptual thought is thought based on labels.

Yes, this illustrates what conceptual thinking is and the limitations it creates when the concepts are believed to be literal truth. What really interests me though, and this is what I am asking about, is your description of the experience - "no conceptual thinking is present." What is present when no conceptual thinking is absent?

Here I find a problem with you saying we have no control but asking me to refrain myself. Who is that 'me' that can have control on refrain or not to refrain myself? I don't want to conduct our search to a theoretical discussion, but I want to be sure of what you are asking me to do, and this seems to be a contradiction

Yes, I know, it is contradictory, but that is the way it Is. If I were to worry about all the contradictions that manifest I'd be a separate self imposing a view upon this great reality. I am not doing this. There is no guide and no one to be guided. It is happening effortlessly. This is how it looks, nothing is hidden. As long as their is a view as to how it should look, there is a little "me" lurking somewhere.

I do not know anything. There is no self. There is no doer.

When the 'I' feeling is strong, this knowing doesn't seem to be immediately present.

Then how is it known that the "I" feeling is strong?

It seems to be present only when there is also a reflexive consciousness observing itself and then noticing that presence.

Recall and look directly at this experience - how is this noticing of, first, reflective consciousness observing itself of any more value or importance than the preceding statement I have quoted above? There is a judgment being assigned here.

Who or what knows reflective consciousness? Who knows every percept, no matter how coarse or subtle?

The absence can be noticed only if there is also the idea of a presence to compare and see the difference, as much as a presence can be noticed only if there is also the idea of an absence from which to compare. In both cases it seems that there is an idea mixing itself with the natural flowing of life happening.

How is the "idea" not part of "the natural flowing of life happening?"

Every single thing is known. Any thing that is not Known does not exist and is therefore irrelevant. Life is knowing itSelf as itSelf. Awareness Is.

Can I know that I do not exist?

Whatever This is knows the existence of itself without division. And yes, This can know that whatever the content of a thought claims is only an infinitesimal "part" of the "whole" manifestation... And therefore know that it could never be limited to a puny "self" , a puny "self" that only exists as a thought and it's story.

Otherwise, if you are simply speaking of the fact of the existence of awareness, yes, awareness exists, but is not the some thing as knowing. In some way it can be said that awareness undergoes living, and knowing is conscious awareness.

Consciousness or awareness illuminates itself - it knows when it knows and it knows when it does not know, it is the ultimate knowing of itself only. Awareness is all there IS.

Awareness is not a thing or an object either. We could also say that Awareness is the ultimate subject, and as such can never know itself as an object.

Do you know a thought before it exists?

[Fabíola]

What really interests me though, and this is what I am asking about, is your description of the experience - "no conceptual thinking is present." What is present when no conceptual thinking is absent?

When thought is not present there is only pure experience. That is, perceptions, sensations, feelings. Describing this experience already occurs after experience happened, and then memory recalls the experience and labels are used to communicate it, as it is being done know.

Yes, I know, it is contradictory, but that is the way it Is. If I were to worry about all the contradictions that manifest I'd be a separate self imposing a view upon this great reality. I am not doing this. There is no guide and no one to be guided. As long as their is a view as to how it should look, there is a little "me" lurking somewhere

This sentence doesn't appear to be clear, I can't understand it. That is the way it is because you are introducing it. I mean, it is not nature that makes the contradiction happened. But I'll go ahead.

Fabíola wrote:When the 'I' feeling is strong, this knowing doesn't seem to be immediately present.

Then how is it known that the "I" feeling is strong?

It means, knowing, consciously knowing, occurs after experience when the 'I' feeling is strong and there is a further inquire about that presence. At the very moment that the 'I' feeling is strong, affirmative, assertive, egotistic, claiming impositions, there isn't even any questioning about if there is or there is not any 'I'.

I think that maybe what you mean is that awareness is ever present, that awareness underlies everything. I think that maybe there is some difficult in our communication because we are using two different meanings to the same word. The word awareness can be used meaning 'being conscious of' (something), through consciousness; or the living processes 'being responsive' to its environment, by its physical reactions to it. If you are using the first meaning, It seems that I do not experience awareness of the I feeling until I question it, until thinking arises.

Fabíola wrote: It seems to be present only when there is also a reflexive consciousness observing itself and then noticing that presence.

Recall and look directly at this experience - how is this noticing of, first, reflective consciousness observing itself of any more value or importance than the preceding statement I have quoted above? There is a judgment being assigned here.

I mean that when there is mental silence there is not the presence of a self. And I mean that the presence of a self comes into play only when it is triggered by the questioning about its existence.

Who or what knows reflective consciousness? Who knows every percept, no matter how coarse or subtle?

Its very knowing.

Fabíola wrote:The absence can be noticed only if there is also the idea of a presence to compare and see the difference, as much as a presence can be noticed only if there is also the idea of an absence from which to compare. In both cases it seems that there is an idea mixing itself with the natural flowing of life happening.

How is the "idea" not part of "the natural flowing of life happening?"

Every single thing is known. Any thing that is not Known does not exist and is therefore irrelevant. Life is knowing itSelf as itSelf. Awareness Is.

You're right, the idea is part of the natural flowing of life, as a thought, which can also be noticed. Are you trying to show me that we can also say that it can be the direct experience of a thought? I agree, of course it can. A thought is, as an object is, and all of them can be noticed. (I wonder why can this whole be called a self, a sense of self, a sense of 'selfness', or a sense of aliveness?)

This can know that whatever the content of a thought claims is only an infinitesimal "part" of the "whole" manifestation...

Agree.

And therefore know that it could never be limited to a puny "self" , a puny "self" that only exists as a thought and it's story.

Isn't that an assumption? 'self' is a word, to represent something. it depends of which thing it is representing when the word is used. Why a puny self? Or, why a true self?

Fabíola wrote: Otherwise, if you are simply speaking of the fact of the existence of awareness, yes, awareness exists, but is not the some thing as knowing. In some way it can be said that awareness undergoes living, and knowing is conscious awareness.

Consciousness or awareness illuminates itself - it knows when it knows and it knows when it does not know, it is the ultimate knowing of itself only. Awareness is all there IS.

Awareness is not a thing or an object either. We could also say that Awareness is the ultimate subject, and as such can never know itself as an object.

When I don't know, sometimes I know that I do not know, and sometimes I am not conscious of not knowing.

Do you know a thought before it exists?

No.

[Fabíola]

Correction: As it is being done now*

[Josephkoudelka]

Describe the self as you understand it now.

Does the self have a border?

If yes, where does this border begin or end?

[Fabíola]

Describe the self as you understand it now.

I understand it is the feeling of existence.

Does the self have a border?

If yes, where does this border begin or end?

The feeling of existence doesn't have a border. But when I say, 'me', it comes from here, not there. It refers to the living body with all its functions, sensing the world, experiencing it.

[Fabíola]

It can be add, that the self is the feeling of existence, experienced by the living human body fully operational.

[Josephkoudelka]

Ok.
Are you a self?
Are you no self?
Are you both a self and no self?
Are you neither a self or no self?

Does it even matter?

[Fabíola]

Are you a self?

I am a living being.

The 'self' is a word with many different meanings according to different sciences or perspectives.

I feel myself as the sense of being rooted in the experiencing body. That means, for example, if you write telling me something as, "you, I...)" I'm here reading it, I know (I'm using the word 'I' here for purpose of a more easy communication), there is the acknowledgement of what you have wrote, of what is being read. There is not the feeling of a separate entity receiving some input of information from another separate entity. I mean, that is not present, despite the fact that I know that the living being named Joseph is not the same living being named Fabíola.

It also could be said that the 'I' is the feeling of being. Identifications are useless and not needed for that feeling to exist. I mean, I can say that I'm a living being, or more poetically, that I am an expression of life through an human organism, or through an organism, and it doesn't even come to mind identifications of an 'I-character' as, "I am a psychologist", or "I am Portuguese", or "I am not Christian", "I am a vegetarian", or something else (from positive to negative assertions).

Identifications create not a 'self' but many selves (the self as a woman, the self as a human, the self as a daughter, the self as a wife, the self as a Psychologist, the self as member of a scientific society...

Are you no self?

I can't acknowledge a no-'thing', meaning, a no-'thing'' can't be acknowledged.

Not to repeat myself, I'm quoting all your four questions next:

Are you a self?
Are you no self?
Are you both a self and no self?
Are you neither a self or no self?

I'm none of that.

A self as identifications is a separate entity, a permanent thing trying to unify the process of existing, it is something created by the ever changing role playing in which humans are involved. But the self can also be a matter of describing identity. This meaning, one can describe itself as a christian (for example), and then as a woman, and then as a member of a University, and that doesn't mean it is a separate self/entity underlying all those descriptions, they are only experienced qualities of the living organism. What can't be denied is the sense of being. Memory brings to the organism, to mind, facts of past, feelings, thoughts, perceptions, they''re all in the present moment.